Discussion YMMV / FireEmblemEngage

I don't care strongly either way, but the early game use and any sentimentality there of don't invalidate the trope. Nor does putting in effort to make them useful, which can be seen as wasted effort if other characters can do the same things but more easily. Her poor Build, 0% growth, and (relatively) quick replacement by the Magikarp Power-possessing Jean (all mentioned in the write-up) would seem to qualify her to some, and being a YMMV trope, that's usually enough.

Again, I don't care all that strongly, if enough others agree with her removal, that's fine. Just pointing out that, by the base definition, she would seem to qualify.

I've mentioned before but both LTLD and Gamebreaker need to be redone from the beginning.

@Beer Baron Jean is down at the bottom of tier lists with team Alfred, Bunet, Anna, and Timerra. He doesn't replace Framme unless you wanna dedicate yourself to training a level 1 baby who joins going into Brodia.

The issue I have is the LTLD on Framme is focused on her combat potential, which is irrelevant to her being useful. Framme is never going to be a combat unit, but that's not what she's meant to be. Similarly, poor Build and 0% growth don't matter (even if they did, she uses Arts, which are hardly very heavy) when she isn't supposed to be fighting.

IMO, a staff-user in Fire Emblem shouldn't qualify for LTLD unless they're outright bad at using staves (e.g L'arachel in Sacred Stones often gets flack for joining with a D staff rank in the midgame), but since Engage has tons of utility staves and its weapon rank system means any Qi Adept can use most of them at base, I don't believe it's possible for a staff user to be entirely worthless here, which disqualifies them from LTLD on principle.

"...people tend to love her for the exact reasons others hate her..."

That's the very definition of a Base-Breaking Character, no? "...loved by one section of the fanbase, and hated by the rest..."

Personally I didn't think there were many people who outright hated her. I've watched quite a few let's plays and the reaction was either liking her or being somewhat indifferent. I mean is her being peppy that big a deal to some people?

I've seen people being annoyed at her demeanor and her "Zappy" catchphrase among other things and honestly? As much as I adore Yunaka, I can see why some just don't think she's neat

But does being annoyed by her qualify for base breaking? I thought that was for more extreme views.

I can see an argument if there is sufficient division between "love her" and "find her annoying."

I personally haven't seen much hate for her, though I might be dealing with a limited slice of the fandom. I'm with Perenite in that most opinions I see range from love to "she's okay". Other examples there, like Alear and Goldmary, I see much more obviously conflicted opinions on.

given that i've also been in a sort of limited slice of the fandom, i don't entirely know myself that she can qualify even though her very personality is rife for that

where should i ask the fire emblem community's opinion regarding Yunaka?

I'm with Perentie and Big Klingy.

alright, i'll hold off adding yunaka to that entry for the time being

Honestly, there isn't any sort of wide-spread criticism of Engage censoring the underaged endings as far as I've seen, most of the people who are upset are purists or right wing chuds who flip the **** out over anything they even vaguely perceive as "censoring the original message".

I'm not even sure we should even have those examples up at all given it's mostly just a noisy minority talking about them in a negative way.

The only one that seems potentially valid is They Changed It, Now It Sucks!, since I've heard that the game has no paired endings except for Alear, so the entry should be focused around that aspect if it something that is been referenced as a problem.

Every time I've seen the censored endings mentioned it's been criticisms of the changes to at least a degree as a lot of them seem to have no justification. Not sure what amount is needed to qualify for a trope though.

^ That doesn't sound like censorship, it sounds like they were just changed. A lot of the time in the FE community, censorship is thrown around as a catch-all term for changes. If the entries talk about how the changes in the western version were controversial, than that is at least better, but again, these are claiming censorship, which feels different.

What do you think we should say the dividing line between change and censorship is? When you look at the changes to Engage, a majority of them are focused on sexual/suggestive things, and with a lack of any other likely motive for that pattern, it seems reasonable to assume that they wanted to tone down those elements to avoid potential offense, which falls into at least some definitions of censorship. It wasn't simply localizing concepts that don't translate well, but outright removing various suggestive aspects of some conversations and endings.

