What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Jotari]

23 minutes ago, lenticular said:

I wouldn't agree with that. Abridged versions of books are pretty common. Just from stuff I've personally read in the past few years, I've read abridged versions of Journey to the West and Les Misérables, and I don't think it would be fair to refer to either one of them as being censorship. It's mostly just that the original versions of each are approximately a billion pages long. I can't imagine that my experience would have been improved by a strained attempt to make 16th century Chinese verse forms work in 21st century English, or by digressions about the construction of Paris's sewer system.

But those books advertised themselves as abridgements, didn't they? And the full length versions are also available to be purchased in your region if you choose to, aren't they? Unlike Fates. That didn't offer us "Fates with face touching" and "Fates without face touching".

23 minutes ago, lenticular said:

I will say, though, that one thing that complicates the issue further is how all of this interacts with copyright (and other IP) law. Les Misérables is in the public domain. If I don't like the version that I have that was published by Penguin, then I can buy a different translation or an unabridged version from a different publisher, or I can just go and download it from Project Gutenberg or Wikisource. The choice of one particular translator doesn't restrict my access to other versions at all.

Oh, and I see you've brought up that very point yourself.  Though, I don't think public domains matters so much here. If someone did release a book for a contemporary foreign language author, cut massive sections of it out and didn't advertise it as an abridgement, then yeah, I'd call that censorship. As would I if the translator decided to cut portions of it because they deemed it objectionable in some way.

And it's not even a hypothetical, this has happened to non video game media coming from Japan where translators have altered the gender identity (both removing a character's trans status or giving trans status to characters who aren't trans) to suit their own agenda.

Edited October 20, 2023 by Jotari

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

And it's not even a hypothetical, this has happened to non video game media coming from Japan where translators have altered the gender identity (both removing a character's trans status or giving trans status to characters who aren't trans) to suit their own agenda.

Vivian my beloved~

A-ahem. This phenonenon does raise interesting implications for the question of "canon". Like, back during our blood pact discussions, there were details in the extended script of Radiant Dawn, which seemed to contradict those in the English translation. Or perhaps the best-known case: the differing explanation, between Japanese and English versions, as to how the Black Knight survived the fall of Nados Castle.

So which one is "canon": the original, or the adaptation? My possibly "unpopular opinion" is, they both are canon. You can have two canons that contradict eachother. Hell, the term itself comes from the "biblical canon", and even that isn't entirely self-consistent. I personally think official translations have equivalent canonicity to the original scripts. The same doesn't apply (IMO) to fanslations - i.e. Orun being Hector's half-brother isn't canon, wheh the original Japanese script called them cousins. But if an official translation said this, then we'd have a case of two conflicting canons.

[lenticular]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

But those books advertised themselves as abridgements, didn't they?

I think that part of this comes down to expectations and honesty. If I buy a book that says "complete and unabridged!" on the front cover and then it turns out that they actually cut out ten chapters, then yeah, I'm going to be angry about it. Whereas if it says "translated and abridged" on the cover and I get angry, then everyone should laugh at me for that. But what if it doesn't say either? My edition of Journey to the West has the following text on the cover: "Monkey King", "Wu Cheng'en", "Penguin Classics". It doesn't say that it's abridged or that it's unabridged. It doesn't even tell me who the translator is unless I open it up. So should my expectation going in be that it's an unabridged version? I'd say not. For starters, it's only about 350 pages, which is quite clearly significantly shorter than the original. I never thought that I was getting an unabridged version, despite the fact that the book's cover doesn't actually advertise this.

And, for me at least, I have a similar set of expectations for video games. I never expect for localised video games to be perfectly faithful adaptations of the original. I expect for various changes to be made along the way. Part of that may just be due to my age. Localisations certainly took a lot more liberties in the past than they do these days so someone who is only used to the increasingly-globalised modern video game industry might have a different set of expectations to me. But since I never expect a fully-faithful one-to-one localisation, I never have my expectations broken.

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

And it's not even a hypothetical, this has happened to non video game media coming from Japan where translators have altered the gender identity (both removing a character's trans status or giving trans status to characters who aren't trans) to suit their own agenda.

