Mechanics that you want

[Snowy_One]

Why is that a problem exactly?

It's not a problem in the sense of 'oh it must be fixed because it's awful' sense but 'this can be done better' sense. Like when you are playing a old-timey RPG like FFI. You head into town and, what is the first thing you do? Update all your equipment. There is no reason at all to keep the older stuff around and anyone using it is likely horribly gimped. Sure, you have the occasional piece of armor/weapon that proves useful later in the game, but that is because of some ability it has that is useful in that situation, not because of its stats. It's just a useless, overall meaningless upgrade. FFX, by comparison, every weapon is unique. Some weapons offer fire strike, some offer water strike, some offer higher STR, others higher MAG, but you will not run into a situation where a weapon in the game is suddenly, somehow, 'useless'. The sword you get at the beginning of the game, the Brotherhood? Wait until you run into a enemy that has a weakness to water and lay into it with waterstrike. That ball for Wakka with darktouch? May not be as useful endgame as a four-slotted weapon, but that's not because of the weapons stats, but rather the lack of abilities it provides.

In FE, the only reason to use a steel over a silver or a iron over a steel is when you're character is strong enough already to handle the situation with either and there is no point in wasting the silver. Even then, unless the money belt is really tight, you might as well use the silver because, hey, why not? Not like money is a concern.

Didn't you say that the problem was not a result of unlimited weapon availability? And, despite what you may think, I've already pointed out that in most Fire Emblem games, the obligation to go silver over steel is not as much of a problem as you think, because silvers are not freely available until the game is almost over (approximately the last 20%, if not less, of most games).

The bigger problem that some of us are concerned about is the decision to go killer over steel. That's been alleviated recently by killers having less MT than steel, less crit then they once used to, and less availability in shops.

In that last 20% though, you are buying them and using them while casting aside your outdated weapons. There is no reason to keep them around. I am against making it so that weapons eventually become useless. There are multiple ways to handle this though and I have provided multiple options that aren't incompadable with each other (being able to buy loads of basic weapons, but only a select few of better and all weapons having similar basic stats, but some getting unique abilities for example).

Please tell me why it is bad that weapon upgrades are necessary.

Hmmm... Let me describe it another way and hope it works. Let's say you're playing starcraft and you are making Zealots. There is a upgrade in the forge for them that increases their attack, but you don't have a forge. In order to get that upgrade you need to build a forge (150 Min), buy the upgrade (100 min, 100 gas), build a extractor (75 min), and assign at least 1, most likely 3, workers (150 min or however much minerals you would have otherwise gained). That's ~475 minerals, or almost 5 more zealots you could have made, not including the time needed to research that upgrade. You could have spent those minerals on a core to gain access to Warpgates, stalkers, and sentries as well. What path you end up taking is a choice you need to make in-game. It's easy to sit back and say 'oh core and warpgate' from a armchair position, but that is not how it always unfolds, making it a very real decision.

However, in FE, if I reach a shop that allows me to buy steel weapons while I have iron, unless the funding is really tight, why would I not buy the steel weapons? They outclass the iron ones in every way except cost and durability, and if this isn't FE8, that doesn't mean as much as it should. That is the problem with a 'standard upgrade/general upgrade' as I call it. It's a no-brainer, obvious decision that everyone is going to make if it is possible to make. Why not just remove it all together?

So your suggestion is to remove all weapons from the game except for iron weapons and their magic equivalents.

No. Just removing bronze/iron/steel/silver from the mix, possibly having their MT upgrades replicated by weapon ranks increasing. We skill have killers, slayers, reavers, 1-2 range weapons and such and it's not like we can't somehow make new weapon-types as well. Just removing the obvious upgrade path that is obvious.

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. There is always a reason to use an inferior weapon over a superior weapon at all points in the game. Maybe you want to use iron because you can't double with steel.

Happens pretty rarely.

Maybe you want to use steel over killer because your killer weapon is in limited supply.

I am suggesting we make this happen by allowing basic weapons to be bought easily, but specialized ones to be in limited supply.

Maybe you want to use killer over silver because you're going for a KO that you would otherwise have almost no chance at getting.

Another thing I am suggesting we do by making each weapon have its own unique qualities.

Maybe you want to use steel over silver because the silver weapon is not buyable until the last 6 chapters of the game.