^^^^ I do think a They Changed It, Now It Sucks! for the lack of paired endings outside of Alear's case would be a valid addition if it's not already present.

^ Agreed. Right now, it only appears to be listed under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot. I'd argue that it's a better fit for They Changed It, Now It Sucks! (not sure a few paragraphs of text after the game is over counts as a "plot", but taking it away is certainly a "change").

I've definitely seen the lack of paired endings complained about in various portions of the fandom (certainly much more than the localization changes).

@ Perentine: Censorship gets used too much as a catch-all term for any changes of any kind. Its fine if people feel that the changes are a problem, but labeling them censorship is often agenda laced and is just "I don't like they changed it" from purists. In a case like this, I feel we would need more concrete information about why the change was made, or it would be something more overt.

For example: In FE Awakening, the summer art from the summer themed DLC has Tharja's art adjusted to have something cover her swimsuit. That is more overtly "censorship" because you can see the differences.

However, instead of labeling that as just "censorship", listing it as something like "Fans were unhappy when it was discovered Tharja's swimsuit art was changed in the localization, as it felt unnecessary and silly", then it explains and can properly communicate what the issue is; that it not only wasn't needed, but takes away from the original.

'Thats the only one I can directly think of off the top of my head, so a weird choice I know'

I think its fine to note that some fans disliked the script changes, but labeling it censorship in every case is not only inviting discourse where it isn't needed, but it isn't helpful when discussing it should issues arise still. People try censorship all the time in the series now so I can't take the claim seriously without legitimate reasons or very overt signs that it was the case.

^^ and ^ I think those are fine reasons to list it. The only complaints I have heard are that the lack of paired endings not only feels like a change with no reason for it, but that it hurts the character arcs of the cast, since each support plot not has no ending or impact.

I think at least one trope on the lack of paired endings is warranted, but I agree that we should be careful about entries mentioning "censorship", especially given the Fates localization drama (most of which, in my experience, WAS politically-motivated).

I haven't been in many FE circles, and my social media window is limited to Youtube, but so far the complaints about Engage's localization haven't seemed as frequent or vitriolic as Fates.

^ I think thats a valid example for sure.

And like you said, too many people use censorship as a catch-all and it invites too much politically motivated agenda to the work or discussion.

Unrelated but someone undid the hiding of the entries. I've messages them and directed them to this discussion, but they have not replied or acknowledged it at all.

Here would be the suggested start at least for They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: They removal of paired endings, save for whoever Alear choses to get with, has been criticized by players for being an unnecessary change that results in every characters supports becoming wasted plotlines, since the characters end up ignoring whatever potential development they received during and instead have the same ending regardless of who they interacted with. It sticks out heavily since not only was there no reason given for the change, but Engage is the first non-remake mainline title to not have paired endings of any kind outside of Alear, making it strange that they were removed completely outside of only Alear.

Since nobody has commented further, unless there is any issues, I was going to go ahead and start by removing the "Censorship" ones.

I think removing the "Engage has one of the most divisive casts in all of Fire Emblem" part is fine, it doesn't contribute to the discussion and feels forced.

For the Four Hounds: I think having the "most controversial" part removed is also good since it is fairly empty as a claim. I think there are potentially antagonists more controversial than them. The only concern with doing them individually is that it would make BBC longer, and mean possibly needing to move it to its own page, but otherwise I agree.

I've edited the entries to removed the forced blanket statements, and I've modified the Veyle (to make it more neutral, and focus on the evil split personality which I feel is the real source of contention) and Four Hounds (removed chained sinkhole in the "the GBA games" line and also changed it because they're not the only entries to use the Elite Four archetype, also added a section on gameplay) entries.

Reception is a little tricky in context, But from what I remember fates did sell nearly three times as many copies, so I don’t think we can plausibly claim the reception was that much worse.

