Rezzy Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 To be honest, I have trouble keeping characters from Radiant Dawn and Shadow Dragon straight, unless they have a notorious reputation. I often remember units for their character and personality first, and stats second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillNyeTheBlackGuy Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 She gets doubled and killed by the closest archer in hard mode FE6 when she joins. That's pretty horrendous. I think that's the problem with judging characters. Some people don't play FE6 on hardmode, so a person opinion on usefulness may be different depending on what mode they're playing on. In before "she sucks on normal mode too." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 (edited) I think that's the problem with judging characters. Some people don't play FE6 on hardmode, so a person opinion on usefulness may be different depending on what mode they're playing on. In before "she sucks on normal mode too." Well, she's not very good on normal mode too, compared to other characters. Whether or not that's a legitimate argument is up to you. Almost any judging of characters is done on the highest or higher difficulties, specifically because on normal modes you shouldn't have any problems using any characters. Even on higher difficulties, it can be extremely annoying, but you can still do it. I'm not really sure of many cases where a character is just straight up unusable on higher difficulties, but I'm sure some exist. When people says she sucks, it's because she's notably worse when compared to other units in the same game and the series in general (and bad bases, and mediocre growths, and armor knights are not good in fe6, and underleveled, etc.). I had fun using Meg, Astrid, Fiona, Lyre etc. in Radiant Dawn, but I'm not going to try to convince anyone that they're any good, or even decent. But, opinion on usefulness? I mean, if you want to waste a bunch of turns feeding, grinding and giving abuse to a unit so you can get marginally better or capped stats in the end, then sure. That shouldn't really even be considered a standard for good, though. Edited September 5, 2016 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NekoKnight Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 People should probably keep their definitions straight. "Unusable" is hyperbole for "difficult to use well". "Underated" means that something has a greater worth than percieved by the general community. I'd say Lowen is "underated" because he can still be a defensive beast, despite Kent and Sain being better choices all around. Fiona is just bad and is rated appropriately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saisymbolic Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 To be honest, I have trouble keeping characters from Radiant Dawn and Shadow Dragon straight, unless they have a notorious reputation. I often remember units for their character and personality first, and stats second. I have a tihs memory, but, for some reason, I can keep up pretty well with the PoR/RD cast. Shadow Dragon, on the other hand, I can only name Marth, Caeda, Wolf and Arran. I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Geek Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 To be honest, I have trouble keeping characters from Radiant Dawn and Shadow Dragon straight, unless they have a notorious reputation. I often remember units for their character and personality first, and stats second. I'm generally the same unless a character is a particularly good unit. ie: Barst in Shadow Dragon. Literally no personality to speak of as his only spoken line is his death quote which is super generic, but is honestly one of the best units in Shadow Dragon so I remember him regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekkah Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 This guy clearly plays on Normal Mode, as you can tell from his FE6 and FE8 clips. There's just no comparing his opinions to SF's or anyone's. He's clearly casual, and so is most of the FE fanbase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedxgrace Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 This guy clearly plays on Normal Mode, as you can tell from his FE6 and FE8 clips. There's just no comparing his opinions to SF's or anyone's. He's clearly casual, and so is most of the FE fanbase. Actually, he claims to play on hard classic, at least for Awakening and Fates anyway. I mean, it's still not lunatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troykv Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 Actually, he claims to play on hard classic, at least for Awakening and Fates anyway. I mean, it's still not lunatic. Well... Hard!Awakening is basically Normal Mode unless you're a newbie (the game can be actually hard if you don't understand the Pair Up mechanic) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busterman64 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) ...did I just step into a heated room or something? Ok, I know Crash has made some questionable choices on some lists and I don't exactly agree with everything on his lists( I will agree Wendy being on this one and so high up is...very questionable), but you kinda have to remember it's based on his opinion and experiences(some characters can work for some and not for others). Also, which was brought up before, he may not come on SF, so he might apart of another part of the fan base that doesn't bring mention to some of these characters or just normal fourms or the what not. He may not know somethings that others may know! Heck, I personally don't know too much