But unless my funds are really tight in those last 6 (which I doubt), I'm just gonna be upgrading then anyways.

At least Fire Emblem gives you a minor incentive to use inferior weapons when they are outclassed. Compare this to most other RPGs, where once you get a better weapon, you discard the old one for good.

Need I mention that what you're suggesting (graded MT increases by weapon rank) achieves the EXACT SAME result that the current system achieves, except it throws all room for decision-making out the window?

It doesn't. In a normal FE game, unless you have a specific weapon in mind for a situation, you're just going to resort to your default weapon anyways.

[Momo]

Speaking of gender roles, how does everyone feel about the standard blue haired male hero and the frilly princessy support?

Probably reason #1 I think the series' characterization is so terrible that it shouldn't exist.

[General Banzai]

Probably reason #1 I think the series' characterization is so terrible that it shouldn't exist.

Well we don't actually know anything about the characters's personalities yet other than character design, but I think you should cut at least the recent trend of the series some slack. Starting with about FE7 (I wouldn't count FE6 since the only thing different about Roy from the standard mould is that his hair is red and not blue), the main characters of the series have begun to break out of the roles which bound them so strongly in the Archanea and Jugdral cycles. Yes, I went on and on about FE7 in another post earlier on this forum, but in looking at FE7 at a different light, one can definitely see it as a new turn for the series.

For instance. Lyn at first glance does not seem like a highly compelling character by any means, but you need to think of her in relation to the female leads who proceeded her. For starters, Lilina/Nanna/Caeda all had generally unimportant roles in the plot and their survival was not even mandatory. Lilina, Nanna, Dierdre, and Yuria filled "damsel-in-distress" roles in which they were encountered by the masculine sword-wielding hero of the game either locked up or in need of protection. They are all primarily magic users in some sort rather than physical combatant units. Caeda is an exception to this on both regards and that's why I feel that in the remakes the writers manage to make her a much more dimensioned character but for the most part this trend holds true until FE7.

In my thread I mentioned a couple of times of Lyn's pointlessness to the plot in the later game and suggested a complete removal of her, instead having the brunt of the plot focus around the brofist relationship of Eliwuss and Hector. However from this perspective I would actually consider a reversal: In which Eliwood is eliminated, Hector is the main character, and Lyn his secondary support. Whaaaaat? Support for Lyn, oft considered dull dry and detrimental, providing no useful function after her tutorial sans light comic relief or "I'm an outsider explain this to me (and also the player)"? Well, actually, yes. She would need of course to not be useless but in a role as a support to Hector she proves an important character foil. If Hector becomes the central character (make no delusions that he did in Hector's Mode--that's just Eliwood Mode Plus), Lyn instantly grows more important as the implied relationship between Hector and her is much stronger than Eliwood and her. Anyways, I'm digressing a little but what I'm trying to say here that Lyn is the first true heroine in the series, rather than a background marriageable maiden who drives the plot for a couple of chapters when you have to save her. That the game begins with her proves this. FE7 is the first time where the female main's perspective is truly shown, and not only that but Lyn is the first female main who is also a physical fighter.

I see FE7 as a prototype at least in terms of story. Video game RPG plots had become much more complex and the standard formula which prevailed in FE1-6 would no longer work. We needed more complex heroes, more complex villains, and more complex scenarios--rather than "Go here, do X, on to the next one". FE7 was the transitory step and I feel that at several instances it screams "experimental", especially with Lyn. Perhaps what most gives me this impression is the next game, a spiritual if not literal sequel: FESS. FESS starts with the very same format as FE7, beginning you with a female main character who guides you through basically a tutorial section of the plot. Eirika, like Lyn, is a physical fighter, and the main drive of Eirika's personality is that she wants to be able to hang with the boys (particularly her brother). Unlike Lyn, there is the option to keep Eirika the main character throughout the entire plot and no matter what choice you make she never becomes delegated to "ACTUAL Lord's love interest" as every single female support before that had. It's not even fair to call her a supporting character--Eirika truly is the first female main character in the series. While Ephraim occupies the standard machismo of his predecessors, it's almost impossible to state that Eirika is like any preexisting character in the series outside of the aforementioned similarities to Lyn.