Sales isn't really a measuring stick on broad acceptance by the fanbase, especially not comparing a several year old game to a game that's only a few months old. Not to mention Fates's sales are just weird to tabulate in general.

I wasn't thinking of sales when I removed that section, but it is fair to say time has passed that a consensus is possible. The issue I had moreso was that, as written, the entry felt like that part was included without fitting into the rest of the entry.

Anna's skill is mostly just a bonus to one of the best magic users in the game rather than something that holds her back or makes her bad. She'll be killing so many enemies with just a bit of investment that you'll make at least a little money as a bonus without even trying.

Anna's actually a really *bad* but that's not the point here. It takes somewhere within the ballpark of over 150 kills on average just to pay back the master and second seal you had to use to make her not completely dead on arrival. That's about as many kills as you might expect a genuinely good unit like Ivy to get across an entire playthrough.

EDIT: In any case, I'm willing to compromise and just zap it because I'm pretty sure LTL is only supposed to be for characters and Anna herself is too divisive to really count for widespread disdain where her quality as a unit is concerned.

Boucheron and Anna both have 1-2 range chain attack utility at base, which I feel disqualifies them. A true LTL needs to have essentially zero redeeming qualities. In the RD examples, Meg, Lyre, Fiona and Astrid don't really offer anything besides looting their skills for other people.

And I'd second adding Bunet. He and Jade suffer from the problem of being worse versions of Louis who join much later and at a point where he's already starting to fall off.

Framme and Vander absolutely shouldn't be there and I have no idea why they still are.

> Boucheron and Anna both have 1-2 range chain attack utility at base, which I feel disqualifies them.

That's just not very useful.

Bouch's chain attacks are adding 2 to 3 points of damage with good but not great reliability and enemies are pretty weak early on. For the few enemies that are actually dangerous (namely the hand axe boss trio) there's a good number of units who just can't safely attack into said bosses to try to trigger chain attack damage in the first place. Bouch might be able to help secure a kill or two in chapters 5 and 6, but that's probably it.

That said, I've seen it argued that Bouch is a pro with effective weapons if trained so I wouldn't advocate for calling him a LTLD in the first place.

Now 'Anna', on the other hand, is in a much worse spot because she joins during chapter 7, which is when unpromoted enemies start becoming just flat out weak and you have more and better options for chain attackers opening up. Also, deploys are tighter in chapters 7 and 8 and you start getting good (or at least good for a while) Brodian units so, "I am a warm body that you have space for" isn't applying anymore.

And I've seen you bring Timerra up, but by the time 'she' joins the unpromoted enemies are fodder and the promoted enemies just kick her ass, you have so many options for chain attacks that, "I can stand next to an enemy with a javelin and pretend I'm helping," is something a third of your army can replicate easily, and your builds and team should be reaching a point in development where chain attacks aren't adding anything regularly unless it's something from a Hero or a Warrior.

From what I've seen Framme is normally considered one of the best support units in the game, i.e. the standard Lucina user if Alear isn't going to use her.

I've heard mixed messages on Framme myself, but suffice to say she's at least probably not a LTL.

LTL has been redesigned to be focused around units that are extremely bad and almost unusable more then "This unit isn't that good". The current Laconic for it is: "When someone or something in a game is hated for being too bad."

Based on how Framme has good support viability, that seems to be enough to disqualify her.

If those are the standards now, I think only like Alfred, Bunet, and Jade are bad enough to count, given they're all frequent targets of derision for their quality as units. Timerra, despite being awful tends to get a pass with people for some reason.

Seconding Framme being absolutely not a LTL. She can heal, she's your only Chain Guarder for a while (and, without DLC, one of only three people with any access to Chain Guard before Chapter 14, and that's HUGE), and she's got supports with a lot of great units (Kagetsu is a big one, and Alear which stacks with their personal skill) which makes her a good Lucina user.

Vander at least does his job early on, he falls off but by then he's usually contributed a fair bit.