about Hard Mode bonuses, Growth Rates, and the what not, yet I still playthrough them the way I like too! (Note: Been playing Fire Emblem since FE7) (If want my honest opinion, I feel Dorcas from FE7 is underrated. Say what you will, but I much prefer him over Bartre) Also...am I the only one who actually doesn't mind the video length? I guess I just enjoy hearing others opinions on things a lot! I only agree that Aran is underrated. The man couldn't double to save his life but he could tank and one-shot for days. Add on my favorite Vatage + Wrath + Impale combo and he was set. Only when magic wasn't involved, though. I actually benched Nephenee for him when I played RD. Granted, that was, like, five years ago when I last played and it isn't as if I'm privy to how units work. I'm rather simple—I just grind up all characters, regardless of how garbagio they are. Unless it's Fiona. I gnikcuf hate her. I can get Fiona to level 20 on the chapter she joins you. Takes a while, but I don't mind too much. I'll use her faster then Meg. If Meg wasn't with the Dawn Brigade, then maybe she wouldn't get so much crap... . Tbf, I think there's worse. Like Arthur. I would say otherwise. Arthur has been pretty good(and crit happy) for me! Edited September 12, 2016 by Busterman64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) If it's based on his opinions and experience, then it shouldn't carry any weight. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no point talking about personal experience when you talk about a characters usefulness. If you want to talk about how great that Sophia or Wendy you had was, fine, but don't attempt to justify that as being more useful than they are on average statistically using that. I don't care if that's considered 'SF' standards or anywhere else, it just doesn't make any sense. If you are ignorant of the statistics behind the game (he knows of growth rates at the least), then perhaps don't frame it is 'underrated' but 'underused' like I said unless you can justify it using statistics? There was no argument put forward using statistics for why Wendy is better than she is perceived to be, and that's why I can't take it seriously. Though if it did, the video probably would have ended up being much longer. It shows that he is inexperienced with the games, and that's fine, but it makes me question his ability to judge a character. I understand the point of these videos, they are meant to be fun and entertaining to watch, but it's not really accurate. I feel as though I'm repeating myself. Edited September 12, 2016 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 He just released a video about the 10 best child units in Fates, with a disclaimer that he knows he could differ from the rest of the fanbase while showing off the SF banner. Almost as if he knows he's wrong *Illuminati*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busterman64 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) He just released a video about the 10 best child units in Fates, with a disclaimer that he knows he could differ from the rest of the fanbase while showing off the SF banner. Almost as if he knows he's wrong *Illuminati*. I actually mentioned that in a comment and he pretty much replied that he doesn't mind too much(and that SF is pretty alright)...although Reddit is on a WHOLE different scale... (0_0) Edited September 13, 2016 by Busterman64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkarian Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) The problem is he doesn't really know what classifies as a "Good Unit". He is the stereotype placed on 90% of Fire Emblem Youtubers magnified by Ten. The problem is he takes personal experience into account when discussing a unit's worth, which we all know is completely stupid. Can anyone scream "PEMN" any louder? Like Tryhard said, personal experience does not resemble a characters worth, but rather statistics and raw averages as well as availability and class. It's like trying to argue with Amelia fanboys. You won't get anywhere because they will always pull the argument "But on my last playthrough of FE 8 Amelia was a god". A unit shouldn't need to be babied to hell and back or be stuffed with a lot of resources. Unless they are like Celice in which case they are the best candidate for said resources. Remember people, this is the guy who said Generals are the best class in Fire Emblem and that Gilliam was a better combat unit than Seth; Was he ever credible in the first place? He's only played half of the games in the series on top of that. His claim that "Revelations has the best level design in the series" shouldn't be taken seriously because he doesn't know the criteria of a good map. (I could go on an entire rant why Revs has worse map design than Gaiden and FE 1, but i wont) Edited September 14, 2016 by Valkarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Mir Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) I would say otherwise. Arthur has been pretty good(and crit happy) for me! Well, the issue is, on any given map, some of the units I deploy might see combat at least 10 times, if not more. With Arthur facing crit chances from everything that doesn't use weapons that disable crits, you might as well be playing Russian roulette nearly every time he sees combat. That's no good, and his personal doesn't help whatsoever, especially when you consider how lopsided crits are in terms of usefulness... Reducing enemy crit evade doesn't even come close to making up for it. And this is in Conquest; he has it even worse in Revelations. Edited September 16, 2016 by Levant Mir Celestia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.