Moving on from this and towards my main point: the series from 7 to 10 (and arguably even 11) tried very very hard to break the mould established in the series before then. Ike especially is almost a deconstruction of the typical Fire Emblem hero. Sword-user, check. Blue hair, check. But his bluntness, his social station, and most of all his ambiguous sexuality (which is not simply shown in that one hard-to-get scene with Soren but also in his utter lack of romantic interest in either Elincia or Micaiah, who for any other FE hero would have red flags over their heads screaming "BANG ME") all fight against the pre-established conventions of the series.

So what am I trying to say here? The Fire Emblem series has since the advent of its American release fought against its typical gender stereotypes. Now, Chrome and his consort seem to entail the similar set of values in the "Old FE"--macho main and frilly love interest. But we don't know enough about the story yet to reach that conclusion based on appearance alone. If Ike is any indication, Chrome could be anything but the standard FE masculine hero, despite all appearances. That's what I'd hope for. In front of any gameplay mechanics I want, I'd want a story that does NOT resort to the Shouzou Kaga-era plotlines and archetypes but rather another digression similar to the Radiance Saga, FESS, or even FE7 (if we ignore Eliwood and Ninian). I want to see something that perhaps plays on our preconceived conceptions and inverts them.

[Othin]

To add to what Banzai was saying, there's a particularly concrete point of evidence to establish FE7 as a first foray into new story territory. In FE1-6, how often do we see a scene taking place outside of the current battlefield? The only time that comes to mind for me is in Ch8 of FE6, when Roy has left the Castle Ostia and returned to Ch7's map. Meanwhile, FE7 and the later games branch out more in terms of their story, showing more scenes outside of the battlefield and with villains and other characters. Now, I think we all know how I feel about the result of that first attempt, but it was a step in the right direction.

[General Banzai]

To add to what Banzai was saying, there's a particularly concrete point of evidence to establish FE7 as a first foray into new story territory. In FE1-6, how often do we see a scene taking place outside of the current battlefield? The only time that comes to mind for me is in Ch8 of FE6, when Roy has left the Castle Ostia and returned to Ch7's map. Meanwhile, FE7 and the later games branch out more in terms of their story, showing more scenes outside of the battlefield and with villains and other characters. Now, I think we all know how I feel about the result of that first attempt, but it was a step in the right direction.

Or just look at the villains in general. Gharnef, Manfloy, Zephiel... The standard archetype of "madman bent on releasing the ancient evil". Nergal is the first point in the series where that madmen reveals himself to have depth beyond being simply a madman (and FE7 even retroactively gives Zephiel depth as well). Moving from there we get Lyon and Sephiran, who continue to move in the direction of conflicted, turmoiled people who were good and then corrupted in one sense or another (if we continue to look at the Radiance Saga as a deconstruction, Ashnard fills the standard villain role... except that the "ancient evil" he seeks to revive isn't all that evil at all). The post-Kaga era has allowed the Fire Emblem plot to evolve from the standard formula in many different ways. I'm especially interested to see who the villain of FE13 will be because of it. To say that "oh it'll just be noble x fleeing from villain y who seeks to unleash monster z" is stripping down what the recent FEs have been to a core and ignoring all of the advancements that the plots have made since FE6.

[Momo]

That's a nice post and all but... I'm really not seeing what that has to do with anything. Lyn's a good character only in your fictional story in which Eliwood didn't exist. And also if she actually had a character.

Also... I really think you're off the mark about FE7 trying to make deep characters. Sure, Nergal might have something going for him (even if it's stupid) but are you really going to argue the three lords are any better than the ones before them?

As for Eirika, did you forget the part where her ending is "Supports King Ephraim"? She's pretty much the exact same character as the Nyna line.

As for Ike... yeah, you're exaggerating to a ridiculous degree there. Ike's circumstances are different, but he acts pretty much exactly the same as any other lord. If you put the first few chapters in a castle and changed the Gril Mercenaries to just the army, it would be no different.

Dunno about 10 as I haven't played it.

I can't really say 11 counts, as it's word for word the same as the original game. Funny though, when you look at the relationship between Nyna and Hardin, and also Michalis and Minerva, they seem a lot better than pretty much all the other games. Hell maybe even people like Camus (ridiculous identity issues) and Palla (faithful to a man that isn't into her to a disturbing degree) too. I think that shows how bad the writing for these games is.

I wasn't expecting such a long response, so I wasn't really in the mood to write a whole bunch. This probably isn't the topic for this kind of discussion anyway.