I'd argue Chain Attack utility instantly disqualifies Boucheron from being LTL. The entry focused on his growths, but they're actually not that relevant for him. He's always a solid option if you have a free deployment slot, for Chain Attacks alone, and deployment slots aren't exactly contested that early on.

Anna also has Hand Axe Chain Attack utility at base even if you don't reclass her. She's probably arguably a LTL for joining later than Boucheron and needing resources to be good, but I personally don't think she's worthless enough to quality.

Jade is the only one I agree with, since her strengths over Louis (Res and Speed) aren't higher than him by enough to make a difference, and on Maddening Louis is starting to fall off by the time she joins anyway.

Timerra I'd say probably counts. But due to her design and character she has a lot of defenders, so may provoke edit warring.

Only thing to consider with Timerra is that she has an entry on the Game Breaker tab as well.

I find watching enemies melt against Sandstorm to be a ton of fun, even if it takes a while to get Timerra to where she consistently activates it.

Timerra's entry on Gamebreaker absolutely needs to go. In general the gamebreaker page has a ton wrong with it that we need to hash out.

As a Timerra-enjoyer, I fully agree she's absolutely not a Game Breaker and second removing it. That's what I meant about the edit warring thing though.

Only thing to add would be if it is removed to link to here so people who disagree can provide feedback.

Just to chime in, I've no stakes in this other then having edited the entry because the format felt for it felt off. I chose not to purchase the game, but all only discourse I've seen is people saying it dropped in sales and thats it.

I do think some of the details from that entry could be moved over under Contested Sequel. A big part of Engage's struggles (perceived or otherwise) are that it's biggest flaws are the biggest strengths of its immediate predecessor in the series, which would seem to fit there.

And, just objectively, it is selling worse (even if the numbers aren't bad enough to be considered a "flop"), it's worse rated (quick check of IGN, Metacritic, Opencritic all have it lower while fan ratings tend to be much lower), and the whole "rushed out DLC" noted in the deleted entry is usually a sign that the company isn't pleased with how it's doing.

Maybe there's another YMMV trope that covers this, but entries like this are going to keep coming back as new tropers enter the discussion. Based on past situations like this for other games I've seen, writing it up as objectively and clearly as possible somewhere and then pointing out to the "bashers" who come along tends to be a good move. ("This is already covered under X Trope.")

Just my $.02.

I'll just say this: I feel like your reason of removing the entry being "Oh I've seen very few people say X so it doesn't count" sounds weak (idk if that's the right word for it) because you not seeing it a lot doesn't make it any less widespread.

For now though, I am not adding the entry back unless anyone else says otherwise.

Not to be mean, but I would think the burden of proof is on the person trying to argue the game is widely assumed to be a sales flop.

I was the one who added it, and I never intended to try and argue about the game flopping? It's more on me not being fluent on my wording and also basing this off of Twitter evidence since I've seen more people call it a flop here.

Okay so first off, I am extremely biased (it annoys me to no end that 3H succeeded entirely on its story despite mediocre gameplay by my standards of Fire Emblem), but I'd say be careful using Twitter for evidence, as that site rewards exaggerated opinions made with limited evidence.

It is, actually, Morion brings up the possibility of Alear turning into a dragon, and Alear dodges the comment since they have no idea at the time whether they can. Alear's dragonstone, the existence of which does prove they have the ability to turn into a dragon, is also a significant plotpoint.

Good to know then.

The only problem then is that it keeps being put in Wasted Character and not Wasted Plot, when it doesn't make sense to do so. Alear's dragon form isn't a seperate character but rather seems to be a plot point, and the entry is very "This would have been neat" instead of talking about a plot point that wasn't properly explored.

