Isn't GBA Era the best? Post if you agree or disagree

[Parrhesia]

Just gonna put this out there on a sidenote; how would everyone feel about FEDS battlesprites if there were unique palettes for PCs (I guess it'd be kind of a primary/secondary/tertiary/hair thing for reclass) and bosses, and different generic palettes for the various factions you face?

[Celice]

Just gonna put this out there on a sidenote; how would everyone feel about FEDS battlesprites if there were unique palettes for PCs (I guess it'd be kind of a primary/secondary/tertiary/hair thing for reclass) and bosses, and different generic palettes for the various factions you face?

I'd rather have actual depth to the sprites. The pre-rendering came out pretty flat and lifeless.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I'd rather have actual depth to the sprites. The pre-rendering came out pretty flat and lifeless.

Yeah pretty much. It also looked kinda lazy. I mean i get that it was a serious overhaul from the original sprites (and how), but like, i dunno. I think FE11 turned me off a lot because i was so used to the nice whistle and bells that the other games gave me. Rescuing, Supports, etc.

FE6 was...man that game did feel really unfinished. Chapter objectives were always the same, characters werent fleshed out as they could have been, things like that.

Id love to see a remake of FE4. Because people always go on about how great the plot is. If it were made to be a bit more streamlined (the gameplay itself) and translated really well, it could go over pretty big in the Western world.

[General Horace]

Just gonna put this out there on a sidenote; how would everyone feel about FEDS battlesprites if there were unique palettes for PCs (I guess it'd be kind of a primary/secondary/tertiary/hair thing for reclass) and bosses, and different generic palettes for the various factions you face?

White and gold armour horace would be so cooooollll

[Only My Unit]

I'm going to laugh when Western developers are reviewing it and find out about all of the Lopt atrocities.

[Jedi]

Can't we all just enjoy the games we enjoy and not have people attack others over their preferences making them have to defend said preferences leading into more insane BS? Thanks

Side Note - Using Graphics as an argument for if a game is good or not is extremely childish. It aggravates me to even see it [on either side] games don't need good graphics to be good, sure I get that it appeals to people based on the art and how its done but it shouldn't be a main point

FE6 - Plot does enough to be an afterstory of 7, and It's a decent enough story hitrates could be better and it plays good

My opinions on the series I started with the GBA era so I have a bit of nostalgia for it, the characters, the stories and such are a bit cookie cutter but they were done well enough, FE7 I loved the supports and thought they made the characters interesting enough, Eliwood's struggle to find his father and everything after was a pretty good story I thought.

FE8 while too easy it was good enough the interesting being able to pick your own class deal on promotion was nice, and it had a decent story even if the villians baring Lyon and the loyal grado generals were boring, Riev and Valter were so stereotypical I just wanted them dead and gone asap

FE9 was the most grand and best game in my honest opinion, the story drew you in, Ike and his merry band growing in the span of that one year the game takes place in, its just awesome. The supports felt more alive then ever, the characters had more depth then before [i felt] even if some were based on the more comedic aspects.

FE10 failed to live up to FE9, while it was ok and was a fun game with some twists on the old ways you did stuff, the story was meh at best.

FE11 was what finally introduced me to Marth in an FE game, characterizations on the few characters that got it were decent enough and the game is fun so I don't know why it gets such hate, Plus the re-classing was fun, 21 Spd Wendell lolololol

FE1 and 3, were good for what they did at their time, no sense in bashing them.

FE4 I am in the middle of playing for the first time and I find myself invested with SOME of the characters, the political stuff is a bit interesting but I haven't seen anything yet that makes it completely stand out like I have been told. Have yet to get to the 2nd gen

FE's 2, 5, 12 and 13? I have yet to play

Edited July 1, 2012 by Jedisupersonic

[Westbrick]

I tend to be turned off by people on a high horse, especially when it comes to video game opinions. You're being smug about something extremely trivial, and I think I have better things to do with my time than waste it on the likes of you.

I'm with Only My Unit on this one: there's really no reason to get upset. Quick recap over the course of the discussion so far: I asked Sage a question, he and I had a quick back-and-forth, and then you and Integrity decided to jump in and crank the heat up a notch. The difference here is that Integrity seems game for a more heated conversation, which is a rare trait and one that I appreciate; you're getting needlessly offended. As you yourself have said, this is just a conversation about a niche strategy RPG series, and I don't think anyone's taking this all that seriously. And ironically, comments like ...

"You're being smug," and...