[Thor Odinson]

I feel that a good portion of non-lord characters in FE are far more likeable than the majority of the lords.

[Anouleth]

Why is that a problem exactly?

It's not a problem in the sense of 'oh it must be fixed because it's awful' sense but 'this can be done better' sense. Like when you are playing a old-timey RPG like FFI. You head into town and, what is the first thing you do? Update all your equipment. There is no reason at all to keep the older stuff around and anyone using it is likely horribly gimped. Sure, you have the occasional piece of armor/weapon that proves useful later in the game, but that is because of some ability it has that is useful in that situation, not because of its stats. It's just a useless, overall meaningless upgrade. FFX, by comparison, every weapon is unique. Some weapons offer fire strike, some offer water strike, some offer higher STR, others higher MAG, but you will not run into a situation where a weapon in the game is suddenly, somehow, 'useless'. The sword you get at the beginning of the game, the Brotherhood? Wait until you run into a enemy that has a weakness to water and lay into it with waterstrike. That ball for Wakka with darktouch? May not be as useful endgame as a four-slotted weapon, but that's not because of the weapons stats, but rather the lack of abilities it provides.

In FE, the only reason to use a steel over a silver or a iron over a steel is when you're character is strong enough already to handle the situation with either and there is no point in wasting the silver. Even then, unless the money belt is really tight, you might as well use the silver because, hey, why not? Not like money is a concern.

Not really. Typically, Steel weapons are less accurate and heavier (a big issue in GBAFE). If your unit does enough damage with Iron, you would pick Iron because it's cheaper and more reliable. Iron is usually more accurate than Silver as well, and money is often a concern in more difficult Fire Emblems like FE12 where penny-pinching lets you use the Arena and buy stat boosters and forges.

And there's a wide variety of other weapons that allow for choice. Using WTA in FE12 can weaken the enemy by removing their weapon rank bonuses, using a Killer can offer an opportunity to immediately kill the enemy that would otherwise not exist, using a Brave weapon is usually the strongest option but they're limited in supply. Ranged weapons allow you to avoid counters

In that last 20% though, you are buying them and using them while casting aside your outdated weapons. There is no reason to keep them around. I am against making it so that weapons eventually become useless. There are multiple ways to handle this though and I have provided multiple options that aren't incompadable with each other (being able to buy loads of basic weapons, but only a select few of better and all weapons having similar basic stats, but some getting unique abilities for example).

I think it's a natural part of an RPG. The player finds powerful weapons. Having cool, powerful weapons is exciting, and having lots of them towards the end of the game makes them feel powerful. Like in Link to the Past; Link doesn't hold on to his crappy starting sword even after he gets the Master Sword. Why should the starting sword have an "advantage"? The Master Sword is supposed to be stronger. And it makes the player feel awesome when they go back into the Light World and kill the enemies with ease.

However, in FE, if I reach a shop that allows me to buy steel weapons while I have iron, unless the funding is really tight, why would I not buy the steel weapons? They outclass the iron ones in every way except cost and durability, and if this isn't FE8, that doesn't mean as much as it should.

And accuracy, and weight.

That is the problem with a 'standard upgrade/general upgrade' as I call it. It's a no-brainer, obvious decision that everyone is going to make if it is possible to make. Why not just remove it all together?

How humourless. I can only imagine that you go through World of Warcraft saying "what's the point in having all this gear if some of it is obviously better than other pieces? it's almost like this is some kind of RPG where character and equipment progression is part of the fun of playing!".

I am suggesting we make this happen by allowing basic weapons to be bought easily, but specialized ones to be in limited supply.

They are in limited supply since you do not have infinite money.

It doesn't. In a normal FE game, unless you have a specific weapon in mind for a situation, you're just going to resort to your default weapon anyways.

What do you mean? I never really have a "default" weapon in mind. I throw a ton of weapons on a character and pick whatever's most appropriate for the situation in terms of AS, ATK, WTC, HIT, and CRIT. If I pick a particular weapon type more than others... I don't really notice it, I guess.

[Cysx]

It's not a problem in the sense of 'oh it must be fixed because it's awful' sense but 'this can be done better' sense.

This is my main problem with all of what you said. What you may be forgetting is that there aren't just swords in FE. You have more than ten weapon types, and that's more than enough to show one big problem with your system.

