What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[vanguard333]

21 hours ago, The Moon Mage said:

*put's up the flame shield* Three houses is an unfinished mess of a game that really is not that good. You could argue that it's worth it for the base game, but the dlc is not worth it. Theirs's also the fact that it's only enjoyable on your first or maybe second playthrough but even then there are better fire emblem games out there that are actually worth replaying so your honestly better off just watching the game from a let's player or something. 

I wouldn't say it's unfinished; I mean, I would, but I don't think that encompasses everything about the game. There's a lot that really shows they weren't able to give everything 100% and cut corners for time, but then there are things that seem almost over-focused, if that makes sense. I think the real word to define Three Houses is not "unfinished", but "Overambitious". Think about it:

Story-wise, the game tries to present both a complex narrative of war between three superpowers whose leaders once went to the same school but are now bitter enemies due to ideological differences, as well as a narrative of empire vs church, and when you look at the game's overall narrative, I think it's obvious which one the game started off as (the second one) rather than both being considered as intertwined from the get-go. But, when they got down to making it, the route they built first got the most attention (Blue Lions). 

Regarding Byleth, all the aspects of the game where you're the teacher who trains these students only to witness them get torn by war are done very well, though perhaps some mechanics could've been tuned more for better replayability; the problem is that, on top of that, the game also has Byleth be the center of a plot about the Nabateans and the church by being the artificial vessel of Sothis on top of the teacher stuff. I think one reason why Jeralt's death is done so poorly is that it's built to tie into that latter plot: Byleth finds the journal, finds out about things regarding his birth, Seteth also finds the journal and angrily demands answers from Rhea (though this subplot goes nowhere), etc., and I also suspect that it was also considered rather late into the game being planned out.

I could go on, but I don't want this to be too long. I'll just say that this can also be seen the gameplay, with certain things really thoroughly planned out (the unit customization and such) while others aren't so much (the class balancing). My point is that Three Houses is trying to juggle so many different complex ideas both in its gameplay and in its story when just a few of each would've been enough for an ambitious and great FE game. They bit off more than they could chew.

This wouldn't even be the first time that this happened with FE: Path of Radiance had a very refined story and gameplay experience, and then Radiant Dawn is more ambitious and a bit less successful in those areas. Fates was just a mess; trying to make three games in the time they'd normally use to make just one, and treating the games less as games and more as testing the waters to see what fans want: "Throw it all in! If you can think of it, throw it in! Let's see what they want!" And, funny enough, you can see where they tried to avoid repeating the mistakes of Fates: there's a ton of worldbuilding and history, things mainly diverge after the timeskip rather than just five chapters in, they had Koei Tecmo do all the programming so they could focus on the story, world and characters, and the game got delayed twice. But they missed perhaps the biggest thing they could've learned from Fates: don't cram your game with too many ideas if they don't thoroughly or seamlessly intertwine! Take a few good ideas and build your game around those!

I honestly don't think Three Houses is bad or even, "not that good"; I would still say it's good, as the things it does well, it does extremely well. The problem is of course that there's also a lot of things it does not-so-well thanks to that overambition. 

 

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

For the record, as bosses go, the chapter 11 Flame Emperor is... pretty pathetic. Like, I had little difficulty one-rounding them on Maddening (granted, with a more optimal build, in Wyvern Rider Petra). 

Yeah; the Flame Emperor is pretty pathetic. The worst part is that the Flame Emperor also ends up being redundant: on every non-Crimson Flower route, you fight the Flame Emperor again, with the only differences being a silver axe and an added Crest. 

[Samz707]

2 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Yeah, I get why, story-wise, they wouldn't have a personal weapon at that point. But even something generic like a Killer Axe would be more threatening. 

 

FE needs flex-tape, the Flame Emperor now has two killing axes taped together, that's their super weapon.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Samz707

[Benice]

57 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

FE needs flex-tape, the Flame Emperor now has two killing axes taped together, that's their super weapon.

Speaking of which, I hope the next FE gets rid of repairing weapons and instead uses Hammerne or something akin to it; I felt like the repair system in TH sort of detracted from the game, in some ways. OR AT LEAST LET US RENAME OUR WEAPONS SO THAT THEY'RE NAMED AFTER BAD JOKES, DANGIT.