This sort of thing is often bad, but even here, I'd want to look at things on a case by case basis rather than just making blanket statements about the general practice. Because gender and sexualities often don't have direct one to one correspondence from one country to another. A trans woman is not okama is not hijra is not two-spirit is not fa'afafine and so on and so forth. There are parallels and similarities across all of them but each one can only be fully understood in the context of their own unique cultures, which means that they don't necessarily translate well.

For instance, I don't particularly have a problem with how Kysha is portrayed in the English localisation of Radiant Dawn. I would have been delighted if he had been presented as a queer, trans, or genderqueer character, but I don't think it's wrong that he wasn't. I am far from an expert on Japanese gender and sexual identities, but my understanding is that the identity/archetype he represents is one that doesn't really exist in the US or UK, and that trying to copy it across directly could easily have come across as crass or insensitive.

But I also don't have a problem with them being portrayed as non-binary in Heroes (as I understand it; I don't actually play Heroes so am only going on second-hand information). There is no single correct way of localising this, and I don't have a problem with the idea that different localisers would choose a different approach. (Especially in this case where there's 15 or so years in between the two localisations. Both the public understanding of and the language used for transgender individuals has changed a lot over the past few decades.)

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

Vivian my beloved~

I do wonder how she'll be handled in the upcoming remake.

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

So which one is "canon": the original, or the adaptation? My possibly "unpopular opinion" is, they both are canon. You can have two canons that contradict eachother. Hell, the term itself comes from the "biblical canon", and even that isn't entirely self-consistent. I personally think official translations have equivalent canonicity to the original scripts. The same doesn't apply (IMO) to fanslations - i.e. Orun being Hector's half-brother isn't canon, wheh the original Japanese script called them cousins. But if an official translation said this, then we'd have a case of two conflicting canons.

I'll go one better than your "both" and say "neither". Fire Emblem's writers have never shown all that much interest in keeping to a single unified and coherent continuity, so we shouldn't either. Instead, each work should be judged and discussed purely on its own merits.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

32 minutes ago, lenticular said:

I do wonder how she'll be handled in the upcoming remake.

Spoiler-tagging for folks who haven't played Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door:

Spoiler

Yeah, there are a few directions she could go. I watched a video comparing the original (English) to the new trailer, and most of the wording was identical. The only changes were minor, such as Bowser switching "Airhead!" to "Lunkhead!". While this tells us the script won't be 1:1 with the Gamecube original, it will probably be close.

Of course, there's the question - will the Japanese script remain the same? Be modified slightly? Or modified more substantially? And if so, will the English script change to match it? I don't expect many big changes, but Vivian is one aspect in which I could see either version changing. The possibilities:

1. Status quo. Vivian stays represented the way she is in each respective version. No references to her being trans in English or German, while other languages retain. Arguably the safest and easiest approach, but also the least satisfying.

2. Erasure. All references to Vivian being "male", presently or formerly, are erased. Beldum's insults are just... calling her ugly. Whether she's trans or cis is just a headcanon. Again, this would mean no real difference to the "English canon".

3. Originalism. Vivian is called by the same terms in the Japanese version (i.e. Beldum calls her "otoko" = "man/boy"). This version spreads to all translations.

4. Modernization. Vivian receives some explicit modern-day label, such as "transgender" (4a) or "crossdresser"/"femboy" (4b). This could apply to the original Japanese script and/or the translations.

5. Compromise. Vivian isn't explicitly trans, but is implicitly coded as such. So, instead of calling her a "man", Beldum insults her for being "mannish". So it's still up to the player's interpretation, but there are more hints there.

Ultimately, Nintendo and IS have a rather fine rope to walk. And there's no outcome that isn't going to piss somebody off. I just hope they can come up with some way that's respectful, and doesn't undermine her character arc. Personally, I think leaning more into Vivian being trans (whether or not they're explicit with it) would complement her arc, of a family that doesn't accept her. But as long as they keep her absolute gut-punch of a line:

"I'm... I'm sorry, Sis. This Mario is the only person who's ever been kind to me."