Discarding bronze, steel and silver to only keep iron + bonus damage weapons(doing of course the same for spells), leads to every type ending up with far too few items; the game becomes boring.

Adding bonus damage weapons to each, forces you to give every single one of them the same, because there only are so many types of ennemies that you can get bonus damage against, every weapon types become roughly the same. Every character plays roughly the same. The game becomes boring.

Adding bonus damage weapons against types of units that you couldn't get any bonus against before(like let's say berserkers), or even special bonuses-like more visibiliy in FoW for example- ends up with the game forcing you to play a certain way far too much; you lose your capacity of choice, the game becomes boring.

What I'm trying to say here is not that your system is bad, with the right balancing between its qualities and its problems, it could lead to something fairly good(it will probably always lack variety though, in some way or the other). If just definitely isn't a better system than what we have now. The fact that the latter has been over-used does not change this in any way to me.

FFX

The main difference that makes this comparison pointless is that it's a RPG, so it has very few and unique playable characters with a very high number of ennemy types, ehancing the possibility of weapons with attributes. That can't be said of a game like Fire Emblem. Plus, I clearly disagree that money is almost never an issue in the latter, as, simply put, it almost always is to me. Dunno if you play hard modes or if you're used to arena abusing, but depending on your playstyle, money can really be a crucial factor in buying a stronger weapon or not. It clearly isn't in 99% of classic RPGs.

Starcraft II

Same here, that's irrelevant. Making a choice in Starcraft II doesn't need you to actually think. They are extremely simple choices, the very difficulty is simply making these choices FAST, and being as good as possible at the game. So really, you do not think a lot in Starcraft II. This might be why it's so popular. In Fire Emblem, you have all the time you need to make your choices, but some are pretty complicated, you must make calculations, observe, predict, memorize: simply put, you must think. A lot.(this might be why it's not so popular, yeah, that sounds about right) That, and you are comparing the core system of Starcraft II to the weapon system of Fire Emblem. Seriously, there is far more to Fire Emblem than weapons.

Basically, you are trying to put a system you saw and liked somewhere else, in a game that's not fit for it. I believe that's the problem here.

[eclipse]

Speaking of gender roles, how does everyone feel about the standard blue haired male hero and the frilly princessy support?

I'd rather have the "frilly princess" not be so frilly and in charge, with the blue-haired guy acting in an advisory position, maybe. A good, solid lead female (i.e. not Micaiah) would be really cool.

[Emblem Lugh]

I'd rather have the "frilly princess" not be so frilly and in charge, with the blue-haired guy acting in an advisory position, maybe. A good, solid lead female (i.e. not Micaiah) would be really cool.

I would personally love a female lead with the persona of Princess Cornelia from Code Geass.

[Thor Odinson]

THAT would be a female lead I'd like.

[Rothene]

Wyvern riding female lord who uses Bows, sporting a sadistic streak...with a history of shooting down other fliers who dares to soar at a higher altitude than her, hence the title 'Skybane'...we must have such a lord

[Vorena]

Let the lord and protagonist be the my unit instead of the tag along like in FE12.

[General Banzai]

Let the lord and protagonist be the my unit instead of the tag along like in FE12.

That would be disastrous for the story :X

[CrashGordon94]

Actually, they could have the character be fixed storywise and simply give you control over their gameplay stuff.

[Mirron]

I'd like that, personally. So long as they have a Rapier-like weapon for each weapon type, only potential issue is if they did the legendary weapon and wanted to make big changes for the way you get it. Presumably, the Lord will get some legendary weapon or another.

[uguu]

That would be disastrous for the story :X

No, it wouldn't. Most of the lords are already cardboard cutouts. Or, at least, most of the MAIN lords are.

[General Banzai]

No, it wouldn't. Most of the lords are already cardboard cutouts. Or, at least, most of the MAIN lords are.

True of everything from FE6 back, but not anything past that.