"I have better things to do with my time than waste it on the likes of you," and...

"The only reason why my two cents are here is because I really didn't like that post," and...

"Please explain to me why I should care about an observer's opinion. I think it should be obvious whose opinion I hold the highest in this thread (hint: not you, either)."

...indicate to just about everyone that you're taking this more seriously than anyone else. It's a fun little discussion. Relax. Shame, too, because you seem pretty cool otherwise.

Just gonna put this out there on a sidenote; how would everyone feel about FEDS battlesprites if there were unique palettes for PCs (I guess it'd be kind of a primary/secondary/tertiary/hair thing for reclass) and bosses, and different generic palettes for the various factions you face?

It'd be a huge step in the right direction. A personalized feel is always a plus.

Side Note - Using Graphics as an argument for if a game is good or not is extremely childish. It aggravates me to even see it [on either side] games don't need good graphics to be good, sure I get that it appeals to people based on the art and how its done but it shouldn't be a main point

I'm sure you'll agree this doesn't always apply, right? Few will make graphics a major point, but they are something worth considering. Especially when it comes to style, which can be compared without having to turn to system capabilities.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Westbrick

[Loki Laufeyson]

Side Note - Using Graphics as an argument for if a game is good or not is extremely childish. It aggravates me to even see it [on either side] games don't need good graphics to be good, sure I get that it appeals to people based on the art and how its done but it shouldn't be a main point

Umm some of us didnt like FE11 for reasons along with the meh graphics. (Come on, they were meh...) Like the story was flat even for FE. (Yeah i get it, its a remake of the first game but come on...it would have been cool to have more..i dunno character interaction and junk?) The game mechanics felt wonky to me and i didnt like the whole "here, kill this guy off to get this thing." deal. I also wasnt a huge fan of reclassing. Yeah the game had Marth, but like, that didnt make it awesome for me. Some of us just...didnt dig it. Deal with it.

FE10 failed to live up to FE9, while it was ok and was a fun game with some twists on the old ways you did stuff, the story was meh at best.

Gameplay wise, this game was perfectly fine except for the whole support thing. (i missed the convos big time.) Story wise, it was good when the writing was good. A lot of other parts in the story felt rushed and not very well planned out. But my favorite characters got more of a spotlight and one really jaw dropping revelation so i was cool with it. Since i see FE9 and FE10 as two parts of one whole, it works out for me at least.

[Refa]

Shadow Dragon for me was always good, but it could have been better in some of the NON GAMEPLAY departments (although I would have liked some characters to be more useful too, but I digress). Apparently New Mystery Of The Emblem was everything Shadow Dragon aspired to be in the story department! Can't wait to play that translation.

[Only My Unit]

Can't wait to make a broken My Unit.

[BrightBow]

The story of the game was fine. It's simple and serviceable. FE7 instead, had plotholes so huge that even I noticed them the first part around.

For example, they had this huge mystery about the disappearance of Lord Elbert. What happened to him? Why did he leave? What did he do?

Those questions are what drives the first half of the game. But after the Dragons Gate those questions are just ignored.

That is, unless we decide that what Leila said was actually correct. That he really was a traitor scheming against Ositia. But if that was the case, it made no sense that the game decided to only speak favorable of him for the rest of the game when he was actually a dirty traitor.

As I said, this mystery is what drove the first half of the plot. And the way I feel, this also means that the first half of the plot is just plain bad. I prefer a simple story like the one from the original Fire Emblem any day to this.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned Shadow Dragon really wasn't so hot. The graphics are fine but they essentially introduced lots of new features from the modern games that weren't in the original and left everything else unchanged.

The biggest one is probably to introduce the weapon triangle in a game were essentially all the enemies use lances.

In the original game that didn't matter because the triangle didn't exist. But now that it does, it puts sword users on a constant disadvantage.

And to make matters worse, they handed out boni for high weapon levels... that are negated when you are on the wrong end of the triangle...which sword users essentially always are.

And to screw them over even more, they changed the weapon weight mechanic. In the original game, the whole weight value was subtracted from your speed. Swords were a lot lighter then lances, so sword users had a speed advantage.

Since you can now use your strength value to negate that malus, this advantage Sword users had gets thrown out of the window.

But it doesn't end there: The weight that weapons have is so low, that the malus is almost always negated. Lances are barely heavier then swords now and sword users generally have much lower strength then lance users.

So if anyone is going to get slowed down at all, it's probably a sword user.

And despite those massive changes, most units were left with the exact same bases and growths from the original game. IS would have needed to made way huger changes for the game to work with the new mechanics.