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

But, when they got down to making it, the route they built first got the most attention (Blue Lions). 

This is incorrect. It was stated in an interview with the directors the first route they worked on was Silver snow which was used as the basis for the other 3 routes.

[vanguard333]

26 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

This is incorrect. It was stated in an interview with the directors the first route they worked on was Silver snow which was used as the basis for the other 3 routes.

I thought they just meant that in terms of the planning stage rather than the programming stage?

Anyway, what did you think of my overall point?

[Ottservia]

3 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I thought they just meant that in terms of the planning stage rather than the programming stage?

Anyway, what did you think of my overall point?

I both agree and disagree with it. I disagree that overambition was the problem. I do agree however that one of 3H’s issues is that it does have too many ideas it doesn’t explore properly.

[joevar]

On 1/23/2021 at 6:37 AM, The Moon Mage said:

so your honestly better off just watching the game from a let's player or something. 

 its kind of sad, thats what i actually did considering i really like FE

7 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

You cant really use what you want cause the way proficiencies are setup and whatnot as well.

i would actually argue if theres no proficiencies, it would be worse. since proficiencies still not enough to block people from using class thats not their preferred class. but can still gives people who dont like grinding an edge too by having bonuses. not saying 3H handled it perfectly, but proficiencies could help give some identities and a little nod to background of a character

2 hours ago, Benice said:

Speaking of which, I hope the next FE gets rid of repairing weapons and instead uses Hammerne or something akin to it; I felt like the repair system in TH sort of detracted from the game, in some ways. OR AT LEAST LET US RENAME OUR WEAPONS SO THAT THEY'RE NAMED AFTER BAD JOKES, DANGIT.

why? you want more emphasis on resource management or just want to make sure every weapon (especially non-generic/named weapon) become more important?

[Benice]

11 minutes ago, joevar said:

why? you want more emphasis on resource management or just want to make sure every weapon (especially non-generic/named weapon) become more important?

Yeah, that. Since Combat Arts in Three Houses use durability rather than HP, the amount a weapon has is somewhat more important. However, since you can just repair most (but not all) weapons with ease, it's not much of a cost, at least in my opinion.

[joevar]

7 minutes ago, Benice said:

Yeah, that. Since Combat Arts in Three Houses use durability rather than HP, the amount a weapon has is somewhat more important. However, since you can just repair most (but not all) weapons with ease, it's not much of a cost, at least in my opinion.

ah yes, the way the people treat combat art in SoV versus 3H clearly different. people spam art iirc in 3H  almost like that is the standard attack while i dont think the same happen to SoV

Edited January 24, 2021 by joevar

[Samz707]

30 minutes ago, joevar said:

ah yes, the way the people treat combat art in SoV versus 3H clearly different. people spam art iirc in 3H  almost like that is the standard attack while i dont think the same happen to SoV

You basically have to early on in my experience, which means I've skipped the animations so much.

Especially with Bows, since if you want more than 2 range before you promote to archer you need to use Curved shot, which is too long and fancy for what is essentially your regular bow attack early on. (Even has better accuracy/damage.)

Meanwhile in SOV they were generally more situational attacks I busted out rather than actually being done more than regular attacks and frankly I prefer it that way.

So it's not even just "the cost matters less", The students aren't that good early on so they kinda have to use Combat Arts for an advantage, which is the opposite of Echoes where you get the Arts later on and they're actually situational attacks most of the time as opposed to "More accuracy and damage" like the basic arts in 3H. (and the few that are have a big HP Penalty so you actually need to consider when using them.)

[Florete]

7 hours ago, Benice said:

Like, this image kinda sums up my problem with the units.

(Spoiling image for size)

  Reveal hidden contents

This was hard mode, no NG+ with no buffs or rallies applied on a unit with a 15% personal strength using an axe. And she'd only gained strength twice in her 20 or so levels.

Reminds me of my hard BL run where Warrior Mercedes was running around destroying everyone with Iron Gauntlets and became the MVP of the run.