Overshadowed by more bombastic personalities? Sure. But the personalities of Eliwood, Eirika/Ephraim, and Path of Radiance Ike drive the plots of their respective games. It is here where we see the downsizing of the Malledus (advisor) character who in previous games dictated "Now we must go here. Now we must go here" in favor of a lord who makes his (or her) own tactical decisions. One of the best scenes in FESS is the discussion between Ephraim and Seth before the Taizel chapter. Seth wishes to abandon the supply convoy but Ephraim will have no word of it. Seth gives in to his liege's demands but tells Ephraim that he can not let his emotions dictate his actions. The idea of a more involved lord prevails throughout the entire game, from Ephraim's actions in 5x to the struggle of both Ephraim and Eirika in their dealings with Lyon near the game's close. Having a main villain who (unlike every other main villain in the series before this) is a personal friend of the main character underlines this. Such a move to a character-driven (rather than plot-driven, as in FE1 through 6) story is perhaps the strongest driving force between the drastic plot differences of the pre- and post-Kaga Fire Emblems. Ike, too, is without a doubt the driving force behind Path of Radiance (in Radiant Dawn the story becomes confused and unruly and Ike is lost in the mayhem). Ike has a personal foe in the form of the Black Knight. While before the main lord might see the main villain and say "YOU DASTARD", here we have a recurring plot thread connected to the overreaching plot arc which specifically involves the relationship between the hero and the villain. There is a sort of rivalry between Ike and Zelgius, an intimate relationship of two characters which goes beyond anything seen in the series prior. Marth, Sigurd, Leaf, Roy... these characters are less personally motivated but rather passive princes thrust into the machinations of the plot. They are harangued usually by faceless heads of state who they rarely encounter and they continue on their path not out of intrinsic motivation but an extrinsic obligation. "I am the prince, therefore I must..." We see flashes of this "but thou must" in Ephraim around Chapter 16, but Chapter 16 almost seems like a digression from the plot as a whole. You go from fighting a series of movers and shakers around Magvel (Selena, Vigarde, Valter and Caellach) to a minor, estranged, almost forgotten character who plays no role in what is actually happening, and to do so you must take a detour, digressing from the path you have previously followed and once the fighting is over will return to. And at the end of the chapter Ephraim's abandonment of princely duty is thoroughly emphasized by Seth. "...They’re not cheering for you. They cheer because Orson’s misrule is at an end. They cheer the possibility of a better tomorrow, not the deeds we did today." At many instances in the plot Ephraim puts his family before his country. He swears in 5x to aid Eirika and Fado... but says next to nothing about saving Renais. He worries about his close friend Lyon in the capital and his mentor Duessel. He motivates himself, listening not to counsel (both in the form of Hayden and Seth--and also Kyle and Forde. Read their conversation when they first enter the field during Chapter 8) but to his own emotions and feelings. Ike does the same, as emphasized by the dual tacticians Titania and Soren. They give advice, often conflicting, but ultimately it is Ike who makes the decisions, and THAT is what drives the plot. These characters. It's subtle but the personality of the main lord dominates FESS, PoR, and to some extent FE7 and FERD, most unlike the other games in the series.

To simply step out and say "every main character is a cardboard cutout" is to fall into engines of thought about the Fire Emblem plots which have dominated the community almost since FE7 came to America. In thinking this way we come out with disastrous statements like "I hope we have a My Unit hero instead of an actual main character" which would basically doom us to a nonexistent early-FE style plot. We justify it by saying that all lords are cardboard cutouts anyways but to say that is not to give the recent series justice.

[Momo]

Making the story driven by their actions is a significant thing, but not enough to say the lords themselves have anything resembling a personality. It is in that way the lords have not evolved since the old games.

[Othin]

Making the story driven by their actions is a significant thing, but not enough to say the lords themselves have anything resembling a personality. It is in that way the lords have not evolved since the old games.

Banzai has provided plenty of evidence that they do, at least some of them. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I'm just curious where Reese falls on that scale.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Othin

[Momo]

You can rearrange the lines of any lord and it'd still be "in character", barring things like proper nouns of course.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Momo

[Othin]

You can rearrange the lines of any lord and it'd still be "in character", barring things like proper nouns of course.

Ike: I will not let their hopes and dreams be shattered again. I will be king. Like my father before me, I will dedicate myself to their happiness.

Perhaps you'd best give your own examples.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Othin

[General Banzai]

Ike:

It was the same when Grado Daein invaded Renais Crimea. I should have stayed home to defend the kingdom... Instead, I raced off to fight for personal glory.

Hmmm

Edited November 9, 2011 by General Banzai

[Momo]

Ike: I will not let their hopes and dreams be shattered again. I will be king. Like my father before me, I will dedicate myself to their happiness.

Perhaps you'd best give your own examples.

The only part of this that's off is the part about being king. Even your own example proves me right.