Then I think she'll still come across as a strong character with a rock-solid arc.

 

1 hour ago, lenticular said:

A trans woman is not okama is not hijra is not two-spirit is not fa'afafine and so on and so forth. There are parallels and similarities across all of them but each one can only be fully understood in the context of their own unique cultures, which means that they don't necessarily translate well.

I do think this is an interesting topic, and one that raises questions, especially when it comes to considering historical figures. Like, one camp will say "you can't consider someone transgender, if they didn't refer to themselves by that term; it's disrespectful and ignores their culture". But the other says "transgender identities have always been around, they're a part of human biology and socialization; what's changed is the wording we use for it." Same thing happens for people who weren't attracted to the opposite sex/gender - can we call them "gay", or is that wrong, if the term didn't exist in their culture? I think it's very tricky - on the one hand, I want to be respectful of everyone's cultures, and not impose my own understanding of the world upon them. At the same time, when people say "transgender is a fad, invented in the last decade!" or "there are no gay people in Iran", I feel like we need some set of "absolutes" to show how wrong they're being. Does that make sense?

1 hour ago, lenticular said:

I'll go one better than your "both" and say "neither". Fire Emblem's writers have never shown all that much interest in keeping to a single unified and coherent continuity, so we shouldn't either. Instead, each work should be judged and discussed purely on its own merits

I hear what you're saying, but an individual game can have its own canon. Like, there's Genealogy "canon" and Thracia "canon" - combined, they make Jugdral "canon". But sometimes, they contradict each other. In Thracia, Ced is canonically the son of Lewyn; but in Genealogy, Ced can be the son of Lewyn, but so can Arthur, or Cairpre, or Lester, etc. Each is equally canon. If I were to play Genealogy and say "Ced is Alec's son", that could be canon. But if I said the same thing about Thracia, it would be non-canon.

[lenticular]

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

I do think this is an interesting topic, and one that raises questions, especially when it comes to considering historical figures. Like, one camp will say "you can't consider someone transgender, if they didn't refer to themselves by that term; it's disrespectful and ignores their culture". But the other says "transgender identities have always been around, they're a part of human biology and socialization; what's changed is the wording we use for it." Same thing happens for people who weren't attracted to the opposite sex/gender - can we call them "gay", or is that wrong, if the term didn't exist in their culture? I think it's very tricky - on the one hand, I want to be respectful of everyone's cultures, and not impose my own understanding of the world upon them. At the same time, when people say "transgender is a fad, invented in the last decade!" or "there are no gay people in Iran", I feel like we need some set of "absolutes" to show how wrong they're being. Does that make sense?

Replied to this in PM since it's drifting just a little bit too far off topic.

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

I hear what you're saying, but an individual game can have its own canon. Like, there's Genealogy "canon" and Thracia "canon" - combined, they make Jugdral "canon". But sometimes, they contradict each other. In Thracia, Ced is canonically the son of Lewyn; but in Genealogy, Ced can be the son of Lewyn, but so can Arthur, or Cairpre, or Lester, etc. Each is equally canon. If I were to play Genealogy and say "Ced is Alec's son", that could be canon. But if I said the same thing about Thracia, it would be non-canon.

I don't really see the benefit of using the language of canonicity when we're only discussing a single work. If there's no difference between "this happened in Genealogy" and "this happened in Genealogy's canon", then what's the benefit of using the more complicated version? Is it solving some sort of problem or removing some sort of ambiguity? Because if not, then why not just get rid of it? It feels like we're just inventing an extra layer of abstraction and complication that isn't actually doing anything for us.

I mostly find the idea of a fictional canon to be useful when there are multiple works in the same series with some of them being part of a single continuity but others being suplemental to or outside of that continuity. So I do find it meaningful to say "most of the Star Trek shows and movies are canon, but The Animated Series and the novels are not" or "the Marvel Cinematic Universe forms a different canon to Marvel comics", for example. (I am not sure those examples are true. I think they are true?)