Except for Wolf and Sedgar for some reason. I don't get it. They are prepromotes with rather poor bases just like all the other ones in the game. What makes them so special?

Anyway, while it's not a bad game by any means, I would definitely say that it is a rather poor remake. The GBA games definitely worked a lot better.

[Westbrick]

The story of the game was fine. It's simple and serviceable. FE7 instead, had plotholes so huge that even I noticed them the first part around.

For example, they had this huge mystery about the disappearance of Lord Elbert. What happened to him? Why did he leave? What did he do?

Those questions are what drives the first half of the game. But after the Dragons Gate those questions are just ignored.

That is, unless we decide that what Leila said was actually correct. That he really was a traitor scheming against Ositia. But if that was the case, it made no sense that the game decided to only speak favorable of him for the rest of the game when he was actually a dirty traitor.

As I said, this mystery is what drove the first half of the plot. And the way I feel, this also means that the first half of the plot is just plain bad. I prefer a simple story like the one from the original Fire Emblem any day to this.

Couple of things:

Italicized portion -> What drives the first half of Eliwood's campaign aren't doubts about his father's integrity, but rather simply finding / saving his father. The idea that Elbert's father has somehow gone rogue is brought up seriously only by Erik, and the amount of time Eliwood reflects on this possibility is condensed into a few lines. It's never portrayed as a particularly credible theory.

Bolded portion -> What part of this felt "unanswered," specifically? Some aspects are left ambiguous, but the core details are there: Elbert, led by Ephidel, went off with a number of his best knights to confront Marquess Laus and, eventually, Nergal. Elbert was deemed an appropriate sacrifice for the ritual to open the Dragon's Gate, and the remainder of the knights (excepting Harken) were slaughtered. Elbert released Ninian and Nils from their bonds, only to have the events of Chapter 19 take place. All of this is laid out clear enough over the course of the first half of the campaign, but if that wasn't enough, it's explicitly recapped at the beginning of Chapter 20.

Underlined portion -> Factually incorrect. From the script:

Eliwood

You're telling me that my father endorsed this plan?

Leila

I cannot say. I do know that he is with Marquess Laus currently.

Again, no one ever really buys into the whole Elbert = traitor theory, and once it becomes clear that he's been taken hostage for the ritual, there's nothing left to discuss.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Westbrick

[BrightBow]

I am sorry that I answered to late.

I just always so slow it take ages to write those posts once I get started so it took me some time to get to it. For this one I took at least three hours with lots of written text erased and rewritten. And tons of text never used at all. And reading through the game scripts of course.

Italicized portion -> What drives the first half of Eliwood's campaign aren't doubts about his father's integrity, but rather simply finding / saving his father. The idea that Elbert's father has somehow gone rogue is brought up seriously only by Erik, and the amount of time Eliwood reflects on this possibility is condensed into a few lines. It's never portrayed as a particularly credible theory.

I was talking about what drives the story from the players perspective. As a player the mystery of his disappearance keep you invested in the story. As for Elbert going rouge, I will address this below.

Bolded portion -> What part of this felt "unanswered," specifically? Some aspects are left ambiguous, but the core details are there: Elbert, led by Ephidel, went off with a number of his best knights to confront Marquess Laus and, eventually, Nergal. Elbert was deemed an appropriate sacrifice for the ritual to open the Dragon's Gate, and the remainder of the knights (excepting Harken) were slaughtered. Elbert released Ninian and Nils from their bonds, only to have the events of Chapter 19 take place. All of this is laid out clear enough over the course of the first half of the campaign, but if that wasn't enough, it's explicitly recapped at the beginning of Chapter 20.

Yeah, I really didn't write that very well (aka, it's nonsense). I merely wanted to visualize the whole mystery at the beginning that kicks of the story. I can see now that that didn't quite work out and looks pretty stupid on top of that. Those weren't literally my questions. Sorry for the trouble. My issue is specifically that Elbert's motivation is never clarified.

Underlined portion -> Factually incorrect. From the script:

Eliwood

You're telling me that my father endorsed this plan?

Leila

I cannot say. I do know that he is with Marquess Laus currently.

Again, no one ever really buys into the whole Elbert = traitor theory, and once it becomes clear that he's been taken hostage for the ritual, there's nothing left to discuss.

So Leila didn't literally say that Elbert is a traitor. Okay, my bad.

But that is no big deal. She said what she knows: That Darin was looking for allies for the Rebellion and that Elbert answered his call.