I made it known pretty early on that I wasn't very happy with Three Houses and found Fates to be better in almost every way, and that incredibly unpopular opinion certainly hasn't changed.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 hour ago, joevar said:

ah yes, the way the people treat combat art in SoV versus 3H clearly different. people spam art iirc in 3H  almost like that is the standard attack while i dont think the same happen to SoV

If anything, I'd say the opposite. In SoV, I can use Hunter's Volley basically every time with my Killer Bow - especially in brief dungeon battles, where I can keep my Bow Knight out of harm's way. In Three Houses, though, if I overdo that, at some point I break the weapon. I can repair it, yes, but only between battles, and at a cost of money and ore.

1 hour ago, Benice said:

Yeah, that. Since Combat Arts in Three Houses use durability rather than HP, the amount a weapon has is somewhat more important. However, since you can just repair most (but not all) weapons with ease, it's not much of a cost, at least in my opinion.

While I like repairing Weapons, I agree to the extent that the economy in Three Houses is fairly exploitable. The Auxilliary battles give you a ton of money out of nowhere - and in the DLC Aux battles, it's basically doubled. With the right merchants, then, you have effectively unlimited Smithing Stones, Black-Sand Steel, and Arcane Crystals. Other ore types are more limited, but depending on which Aux battles you pick, you can get a lot of them. So while I'd like to see weapon repairing return, I hope the next game is more stingey in terms of giving out money.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Shanty Pete's 1st Mate
Typos

[joevar]

4 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

If anything, I'd say the opposite. In SoV, I can use Hunter's Volley basically every time with my Killer Bow - especially in brief dungeon battles, where I can keep my Bow Knight out of harm's way. In Three Houses, though, if I overdo that, at some point I break the weapon. I can repair it, yes, but only between battles, and at a cost of money and ore.

but like @Benicesaid, you dont get to use it early on in the game. and its not like everyone start with killer bow, while in 3H art dont stick with weapon. and its dungeon like you said, so its not a direct comparison where you rush in small fight in late game

8 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I hope the next game is more stingey in terms of giving out money.

at least i hope they only start being generous / exploitable (but not obvious) near endgame, not early in the game. or i dunno, just rework the weapon and art system just to see how people react this time

[vanguard333]

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I both agree and disagree with it. I disagree that overambition was the problem. I do agree however that one of 3H’s issues is that it does have too many ideas it doesn’t explore properly.

I see. Thanks for the input.

What do you think was the problem?

[zuibangde]

7 hours ago, Florete said:

Reminds me of my hard BL run where Warrior Mercedes was running around destroying everyone with Iron Gauntlets and became the MVP of the run.

I made it known pretty early on that I wasn't very happy with Three Houses and found Fates to be better in almost every way, and that incredibly unpopular opinion certainly hasn't changed.

Shoutout to my 40def Fortress Knight Marianne tanking everything in my GD hard run.

I have similar sentiments as you and I sincerely hope 90% of the mechanics in TH won't carry over to the next original FE game. However, with the success of this game, I fear that many of the elements will be made permanent. 😞  

Edited January 24, 2021 by zuibangde

[vanguard333]

4 hours ago, zuibangde said:

I have similar sentiments as you and I sincerely hope 90% of the mechanics in TH won't carry over to the next original FE game. However, with the success of this game, I fear that many of the elements will be made permanent. 😞  

Unlikely, since a lot of them were built with the context of, "the protagonist is a teacher at a military academy" in mind; I could see some mechanics like the arena returning, but everything else would have to be either reworked or cut to fit whatever the new context is going to be. I rather doubt that stuff like fishing, advice box, choir practice, etc., will return, and stuff like skill levels and proficiencies, explorable bases, etc., will be reworked. 

One small thing that I hope for is a subtle reworking of shields. I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but I think that shields were a good idea that could afford to be expanded on a bit. I think one way to improve shields would be to have either specific characters or specific classes that benefit from either using or not using shields: perhaps certain classes ignore the weight of shields (like maybe if halberdier returns in some form) or maybe certain classes learn a passive skill like: "Two-handed: halves weapon weight as long as nothing else is equipped." 