Current entry: Alear's dragon form. Many fans hoping for a dragon protagonist since Corrin were disappointed that while Alear being a dragon is relevant throughout the story, the form in question is only alluded to and never shown at all, even in flashbacks. While it is understandable from a story perspective to prevent the twist of Alear being a child of the Fell Dragon from becoming too obvious (in the Fell Xenologue, Alear recognizes Nel as a Fell Dragon the moment she transforms), this left many wondering what the point of Alear being made a dragon in the first place is if the very idea of being one is made physically impossible by the plot. When it is revealed that Tiki's ring does give said power, the fact that it is behind a DLC paywall soured many to that idea, stating that this should have been in the base game.

Here is my purposed change as of this moment: Alear potentially having a dragon form is an on and off plot-point that is brought up, but never fully resolved or shown during the game. Characters discuss the idea of Alear having one, and Alear isn't certain if they do even though they have a dragonstone, but the form never appears during the events of the game, and the plot point ends up not being important as the game goes on. While not showing it right away to avoid spoiling Alear being a child of the Fell Dragon makes sense, Alear being a dragon who can potentially transform feels like a dropped plot idea.

Just tossing my thoughts on it since it already is being put into the wrong trope, so the entry already needs to be fixed if it is going to remain.

One change to your proposed entry would be that when Alear is shown thinking about transforming they don't know about their Dragonstone yet (since Veyle has it and Alear doesn't remember that they gave her their stone). They simply note that Lumera was able to transform, and how it means they might be able to as well but they don't know one way or another or how to even try.

Thanks for the information.

Here is an adjusted version: Alear's dragon form is a recurring topic in the game, but one that never ends up being given a proper resolution, instead being dropped as the game goes on. Multiple characters discuss the idea, Alear questions if they can do it, and Lumera being able to do so is often referenced, but while Alear doesn't initially due to not knowing how to, and not having a Dragonstone, the game never resolves the plot point, and instead focuses on other things about Alear. While potentially done to avoid revealing Alear is the child of the Fell Dragon, the game's repeated discussion for a chunk of the game, and then dropping it, feels like something that should have been given a proper conclusion.

I wouldn't say multiple characters discuss it or that its a recurring topic. That scene with Morion and Alear thinking about it right after is all that is done on the topic (unless there is some scene in the Emblem bond dialogs that I haven't seen that mentions it).

Basically Alear transforming is only directly talked about in that one scene. The player is left to make the connections later regarding why Alear can't transform without the characters explicitly addressing it (i.e. we learn in Bond supports that Veyle and Zelestia cannot transform because they no longer have their Dragonstones, and so we know Alear is in the same situation).

Thats good to know. Having not played Engage, I'm using what information I can find for it, so I don't know the full context of the conversation. If anyone has suggestions for how it can be worded then, I'd appreciate it. Mainly it needs to be moved to "Wasted a good plot", but the entry wasn't written in a way that matches what would qualify, so if it counts is a different issue.

At the very least, here is another version: Alear possibly having a dragon form is a briefly discussed idea when talking to Morion, suggesting some kind of potential significance later into the story. Despite this, and Alear having a dragonstone being revealed later into the game, the idea that Alear has a form at all is never followed-up on, making the mention of it feel like it was potentially setting up something bigger.

I'm not an expert, but I'd argue that for Marth at least the existence of Super Smash Brothers has given him access to a lot more people than just veterans. I also recall at least one interview where developers stated drawing in new, younger players was indeed a goal of Engage. They also talked about how they wanted the game to be very different from Three Houses, which for better or worse they certainly succeeded in.

As for how all this relates to the trope, I'm divided, especially as someone who enjoyed Three Houses but also enjoyed this game, the characters and (for what it was) the story. I also see how there were missteps, but I'm not sure how well they qualify for Uncertain Audience. From the interviews at least it seems they had an audience in mind, but the decline in sales means they may not have effectively drawn that audience in or kept their interest.

The problem I have with an Uncertain Audience is its very presence on a work's page feels like stealth-bashing.

The Laconic section for Uncertain Audience is "What's the target audience again? The work doesn't seem to know.". As Perenite said above, this game does have a clear target audience and it's been stated in interviews. (New, younger players) Just because a game wasn't as successful with the target audience as the creators hoped doesn't mean they didn't have one. The game also was a success with an unintended audience, veteran Fire Emblem fans, but I'm not sure if that fits into any trope.