She treats the issue professional so she doesn't speculate but the implications are there for everyone to see.

And I can't agree that the game does not threat the suspicion as credible.

When Erik tells Eliwood about what he knows, he has a complete breakdown. The narration of the next chapter also elaborates on Eliwoods determination to find out the truth.

And I would also like to remind that Marquess Santaruz was also going to participate in the rebellion. Despite all disbelief of our heroes, that much is sure.

If a gentle old guy like him is participating, then it's not entirely absurd that Elbert might intend to join as well.

The game makes a big deal out of those suspicious and it leaves quite an impact on our hero. It's not threatened as if it was entirely ridiculous.

And just because Elbert was taken hostage eventually, doesn't mean those questions are gone.

So he was going to investigate the Black Fang or moving against them? That doesn't mean that he initially didn't genuinely intended to participate in the rebellion when he came to Laus.

We learned from Erik that Elbert wanted to make a deal with Darin about the rebellion. But he mistrusted Ephidel and the Black Fang so he tried to convince Darin to kick them out. It specifically does not say that he wanted the whole rebellion plan to stop. It's entirely possible that he would have been fine with the rebellion if Ephidel and the Black Fang were out of the picture.

The writers brought this question up to raise tension. They should have answered the question eventually to clean things up. As it is in the end, it lacks any proper conclusion.

Edited July 7, 2012 by BrightBow

[Randombobman]

One of my biggest annoynances with FE7 was the disparity in names. The main/biggest example being Brendan Reed and his sons. Why are these the only characters to have a last name? What does that mean? Was Brendan descended from a lost Fiefdom of Lycia and Reed was the title? If not, was this just an oversight by IS or something they didn't value enough to fix? These are the only reasons I've been able to come up with and I'd be interested to see if anyone else has better insight.

[OrangeCrush980]

One of my biggest annoynances with FE7 was the disparity in names. The main/biggest example being Brendan Reed and his sons. Why are these the only characters to have a last name? What does that mean? Was Brendan descended from a lost Fiefdom of Lycia and Reed was the title? If not, was this just an oversight by IS or something they didn't value enough to fix? These are the only reasons I've been able to come up with and I'd be interested to see if anyone else has better insight.

FE7 is far from the only game to do this. The Tellius games have Jill Fizzart, Elincia Ridell Crimea, Sanaki Kirsch Altina, and... Ike.

Presumably all the characters have last names, but the game doesn't bother mentioning them unless they're plot relevant.

[Kon]

The "Reed Brothers" just sounds cool, I guess? I honestly have no clue, although that's always bothered me a bit as well.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Perhaps Reed was a bastard? I dunno. But so many games actually do that...so many games. Give a couple of guys last names and the rest...none.

As for FE7's plot with Elbert...yeah i agree. Theres a hole there. Though i came to the conclusion that he met with Laus to discuss terms. If Elbert was on Ostia's side, its unclear. Judging from Uther's reaction to Elbert going missing, i would wager that, no..he was not. So perhaps terms if Elbert indeed joined the rebellion, like lands and junk. (and maybe even marrying Eliwood off.) But Darin's tomfoolery was a bit too much and suspicious and Elbert was brought to Ephidel and Nergal and all that stuff happened. Thats my assumption. It would have been nice for the game to tell us what exactly happened there but alas.

[Westbrick]

I am sorry that I answered to late.

No worries.

I was talking about what drives the story from the players perspective. As a player the mystery of his disappearance keep you invested in the story. As for Elbert going rouge, I will address this below.

I recently played through FE7 again (past couple of months), and this isn't really what pushes the narrative forward. The driving question isn't "Has Elbert gone rogue?" but rather "What happened to Elbert, and is he okay?" As I explained in my last post, few characters take seriously the idea that Elbert has engaged in some conspiracy against the Lycian League, so once Elbert's actual fate becomes clear, there's little reason to bring up the idea again.

But that is no big deal. She said what she knows: That Darin was looking for allies for the Rebellion and that Elbert answered his call.

She treats the issue professional so she doesn't speculate but the implications are there for everyone to see.

At the time this is presented to the player (Ch.16/17), what we know is that Elbert was called upon by Laus to meet, and went to confront him. As we later learn, this confrontation was an attempt to stop him and persuade him to let go of Nergal. Just as a random example, here's a line from Ch.18/19:

Elbert

How many times must I tell you, Lord Darin? You are being used by this man!! By helping him bring dragons back into this world, you are helping him destroy mankind! Do you understand?!?