[Florete]

13 hours ago, lenticular said:

If I want to experience the original exactly as its authors intended then I'd have to go and spend years learning Japanese first.

This is an important message too many people don't understand. Censorship whiners and dub haters always cry about authenticity, but the fact is you're not getting the authentic experience unless you go and learn the actual language. For some media (probably not FE) you may even need to spend time living in the country of origin. Things will always be lost in translation; it's unavoidable.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

2 hours ago, lenticular said:

Replied to this in PM since it's drifting just a little bit too far off topic.

Good call, I will take a look there when I get the chance.

2 hours ago, lenticular said:

I don't really see the benefit of using the language of canonicity when we're only discussing a single work

I see what you're saying, to be sure. The first thought I had was "well, a TV series can have episodes that are non-canonical, so it's useful there." But even in that case, a TV series can be thought of as a collection of individual works (episodes), rather than a single work. The closest video game analogy would be DLC chapters, where something like the "Festival of Bonds" DLC could be considered non-canon to Fates. Maybe. I don't actually know anything about it.

Hm... I still think the term can have its uses, when talking about derived works. Like, if someone writes a story about Lyn saving Florina from bandits, that's canononical, since it happened in chapter 3 of FE7. If they write a story about Lyn and Florina getting married after the war, that's pseudo-canonical - the story neither confirms nor denies it. And if they write a story where Lyn and Florina join the Black Fang instead of Eliwood and co, then that's anti-canonical, since it's something that explicitly does not happen in the original material.

Alas, this is a lot of wrangling to do. I would agree that considering multiple works in a shared universe, to derive a shared canon, is more interesting than just saying "what happens in the story is the story's canon". But I don't see the latter as entirely useless, either.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

Is it an unpopular opinion to say that Castor and Roshea are two of the most interesting characters in Marth's games?

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Fire Emblem Fan said:

Is it an unpopular opinion to say that Castor and Roshea are two of the most interesting characters in Marth's games?

Castor is certainly a more interesting character when you realize he's probably a complete bullshitter. His Book 2/New Mystery ending gives him the title Sly Swindler and mentions the money he saved with several ellipses. That dude doesn't have a sick mother at all! He's a freaking conman! Never trust a character you recruit from a group of bandits.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Jotari

[Noctis51]

This is just based on what I read, that Fire Emblem Gaiden is the black sheep of the franchise, but playing Echoes anyway, I think it's one of the stronger entries, possibly even as good as Path of Radiance or Sacred Stones which are often considered to be quite good.

I like how it feels a lot simpler and straighforward without sacrificing any of the strategic depth of other FE. I think a knowledgeable playthrough might only take like 16 hours or less it seems to me, but it'd be very satisfying playthrough, without feeling any less satisfying than the grander, more epic and long experiences of say Fates and Awakening.

Not that Fates and Awakening are un-fun though.

[Jotari]

29 minutes ago, Noctis51 said:

This is just based on what I read, that Fire Emblem Gaiden is the black sheep of the franchise, but playing Echoes anyway, I think it's one of the stronger entries, possibly even as good as Path of Radiance or Sacred Stones which are often considered to be quite good.

I don't think Path of Radiance or Sacred Stones are heralded as particularly or uniquely good in the franchise. In fact, they're two of the titles in the series frequently criticized for being a bit too easy.

[Noctis51]

On 11/1/2023 at 5:32 AM, Jotari said:

I don't think Path of Radiance or Sacred Stones are heralded as particularly or uniquely good in the franchise. In fact, they're two of the titles in the series frequently criticized for being a bit too easy.

 

Oh that's interesting, I read that part about Sacred Stones sort of recently because of the possibility of bonus battles, but I never heard that about Path of Radiance.

I tried to get the high bonus xp on PoR and beat the BK in the duel and stuff which meant I kept myself busy with extra but not necessary stuff, under the belief it would be necessary for something gnarly later, which never really came, so if I hadn't bothered I suppose it could of been not very difficult, but well I didn't know that ahead of time so it felt like a challenging experience.