Currently the only entry in the series with an Uncertain Audience entry is Tokyo Mirage Sessions, and the reasoning there is a lot clearer: marketing wasn't clear whether they were going for SMT fans, Fire Emblem fans, or idol fans, and notably that game was a legitimate Box Office Bomb. Engage was absolutely not one, as much as Youtubers like to be doomers about its sales (because videos like that get clicks).

The game doesn't claim friendship with the Emblem of Foundations was Sombron's goal, it is a being Sombron had a bond with yes but he treats them more like a ideal to follow than a friend. His desire to reunite is explained as Sombron desiring the Emblem to recognize how far he had come without them, basically he sought validation of some sort from his idol. Revenge on his home world was his other ambition, but he did not need Zero Emblem for that, the power he had gained from the 12 Emblems had given him all the power he wanted.

Okay then, new question: Is Sombron a Complete Monster? Based on what you’ve said, it seems as though he is in the same boat is Emperor Belos. They both lost the only person that they ever cared about, and have been trying for thousands of years to reunite with them. The difference between them is the Sombron never found the Emblem of Foundations, while Belos repeatedly found his brother, Caleb, repeatedly. However, whenever they met, Caleb disapproved of Belos, or, Phillip’s action, which is why Phillip would try to “correct” his brother, even though, in reality, there was nothing to correct. Belos is trying to “save” his brother, but there is nothing to save, which is ultimately what makes him the bad guy. Is there a deeper difference that I am not understanding?

There is apparently a dedicated thread for proposing examples of Complete Monster linked on said trope's page, so perhaps this isn't the place to decide it. I can say Sombron seems to fit. He has some complexity to him, even traits that could in theory be sympathetic, however due to how he dealt with these things and how utterly against he is of even the idea he was wrong means that he isn't meant to be seen as sympathetic. At most he might be pitiable, due to how he squandered what could have been a fulfilling life for the sake of a obsession with a being he never even properly understood. But can a pitiable person be a true Complete Monster? Again, that may be for the thread to decide.

Leif gives Axe Prof at bond level 2. That's 100 Bond Fragments in the Arena. That's nothing in terms of investment.

You sent me a PM continuing the argument, but I'm not going to debate with you in P Ms because that would be obscenely pointless. I started this topic for a reason.

Etie's personal skill being terrible is definitely true, but a lot of personal skills in Engage are not great so she's far from alone there. Even with Alcryst's skill triggered, Etie's strength growth is so high that at higher levels he still doesn't catch up.

None of this is relevant, but even if it was you left out Alcryst's other good supports (Citrinne, Lapis, and Fogado) to focus on pointless ones (Hortensia and Seadall are support units and have no use for extra hit, Diamant's own personal patches his own hit and Diamant is a middling unit himself) and ignored that Etie also supports some good units herself such as Panette, Fogado, and Lapis. Additionally, Panette actually does like Dodge because she needs to get hit to set up her usual Vantage/Wrath set.

Also, Etie's support type also gives hit, and it caps out at 5% less than Alcryst's.

Etie's dex is fine, why are you insisting she can't hit anything? Hit is also extremely fixable in this game.

Also, you're carrying on like Etie's slow, when Alcryst is not much faster than her. Comparing Alcryst to Warrior Etie both at 10/20 (which is going to be near late game), he only has 3 more speed than her. It doesn't matter whether you go with Tierre or Warrior Alcryst, since Warrior has a slightly higher growth but Tierre has a higher base by 1 point.

Compared at 10/20/10 (which is probably unrealistically high even at Endgame, but oh well), the Tierre Alcryst is still only 3 points of speed higher while Warrior has inched up to 4.

I don't know where this idea came from that Alcryst is super fast, but he really isn't. He's mildly speedy, but to compare him to an actually fast unit like Chloe, she has 4 more speed than him at 10/20 in Wyvern (which isn't even her fastest option), while Merrin at the same internal level as a 10/20 Alcryst just leaves him completely in the dust by 7 points.