Remember, the player sees this line a mere two chapters or so after Leila's report, and mere three or so after Erik's admission. So to recap, here's what the player perceives regarding Elbert's disappearance over the first half of the main campaign:

Chapters 11-12: Elbert has disappeared! What could have happened? Time for Eliwood & Co. to find out.

Chapter 13: Lord Helman mentions that he informed Elbert of Darin's plans, which motivated him to seek out Laus. Hm...

Chapter 14: Uh oh, Erik seems to be suggesting that Elbert has gone rogue! He's not a reliable character by any stretch, but could he be right?

Chapter 16: Leila's report is inconclusive. Could Elbert really be scheming with Laus and Nergal?!

Chapter 18: ...Oh, Elbert's being held hostage. I guess not. Time to go save him and fill in the gaps!

At which point, the gaps are filled in: Elbert learned of Laus' plans, confronted him with his knights, his knights were killed off and he was kept alive for the ritual.

I'm hardly going out of my way to defend FE7 here, because nothing major is left ambiguous at all.

When Erik tells Eliwood about what he knows, he has a complete breakdown. The narration of the next chapter also elaborates on Eliwoods determination to find out the truth.

Again, factually incorrect. Let's take a look at the game script, shall we? All of this occurs at the end of Chapter 14:

Erik

Marquess Pherae, he had approved of the idea.

This is the only line in the conversation that suggests Elbert has gone rogue, and is quickly followed up by the following:

Erik

My father and yours argued vehemently that day. Marquess Pherae always distrusted Ephidel. He tried to convince my father to send Ephidel and the Black Fang assassins out of Lycia. My father would not be persuaded, and Marquess Pherae left the castle. As you know, he then disappeared. I doubt he's still alive.

This is a major part of what leads to Eliwood's breakdown: the idea that his father may no longer be alive. As to the idea that Elbert supported rebellion, we go from "He supported the idea" (Erik, Ch.14) to "I can't say if he supported the idea or not" (Leila, Ch.16) to "Oh whoops, he's being held hostage and vehemently rejects any willingness to go along with Laus" (Ch.18 and beyond). Again, where is the plot hole?

Even when it comes to ambiguities (a significant step down from plot holes, i.e. a contradiction in events or logic), the only one left I can think of is one you've pointed out here:

We learned from Erik that Elbert wanted to make a deal with Darin about the rebellion. But he mistrusted Ephidel and the Black Fang so he tried to convince Darin to kick them out. It specifically does not say that he wanted the whole rebellion plan to stop. It's entirely possible that he would have been fine with the rebellion if Ephidel and the Black Fang were out of the picture.

Which is fair. We don't know enough of the details early on to know if Elbert supported the proposal. Three things about this, however:

1) Based on Elbert's personality, what we learn about the whole fiasco later, how he responds to it, etc., it seems very, very out of character.

2) What drove the first half of the narrative was learning about what happened to Elbert. Other than the very early stages of the rebellion plotting, everything is crystal-clear.

3) This isn't a plot hole.

EDIT: Your problem with the Elbert subplot, then, seems to be reducible to the following: "I don't like how the game strongly implies that Elbert rejected the idea of rebellion entirely, but left open the distant possibility that he agreed early on and then immediately changed his mind." Hilariously nitpicky.

For comparison's sake, we can look at all the much more jarring narrative gaps in FE8's storyline. Why didn't Lyon simply take the bracelets from Eirika and Ephraim using the trust the three of them had? He could have simply summoned them on a friendly visit before starting his global war, had the two of them assassinated, and then taken their bracelets before invading Renais. On a related note, why start a full-scale war? Vigilante missions to extract the stones seems like a much more intuitive plan. And if a larger-scale mission had to be carried out, why attach the name of Grado to it? Why not simply operate in the shadows, denying national involvement as long as possible? What does it say about Ephraim's competency to charge a secured fortress with a total of four footsoldiers? What are we to make of the two different Lyons, beyond simply "a different plot for each branching path"?

Now, I'm not suggesting that the above don't have answers or excuses (although I can't think of any at the moment); but if I wanted to take the same approach so many have regarding FE7, I could easily trump these up into a lengthy post and declare FE8's plot as A STORY COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF PLOT-HOLES. Which would be unfair, but then that characterization is unfair of FE7 just as much (if not moreso), wouldn't you say?

Edited July 8, 2012 by Westbrick

[Junkhead]

I think teh Tellius saga is the best, but the GBA series is the second best.

