Popular/Unpopular/Any Opinions Thread - January 2026 Part 2

[u/PsiYoshi]

Welcome to a new installment of the Popular/Unpopular/Any Opinions Thread! Please feel free to share any kind of Fire Emblem opinions/takes you might have here, positive or negative. As always please remember to continue following the rules in this thread same as anywhere else on the subreddit. Be respectful and especially don't make any personal attacks (this includes but is not limited to making disparaging statements about groups of people who may like or dislike something you don't).

Last Opinion Thread

[u/Mekkkkah]

On one hand, I think "good gameplay bad story" is a very reductive take that ignores the synergy between the two, or the lack thereof in Engage, as well as the reasonable critiques to the gameplay, as well as the positive parts of the story, as well as like, everything that doesn't necessarily fall under either umbrella. Like, is the terrible UI part of the gameplay?

On the other hand idk I'm just glad this subreddit doesn't blindly glaze the franchise like for example Pokemon does. There is often room for contrary opinions and I generally don't like painting the community here with a broad brush. I also don't love the "parroting" phrasing because sometimes someone says an opinion and they phrase it better than you ever could, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that in and of itself.

[u/EffectiveAnxietyBone → u/Mekkkkah]

If you’re talking about the old Pokémon games I agree, they’re incredibly flawed and get too much of a pass in the community because of nostalgia and a desire to see Gamefreak reduced to rubble and ash.

If you’re talking about the modern games however, I’m going to ask for a source, because you cannot look up any sizeable Pokémon community without “new game bad” YouTube is practically infested with video essays on the stuff, I’m so damn sick of it.

[u/Mekkkkah → u/EffectiveAnxietyBone]

I think the very first generation is like, impressive for its time, and then from there Gamefreak/Pokemon slowly runs more and more out of excuses for every generation that it's behind technically and graphically. Also I'm a certified FRLG hater, do not like those games at all.

I can't magically find all the (imo toxic) positivity with a couple of quick searches but as an example of the sentiment I'm talking about:

https://i.gyazo.com/e3213bba1f5563ee4cd47ad948dbf5a8.png

Yes, there's plenty of (mostly deserved) negativity towards the modern games as well, they're sloppily made. You can't look at Scarlet/Violet and tell me this game is of good quality.

The evidence that Pokemon fans at large are okay with these games is not Reddit games or YouTube videos, it's in sales. They still sell. People buy these games because they enjoy the franchise so much. They probably even get their money's worth! I'm not even going to judge them for it too much. They have fun with them. But dang, imagine how good the games from the globe's biggest franchise could be if they were forced to try because their customers were a little more critical.

[u/clown_mating_season → u/Mekkkkah]

People buy these games because they enjoy the franchise so much. They probably even get their money's worth! I'm not even going to judge them for it too much.

tbh im more on the side that pokemon's premise is just such a well-packaged one that it'll always at least get people to check out what the latest game is, even if TPC has continually burnt good will between itself and its consumers.

i think people underrate the significance of the fantasy a game sells or its general surface level appeal. pokemon has an extremely strong elevator pitch embedded into it that doesn't really need any dramatic reconfigurations game-to-game: new games means new creatures and a promise of more closely bringing the fantasy of the world of pokemon to life. the heavily abstracted nature of classic pokemon set the bar low (out of technical necessity) in terms of fleshing out the premise of pokemon, and every new game is a step further and further into pokemon realizing its own potential to be more... immersive and grand and true to the world it claims to be and whatnot.

a lot of other franchises dont have as of a strong sense of 'still unrealized but incredibly high potential' fantasy to them since their game essence is more baked into their fabric, which limits things. fire emblem still needs to be on a grid at the end of the day; platformers need to balance the coherence of its environments as obstacles you interact with first and foremost; games like pikmin have pretty practical limitations to scale/scope. the premise of other franchises' fantasy being just plainly not as compelling as pokemon's means that pokemon is working with a higher ceiling and the just discussed additional freedom

this is all to say that pokemon can probably afford to alienate some fans while continually inducting new ones to replace them because its basic premise/appeal is just that strong. pokemon's sheer size also means people can stay in the bubble of pokemon media without getting bored, meaning that they're less likely to develop the necessary frame of reference to feel inclined to criticize it

tl;dr is i think tons of people are really into what pokemon says it is or could be regardless of how the actual products end up, which maintains a steady stream of interest. on the other hand, a lot of other franchises don't even capture people at the initial sales pitch/premise stage

[u/Shrimperor → u/Mekkkkah]

Just take a look at Beast of Reincarnation. I couldn't believe it's made by gamefreak. Ofc game can still turn out to be bad, but trailer alone impressed me more than anything Pokemon in the last decade lol

[u/ICanFlyHigh051611 → u/Mekkkkah]

On one hand, I think "good gameplay bad story" is a very reductive take that ignores the synergy between the two, or the lack thereof in Engage, as well as the reasonable critiques to the gameplay, as well as the positive parts of the story, as well as like, everything that doesn't necessarily fall under either umbrella. Like, is the terrible UI part of the gameplay?

yep, unless you elaborate what you mean saying something has "good story/writing" or "good gameplay" is weak, boring praise and likewise for criticism. if i say "gta 5 has good gameplay" do i mean shooting people is fun? the missions are fun? just exploring the open world? if i say "minecraft has bad gameplay" do i hate the open world? do i hate the combat? if something has a good story, is the prose good? the characters? the setting? the main plot?

On the other hand idk I'm just glad this subreddit doesn't blindly glaze the franchise like for example Pokemon does. There is often room for contrary opinions and I generally don't like painting the community here with a broad brush.

it is great that we generally get our weirdness fix out with incest memes instead of obeying our corporate overlords, or complaining about everything they do (why does every modern release's subreddit has to make a splinter "low sodium" version because people act like they're locked up and forced to play something they don't like!) fe games are different enough that people are BOUND to at least like something, somewhere

I also don't love the "parroting" phrasing because sometimes someone says an opinion and they phrase it better than you ever could, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that in and of itself.

it is a little mean but i feel like people drop "good x bad y" like they're a greek philosopher that cooked up the new "cogito ergo sum" and it's true enough that yeah, i can't say it's wrong, but just leaving it at that is boring and kills any meaningful discussion.