That said, I don't necessarily count difficulty for or against a game that much though, Kirby is often "easy" but still pretty fun, but if thats what people say about Path of Radiance and Sacred Stones so be it I suppose.

That makes me wonder about Fates (Birthright and Conquest) and Awakening, I paid close attention to everything like in every FE I play but I don't feel like in terms of difficulty they were harder than Path of Radiance or Sacred Stones. There was more planning and more energy put into it, because of relationship pairing and the children mechanics and skills and all that, but I didn't necessarily feel the need to pull off complex strategies or things like that to win in general.

Which means if those games aren't necessarily hard your left with Blazing blade and the Switch FEs basically as hard (which I haven't played any yet).

Edit: Or Radiant Dawn or non-localized ones. Well Radiant Dawn I played awhile back and did it with a lot less planning and care than I did with the other FE as it was my first FE, and somehow I managed the whole game and I don't really remember anything except the very final boss being a bit like "well thank god that's over" so it was a bit of a push. Radiance boss ended up being a joke by comparison I guess I see where this is all coming from. I just assumed that was because I  hyper prepared though, whereas Radiant Dawn I don't really remember reading a guide or anything ever and just going for it.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Noctis51

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

On 11/7/2023 at 2:33 AM, Noctis51 said:

That makes me wonder about Fates (Birthright and Conquest) and Awakening, I paid close attention to everything like in every FE I play but I don't feel like in terms of difficulty they were harder than Path of Radiance or Sacred Stones. There was more planning and more energy put into it, because of relationship pairing and the children mechanics and skills and all that, but I didn't necessarily feel the need to pull off complex strategies or things like that to win in general.

Which difficulty were you playing on? Because Lunatic on the 3DS games can get pretty punishing. Way beyond the Hard modes of Path of Radiance and Sacred Stones.

Anyway, new unpopular opinion: Desert Maps. I like 'em. It's a refreshing change of pace, especially in the games that otherwise go "deploy your Cavs, and you win". Giving your Mages a big boost to relative mobility is very welcome, while the hidden treasures give your Thief something to do (while also beefing up your Convoy with added tools). And sure, they make fliers better - but in my exlerience, moreso by how useful it is to Rescue-Drop their infantry allies around, than by flying out and just soloing the map with a Javelin.

Come to think of it, my least favorite desert maps have to be the Valentian ones. Because they don't have any of this "desert map weirdness", nor any Rescue-carry. They're just... a slog.

[Jotari]

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

Which difficulty were you playing on? Because Lunatic on the 3DS games can get pretty punishing. Way beyond the Hard modes of Path of Radiance and Sacred Stones.

Anyway, new unpopular opinion: Desert Maps. I like 'em. It's a refreshing change of pace, especially in the games that otherwise go "deploy your Cavs, and you win". Giving your Mages a big boost to relative mobility is very welcome, while the hidden treasures give your Thief something to do (while also beefing up your Convoy with added tools). And sure, they make fliers better - but in my exlerience, moreso by how useful it is to Rescue-Drop their infantry allies around, than by flying out and just soloing the map with a Javelin.

Come to think of it, my least favorite desert maps have to be the Valentian ones. Because they don't have any of this "desert map weirdness", nor any Rescue-carry. They're just... a slog.

Desert maps, good!

Fog of War maps, good!

Desert+Fog of War+Enemy Fliers+A Turn Limit+Forced Deploy Worst Unit in the Game= Bad >.> You know who I'm looking at.

[Dark Holy Elf]

 

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

Anyway, new unpopular opinion: Desert Maps. I like 'em. It's a refreshing change of pace, especially in the games that otherwise go "deploy your Cavs, and you win". Giving your Mages a big boost to relative mobility is very welcome, while the hidden treasures give your Thief something to do (while also beefing up your Convoy with added tools). And sure, they make fliers better - but in my exlerience, moreso by how useful it is to Rescue-Drop their infantry allies around, than by flying out and just soloing the map with a Javelin.

Come to think of it, my least favorite desert maps have to be the Valentian ones. Because they don't have any of this "desert map weirdness", nor any Rescue-carry. They're just... a slog.