[Axie]

if we went back to Best Mechanics Ever of fates who did away with weight in a smart balanced way, shields could simply have a steel weapon-esque penalty for the user's follow up attack speed that doesn't affect incoming enemy attack speed.

granted, under the fates system where weapons usually aren't fucking up your attack speed, i wouldn't even mind if shields just plain reduced your speed as they seem to be now. more defense for less speed is just a good trade-off as long as you don't get doubled. it's under your control.

[Samz707]

21 hours ago, joevar said:

but like @Benicesaid, you dont get to use it early on in the game. and its not like everyone start with killer bow, while in 3H art dont stick with weapon. and its dungeon like you said, so its not a direct comparison where you rush in small fight in late game

at least i hope they only start being generous / exploitable (but not obvious) near endgame, not early in the game. or i dunno, just rework the weapon and art system just to see how people react this time

I doubt it'll happen (and I'm unaware of any FE game doing this.) but maybe actually have the player get less money on harder difficulties.

Not in a "Less Battles" way but in actually playing out less, like you visit a village and they actually give you less gold than on Easy.

Like I guess:

6000 G: Easy

4000 G: Normal

3000 G: Hard

1000G:Maddening.

-1000G: Infernal

As an example

Enemies and their stats get altered, maybe what we actually get given should be altered too.

 

So on lower difficulties money isn't too much of an issue but every gold piece starts mattering once you bump it up.

FE7/6 had a cut mechanic where the Arena would get more challenging if you won too much, perhaps Hard/Maddening could start doing that for the Arena and other grinding features.

Maybe even other mechanics, like Stat boosters giving a plus 5 to starts on Easy but only 1-2 points on Hard, and maybe actually increasing Growths on Easy/Normal but not effecting them on Hard.

Obviously the game should be transparent with these but it could work I think.

Have the amount of resources at the player's disposal get reduced as the difficulty gets bumped up, so you can be careless on Easy but have to start being careful around Hard and Maddening/Infernal could be near-survival horror levels of intense resource management.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Samz707

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

12 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

So on lower difficulties money isn't too much of an issue but every gold piece starts mattering once you bump it up.

Or, make it so on higher difficulties, you're only getting half as much money for selling items. So a Bullion that nets 1000 gold on Normal, only gives 500 on Hard.

13 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Have the amount of resources at the player's disposal get reduced as the difficulty gets bumped up, so you can be careless on Easy but have to start being careful around Hard and Maddening/Infernal could be near-survival horror levels of intense resource management.

Maybe the same items could have variable use counts? Like, a Vulnerary having 5 uses on Normal, 4 on Hard, and 3 on Maddening. Or, an Iron Sword has its uses drop from 50, to 40, to 30. Of course, they'll have to figure out a way to make sure the price doesn't change between difficulties (since weapon value has been determined on a per-use basis).

16 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

FE7/6 had a cut mechanic where the Arena would get more challenging if you won too much, perhaps Hard/Maddening could start doing that for the Arena and other grinding features.

How about, after a certain turn count, all Arena enemies will show up with Killer weapons. For a given map, say turn 18 on Hard mode, or 12 on Maddening. The Arenamaster's text could change at this point, to warn the player.

11 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

One small thing that I hope for is a subtle reworking of shields. I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but I think that shields were a good idea that could afford to be expanded on a bit. I think one way to improve shields would be to have either specific characters or specific classes that benefit from either using or not using shields: perhaps certain classes ignore the weight of shields (like maybe if halberdier returns in some form) or maybe certain classes learn a passive skill like: "Two-handed: halves weapon weight as long as nothing else is equipped." 

I interpreted Fortress Knight having innate Weight -5 as basically doing this. Like, here, offset the weight of any shield. I do think they could have been better-tuned: 1 defense for 1 speed was rarely worth it, except for "already-doubled-by-everything" units. And, it was rare to see them in enemy hands - kind of disappointing. More generic shields with effects (say a "Mirror Shield" that grants Countermagic, or a "Blessed Shield" that restores HP every turn) would be welcome.