You're missing the point that people are realizing they gave Etie an unfair break when the game first came out. She's still not great, but nowadays she's more considered an average character rather than one of the worst in the game, which is how she was originally treated.

...And largely that's because we stopped focusing on the very things you're focusing on and started considering the things she can actually do well.

So. Don't use her basic class option. Git gud and put your units in good classes.

"You're missing the point that people are realizing they gave Etie an unfair break when the game first came out. She's still not great, but nowadays she's more considered an average character rather than one of the worst in the game, which is how she was originally treated."

Seconded. The entire argument on whether or not she's better than Alcryst is irrelevant and I shouldn't have added it, the point is she used to be one of the most hated units and opinions on her improved as the game aged, hence "rescued from the scrappy heap."

I added that under Rescued from the Scrappy Heap. The reasoning had nothing to do with reclassing making them good. It's more to do with players gradually discovering and appreciating what they bring to the table in the earlygame and long-term (Etie oneshots fliers and can catch up to Alcryst in Strength easily, it doesn't matter that Alfred gets doubled and has bad offense because he's a solid tank).

I've just seen a lot more Youtubers defending them after the game had been out for a few months while both were knee-jerk dismissed as "bad units" in the early days.

I dunno about Alfred (only defending I saw from from a Mekkah vid that was kinda riddled with fallacious arguments), but I do agree about Etie.

A bit off topic but Timerra is generally agreed to be bad? My impression has been she's pretty amazing with Sandstorm if you invest in her Dexterity.

She's heavily reliant on Sandstorm triggers to do good damage and it tends to only be endgame where her Dex gets high enough for it to be reliable.

I really love Timerra as a character and enjoy using her, but even I admit it takes a lot of work to make her good, and many other characters can do the same or better with that investment. Hector can turn her Build problem into a strength, but that's paid DLC.

Yeah, I agree with Swordmaster and Sniper, and the write-ups look good. I do think Bunet is definitely a low-tier letdown. He's generally considered the worst unit in the game.

I'm confused, do we have to remove both examples then?

Unless you can argue a good case for leaving them up, but "he doesn't grow very well past the early game" is not a good reason. The bit, "even someone like Alfred does a better job as an early game cavalier than him," is just flat wrong, though, and I need to know where you've been going that you see people treating him like a joke. I don't even see Gamefaqs mocking him like that, and players on Gamefaqs are terrible.

EDIT: Here's a discussion page I started about him on Gamefaqs a week after the game came out: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/380177-fire-emblem-engage/80327747

The general opinion is he falls off, but he's great early on.

The rings do allow for experimentation afaik, so maybe there's merit in it being removed

If it does, make sure there's a section for the opposite version though

Where do I add this segment, and what trope does it belong to?

• The Avatar worship is more egregious here than ever before, with everybody, NO exceptions, reacting over-the-top with apologies upon meeting the Divine Dragon and realizing who they were talking to.

Character shilling perhaps? Though that is more about characters talking about how great someone is rather than specifically apologizing to them or treating them with reverence.

On the other hand, I feel like noting that not everyone in the game reacts with apologies upon meeting Alear, just quite a number of them (offhand I don't recall Yunaka doing so for instance). Also, their reverence does make sense given most of the people think of Alear as a deity. It's not exactly Avatar worship so much as worship of an actual figure of worship in their cultures. They don't actually know Alear as a person at first, and so tend to filter everything they say and do through the lens of what they were taught or thought the Divine Dragon to be.

Sorry. I was watching Mangs's stream, and I really do think there is some over-the-top apologies until at least Timerra.

Sounds more like the chat and perhaps Mangs exaggerating things. In Brodia for instance the only one who gives big apologies is Alcryst (who did almost cause a diplomat incident), heck his retainers are openly critical of Alear in their first meeting, while Diamant and Morion are cordial to casual.