Basically agree with all this. Deserts are neat in moderation.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

Desert maps, good!

Fog of War maps, good!

Desert+Fog of War+Enemy Fliers+A Turn Limit+Forced Deploy Worst Unit in the Game= Bad >.> You know who I'm looking at.

Ironically, it was replaying the Nabata map (on Normal Mode) that made me think of this take. FE6 is very generous with the Fog of War, giving your units actually decent vision ranges - somehow, every iteration since has dropped the ball, IMO. While the map does start with Wyverns, there are no Wyvern reinforcements. The only reinforcements are Axe Infantry, who start near the edge of the map, so you should have no problem outrunning them.

Sophia is... bad, of course... but the map is actually relatively friendly to her, since her mobility means she's only really in danger from enemy fliers. She can also take one Silence cast for the team, potentially sparing one of your better magical units. My bigger issue, actually, is with Cecilia. She has 2 effective movement, meaning she'll almost never see combat. But at least she can support allies with Physic, right? Nope, because she only has C Staves at base! She leaves a terrible first impression, which is a shame, as her performance for the next few chapters is solid.

Now, maybe when I replay this chapter on Hard Mode, I'll experience the suffering everyone speaks of. But as it stands, I honestly don't think it's that bad. Certainly not as troublesome as Chapter 7, "Wyvern Hell", or the Mulagir map.

34 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

 

Basically agree with all this. Deserts are neat in moderation.

Yeah, I was basically thinking that I actually tend to look forward to the desert map in any given game. Like, RD's IV-3 is probably my favorite Part IV pre-Tower map (although that's not saying much, haha). Maybe it's as simple as a "lizard brain activated when free item" reaction? Who knows!

[Florete]

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

Anyway, new unpopular opinion: Desert Maps. I like 'em. It's a refreshing change of pace, especially in the games that otherwise go "deploy your Cavs, and you win". Giving your Mages a big boost to relative mobility is very welcome, while the hidden treasures give your Thief something to do (while also beefing up your Convoy with added tools). And sure, they make fliers better - but in my exlerience, moreso by how useful it is to Rescue-Drop their infantry allies around, than by flying out and just soloing the map with a Javelin.

Agreed overall, but the one caveat I'll add is with regards to the treasure: basic treasures are fine, but something important like the Ocean Seal isn't. Imagine playing FE7 blind, liking Dart and deciding to use him, but then playing through the whole game never being able to promote him and later discovering it was because you didn't find an item by putting a unit in the bottom right corner of the map.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

22 minutes ago, Florete said:

Agreed overall, but the one caveat I'll add is with regards to the treasure: basic treasures are fine, but something important like the Ocean Seal isn't. Imagine playing FE7 blind, liking Dart and deciding to use him, but then playing through the whole game never being able to promote him and later discovering it was because you didn't find an item by putting a unit in the bottom right corner of the map.

Well, the Ocean Seal is weird, by its very existence. Pirates (Geese) could already promote via the Hero Crest, so why not keep that the case? And why is this new promotion item so valuable? They (sort of) regularized it in Sacred Stones, even if Thieves using it makes little sense, flavor-wise.

I'm a little conflicted here, because most games do hide "one-of-a-kind" items, such as the Boots or the Silver Card, in the desert. Those sorts of things are a big deal to miss. Personally, I like the idea of using "tile sparkles", as Awakening introduced, to show where hidden treasure is. That way, as long as the player is observant enough, they won't miss anything, even without a guide. This would particularly make Radiant Dawn, a game with treasure in almost half the maps, way less of a hassle.

[Florete]

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

I'm a little conflicted here, because most games do hide "one-of-a-kind" items, such as the Boots or the Silver Card, in the desert. Those sorts of things are a big deal to miss. Personally, I like the idea of using "tile sparkles", as Awakening introduced, to show where hidden treasure is. That way, as long as the player is observant enough, they won't miss anything, even without a guide. This would particularly make Radiant Dawn, a game with treasure in almost half the maps, way less of a hassle.