[vanguard333]

Just now, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I interpreted Fortress Knight having innate Weight -5 as basically doing this. Like, here, offset the weight of any shield. I do think they could have been better-tuned: 1 defense for 1 speed was rarely worth it, except for "already-doubled-by-everything" units. And, it was rare to see them in enemy hands - kind of disappointing. More generic shields with effects (say a "Mirror Shield" that grants Countermagic, or a "Blessed Shield" that restores HP every turn) would be welcome.

I suppose, although that weight -5 is rather made useless on a Fortress Knight, who has -10% speed growth, That's one reason I suggested personal skills and abilities that specifically involve the weight of secondary items like shields rather than just overall weight.  

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

18 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I suppose, although that weight -5 is rather made useless on a Fortress Knight, who has -10% speed growth,

Fortress Knight Petra: "That is where you are inaccurate, kiddo! ...Um, how do I be making the guns of finger?"

[vanguard333]

Just now, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Fortress Knight Petra: "That is where you are inaccurate, kiddo! ...Um, how do I be making the guns of finger?"

Wait; what?! There are probably a dozen different builds I could think of for Petra, and Fortress Knight honestly was not one of them. 

Fine; 99% of the time, that class skill is a bit useless. My point was that I think one way to expand upon shields in the future would be to have different skills and abilities that factor in whether or not a second item is equipped and stuff like that, rather than just general weight reduction.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

19 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Wait; what?! There are probably a dozen different builds I could think of for Petra, and Fortress Knight honestly was not one of them. 

Fine; 99% of the time, that class skill is a bit useless. My point was that I think one way to expand upon shields in the future would be to have different skills and abilities that factor in whether or not a second item is equipped and stuff like that, rather than just general weight reduction.

Yeah, it was a build I had fun with on CF Hard NG+ (she ended in Great Knight). So, not sure it'd hold up in Maddening. The concept was, overcome one of her personal weaknesses, while mitigating one of the class flaws. Still, you shouldn't count Fortress Knight out for any unit who is strong in Axes, and neutral in Armor.

Anyway, agreed about personal or class skills that synergize with Shields. Say, Armored units could have a class skill that doubles the Defense-boost from shields. And, maybe there could be be certain weapons (say, a "Shieldbreaker" Axe) that ignore the boosts from Shields, as a counter-measure.

[vanguard333]

10 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Anyway, agreed about personal or class skills that synergize with Shields. Say, Armored units could have a class skill that doubles the Defense-boost from shields. And, maybe there could be be certain weapons (say, a "Shieldbreaker" Axe) that ignore the boosts from Shields, as a counter-measure.

I suppose, although as a history enthusiast, I kind-of wince at the sight of a knight fully clad in thick plate armour and carrying a shield, since full plate armour meant that knights didn't need to carry shields, and a lot of them (in fact, most of them really) started using two-handed weaponry as a result. Perhaps armoured units could be the ones who get that "two-handed" class skill I mentioned earlier, and a "double defense boost from shields" could go to something like halberdier/sentinel if it ever returns.

I could see anti-shield weapons:

• One theory for the Roman pilum's function was that it would get stuck in shields as well as penetrate far enough to likely hurt the person holding the shield. Of course, this weapon wasn't seen on the medieval battlefield (but neither were sharpened gauntlets).
• Though rarely seen on the medieval battlefield, one advantage of a flail is that the head can swing around and hit behind the shield.
• The Dacian Falx was a two-handed forward-curved sword that gave the Romans a lot of trouble because its forward curve meant it could go around the Roman scutum and hit the person behind it. Though again, this was an ancient weapon.

Edited January 25, 2021 by vanguard333

[Axie]

10 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Maybe the same items could have variable use counts? Like, a Vulnerary having 5 uses on Normal, 4 on Hard, and 3 on Maddening. Or, an Iron Sword has its uses drop from 50, to 40, to 30. Of course, they'll have to figure out a way to make sure the price doesn't change between difficulties (since weapon value has been determined on a per-use basis).

it would actually be easier to just have weapons and items cost more at shops. that's something that fire emblem has been able to do since BinBla and its prep screen armory.

i love the idea of harder difficulties restricting non-combat life (instead of removing QoL like RD did......). giving you less money and/or making things cost more, requiring more support points for supports, changing the items you can get from villages, drops and shops - make non-combat decisions count more.