[Hero]

The GBA series is indeed the best... until you see its SNES predecessors. Both collections have their place in a well-rounded strategy game library, but I fail to see how somebody who approaches both with an open mind (keeping in mind that it takes some doing to.get today's average young gamer to do that with a system as comparatively primitive as the SNES) would not spend more time on the SNES games. While they suffered from many problems that were remedied in the GBA iterations, they also operated at a deeper level of complexity, something that should be a major draw for a long-term fan of the series. And I don't say this out of nostalgia: My first exposure to Fire Emblem outside of Super Smash Bros Melee was the GBA series. SNES is more accessible now than ever, in the age of cell phone-based emulators.

[Loki Laufeyson]

For comparison's sake, we can look at all the much more jarring narrative gaps in FE8's storyline. Why didn't Lyon simply take the bracelets from Eirika and Ephraim using the trust the three of them had? He could have simply summoned them on a friendly visit before starting his global war, had the two of them assassinated, and then taken their bracelets before invading Renais. On a related note, why start a full-scale war? Vigilante missions to extract the stones seems like a much more intuitive plan. And if a larger-scale mission had to be carried out, why attach the name of Grado to it? Why not simply operate in the shadows, denying national involvement as long as possible? What does it say about Ephraim's competency to charge a secured fortress with a total of four footsoldiers? What are we to make of the two different Lyons, beyond simply "a different plot for each branching path"?

Im guessing Lyon doesnt have a knack for politics and sneakery. OR perhaps the Demon King needed a war to bring out the monsters and junk from Darkling Woods. Either way, it is not clear and never stated.

About Ephraim's raid with only four guys, it establishes him as 'act first, think later' and Leeroy Jenkins. Although everyone praises him for it, it was laughably stupid.

As for the different Lyons...are they really that different? I always figured when dealing with Ephraim, Lyon chose to gain greater control because he wanted to best Ephraim. (rivals) And with Eirika, he didnt have enough nerve to hurt her so he knowingly let the Demon King take control there. Lyon's situation is interesting but sadly, his dialogue and actions are written terribly.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Both collections have their place in a well-rounded strategy game library, but I fail to see how somebody who approaches both with an open mind (keeping in mind that it takes some doing to.get today's average young gamer to do that with a system as comparatively primitive as the SNES) would not spend more time on the SNES games.

Maybe because the SNES games have stupidly long maps,between that and forcing yourself to play slow on FE5 due to its..."diffculty" that encourages slowplay, ofcourse you'd spend more time playing them, they are designed to eat more of your time!

Edited July 8, 2012 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Celice]

I don't find that very convincing, when you can say the opposite for the GBA games ("Maybe because the GBA games have stupidly short maps.") and still have it be a con rather than a pro. There's no innate positive you're bringing out by comparing map lengths :o

Edited July 8, 2012 by Celice

[CT075]

i'd think that'd be a given

the gba games were designed to be carried around with you; the maps can't be stupidly long without compromising its portability somewhat. The games are designed to be 'pull out and play' and being put away equally fast. The SNES games were designed to be played on a TV with the SNES in your living room; the kind of game that people generally set aside some semi-considerable amount of time for.

so really the argument "they're designed to" holds no water

[Westbrick]

Im guessing Lyon doesnt have a knack for politics and sneakery. OR perhaps the Demon King needed a war to bring out the monsters and junk from Darkling Woods. Either way, it is not clear and never stated.

About Ephraim's raid with only four guys, it establishes him as 'act first, think later' and Leeroy Jenkins. Although everyone praises him for it, it was laughably stupid.

As for the different Lyons...are they really that different? I always figured when dealing with Ephraim, Lyon chose to gain greater control because he wanted to best Ephraim. (rivals) And with Eirika, he didnt have enough nerve to hurt her so he knowingly let the Demon King take control there. Lyon's situation is interesting but sadly, his dialogue and actions are written terribly.

Eirika!Lyon and Ephraim!Lyon are very different, yes. One has the illusion of control and continues scheming throughout the game, the other has been consumed by the Demon King from early on.

And I think you'll agree that those answers aren't very satisfactory. Lyon is always viewed as a rather brilliant mind; how could he overlook something as trivial as "use the trust of my friends to steal the bracelets" or "destroy the stones incognito"? (The Demon King wasn't in control of him by this point, so that excuse doesn't work either). Compare that to Elbert's situation, which, while never explicitly stated, has a very strongly implied solution (he was against it period) that fits with his character.