I don't necessarily mind the idea of some "special" treasure being desert items, because I think secrets like that in games can make for good engagement. Boots? That's fine, +2 move probably isn't such a big deal for the kind of player who won't know about this. Silver Card? Eh...Dubious.

[Samz707]

After getting to chapter 24 so far.
I'm just gonna be blunt, I consider Conquest the worst Fire Emblem I've played. 

So much of the "difficulty" comes from untelegraphed high stat enemy spawns or unfun map gimmicks. (In Chapter 24 alone I had to reset after turn 1 due to the map gimmick putting me in a spot where units would die without warning.)

And the story doesn't exactly make up for it.

I'm only on Normal and the game has basically turned into just trial/error of abusing the most powerful units to get by.

I am honestly baffled people consider this game to have the best gameplay because I haven't seen it at all in my playthrough, it's honestly been the most miserable and devoid of any enjoyment game I've played in a long while.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Samz707

[MeteorPhoenix]

Three Houses gameplay is indistinguishable from Engage's in the modes that matter; normal and hard. I know there's long essays on how Maddening Engage is a perfect game, but as sales have shown, the vast majority of us don't touch Maddening. The people that have kept Fire Emblem selling at Awakening levels and not Gaiden levels are casuals, and for most casuals, 3H gameplay is not that different from Engage's.

[Jotari]

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

Ironically, it was replaying the Nabata map (on Normal Mode) that made me think of this take. FE6 is very generous with the Fog of War, giving your units actually decent vision ranges - somehow, every iteration since has dropped the ball, IMO. While the map does start with Wyverns, there are no Wyvern reinforcements. The only reinforcements are Axe Infantry, who start near the edge of the map, so you should have no problem outrunning them.

Sophia is... bad, of course... but the map is actually relatively friendly to her, since her mobility means she's only really in danger from enemy fliers. She can also take one Silence cast for the team, potentially sparing one of your better magical units. My bigger issue, actually, is with Cecilia. She has 2 effective movement, meaning she'll almost never see combat. But at least she can support allies with Physic, right? Nope, because she only has C Staves at base! She leaves a terrible first impression, which is a shame, as her performance for the next few chapters is solid.

Now, maybe when I replay this chapter on Hard Mode, I'll experience the suffering everyone speaks of. But as it stands, I honestly don't think it's that bad. Certainly not as troublesome as Chapter 7, "Wyvern Hell", or the Mulagir map.

Yeah, I was basically thinking that I actually tend to look forward to the desert map in any given game. Like, RD's IV-3 is probably my favorite Part IV pre-Tower map (although that's not saying much, haha). Maybe it's as simple as a "lizard brain activated when free item" reaction? Who knows!

I was actually going to mention Cecilia too, but felt I had already crowded too much in for the format of my joke. In truth Nabata is...not fun, but it's not the worst map in the series, or even the worst map in Binding Blade. But at least when Ostia is kicking my ass it feels like there's something I can do to refine my strategy each time I reset. For Nabata it's slow plodding through the desert that is rather easy, but can still just cruelly fuck you over after the time sink and next time you try the map the only change in strategy you can make is just remember where the trap is.

3 hours ago, Samz707 said:

After getting to chapter 24 so far.
I'm just gonna be blunt, I consider Conquest the worst Fire Emblem I've played. 

So much of the "difficulty" comes from untelegraphed high stat enemy spawns or unfun map gimmicks. (In Chapter 24 alone I had to reset after turn 1 due to the map gimmick putting me in a spot where units would die without warning.)

And the story doesn't exactly make up for it.

I'm only on Normal and the game has basically turned into just trial/error of abusing the most powerful units to get by.

I am honestly baffled people consider this game to have the best gameplay because I haven't seen it at all in my playthrough, it's honestly been the most miserable and devoid of any enjoyment game I've played in a long while.

I 30% agree with you. I like Conquest's gameplay much less than most, it seems, but I do think it has some solid chapters. Coincidentally, all the chapters where Takumi is the boss I like a lot. But then it has some terrible chapters, a lot of which crowd the approach to the end game. And it has some moderate chapters too. All in all, not a masterpiece.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Jotari

[Florete]

4 hours ago, MeteorPhoenix said:

Three Houses gameplay is indistinguishable from Engage's in the modes that matter; normal and hard. I know there's long essays on how Maddening Engage is a perfect game, but as sales have shown, the vast majority of us don't touch Maddening. The people that have kept Fire Emblem selling at Awakening levels and not Gaiden levels are casuals, and for most casuals, 3H gameplay is not that different from Engage's.

Your shpiel about sales here feels pretty unnecessary. As someone who played both Three Houses and Engage on hard mode and enjoyed the latter way more, I don't know how you can unironically believe that first sentence. The two games are wildly different, regardless of difficulty. I'd be interested in your explanation for that instead of a rant on sales and why maddening doesn't matter.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Florete

[SnowFire]

5 hours ago, Samz707 said:

After getting to chapter 24 so far.
I'm just gonna be blunt, I consider Conquest the worst Fire Emblem I've played. 

So much of the "difficulty" comes from untelegraphed high stat enemy spawns or unfun map gimmicks. (In Chapter 24 alone I had to reset after turn 1 due to the map gimmick putting me in a spot where units would die without warning.)

And the story doesn't exactly make up for it.

I'm only on Normal and the game has basically turned into just trial/error of abusing the most powerful units to get by.

I am honestly baffled people consider this game to have the best gameplay because I haven't seen it at all in my playthrough, it's honestly been the most miserable and devoid of any enjoyment game I've played in a long while.

Well, if you're not a fan of map gimmicks, I get it - both Conquest and Revelation have a decent number of gimmick maps.  Flip side, other people complain Birthright is boring, because a lot of the maps are rout-fests where enemies aren't equipped with much particularly interesting weapons, and gimmicks help freshen the experience up.

That said, for a gimmick to mean something, it needs to make the player engage with it.  Fates has this whole idea of Dragon Veins changing the way battle works.  For this to feel appropriately powerful to match the plot hype, it needs to, well, mean something, which means failing or declining to engage with the gimmick should result in a tough experience, and using it properly should make you feel like a tactical badass.  They're kind of inherently linked; if you have a gimmick that doesn't matter because playing normally works, then why have the gimmick at all?  Anyway, C24's gimmick of flyers with super-range is scary, yes, but you have your own Dragon Veins on that map.  What the designer "wants" you to do is to keep aggressively moving forward and activating your own Dragon Veins to reduce flyer movement, letting you safely pick them off.  And if you don't do that, then yeah, it's gonna be backup strats time.  It's unfortunate you weren't a fan, but I also think that there was no other option here - making it cool for players who liked interacting with the gimmick as a change of pace inherently means a rough ride if you don't interact with it.

(I do agree that Conquest has some deeply unfun ideas, notably the Kitsune lair and a certain skill on the Lunatic final map.  But I personally thought C24 was cool.)

[Jotari]

40 minutes ago, Florete said:

Your shpiel about sales here feels pretty unnecessary. As someone who played both Three Houses and Engage on hard mode and enjoyed the latter way more, I don't know how you can unironically believe that first sentence. The two games are wildly different, regardless of difficulty. I'd be interested in your explanation for that instead of a rant on sales and why maddening doesn't matter.

It does seem a pretty odd statement. Like, while they both have a "monastery", Three Houses' main use with it is to grind weapon ranks for skills, which is probably the most central mechanic of the game. Meanwhile Engage doesn't even have weapon ranks at all. Three Houses also obviously doesn't have Emblems which are hugely central to Engage. If you squint really hard you could say Battalions are similar to Emblems, but the only Engage Attacks similar to Three Houses are Byleth and Corrin given Battalions are all multi targeting attacks while Engage Attacks are mostly single target. And while it requires a few turns, you can endlessly use Engage attacks while you only have a set number of uses of Battalions. Battalions can also outright die mid battle.

The two games seem to have very obviously different design intentions and results. The only way they're really similar is in that all mainline Fire Emblem games involving walking up and hitting stuff.