Erik Twice
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Erik Twice
-
-
One of the first things I heard about Genealogy of the Holy War's plot was the apparent abundance of incest but after beating the game, I can't actually think of that many instances of it on my playthrough:
- Alvis and Dreide are half-siblings
- Claude and Sylvia are hinted to be siblings, though I think that ,oficially, they are not.
- Elsthan and Lachesis' relationship isn't explored in depth in the game, but given Lachesis partner tells her "He knows" on the last chapter, it's seriously hinted. Is there any information on treasure books or anything about this? I'm really curious.
So that's three, which is still a lot. But you can pair first cousins like Shannan and Lackhe, right? So I guess that if that counts there's far more incest in the game.
Thoughts? Anything I'm missing?
-
I don't think it's awkard or long, it's both memorable and a perfect translation of the Japanese original. It's precise too, as it captures the main themes of the games far better than something like "Crusaders' Bloodlines" or "Crusaders' Chronicles" would.
It's important to note that the game is not as concerned about events (Chronology) as it is about the people involved in them (Genealogy). The focus is not on the Holy War, but on the people that were, are and will be shaped by it. It's about how Serlis is bound to follow the steps of his father, just like his father was bound to follow those of his forefathers. The historical aspect is a driver for the personal side, which I think is pretty integral to Fire Emblem as a series.
There are also some issues with Chronology or Crusaders since they are refer to different things in the context of the game (Judgral Chronology, Sigurd is not a crusader, etc.) and they sound awfully clichéd, IMHO.
-
Yeah, I think the Serenes page covers everything. Thanks guys :)
-
It's very likely this has been asked before, but I can find any info on this so I created the thread.
I know there were some changes made to the gameplay of the Western versions of the game, but I need to confirm it for an article. Which of those are true?
- Enemies have generally lower stats in the Western version
- Some chapters were redesigned to be a bit easier (In the second to last map, only one door opens at a a time instead of two, for example)
- Experience gain is much higher in the Western versions.
Anything else you know about this? I would really like to know :)
-
I often see you dropping to low HP when attacking certain enemies, do you have to restart often because of bad hit rolls and such?
-
But then there's so many ways you could make this game "balanced". [...] How is any of this sensible? Especially considering Holyn's recruitment?
We are going in circles at this point, I've already explained my take on the arena and offered an explanation for its inclusion in the game which I feel is consistent with a well-known trend. There's no more for me to say, and there's no explanation that can satisfy both the three or four takes that have been discussed here, my opinion is what it is
-
yes, and the problem is that you presented it as a fact.
Not unless you think that anything not prefaced by "In my opinion" is being presented as fact. ;)
-
Unless you know of the intent of the designers, all you're posting is your interpretation, which is worth about as much as mine or Integrity's.
Of course it's my interpretation, what else would it be?
Like, they don't have the same raw stsat parameters but who cares? The enemy is still dead
As I said, if you use the arena, you'll be crushing ants no matter what kind of units you are using because the arena breaks the game, it isn't designed to handle so much experience being poured into the units. The game's enemies cannot hold a handle to a promoted Lachesis or other similarly powerful units if they come around by Chapter 3.
-
as it stands, though, once you start going faster taking out arena blitzing only accentuates the gap between footies and mounts even more - footies should be grateful for any resource they can get
Using the arena means that calvary can compensate their lack of strenght in combat by being overleveled while infantry gains nothing from becoming even stronger than they already are and can't compensate their reduced movement.
Keep in mind this: You are reaching level 20 with the frail Lachesis by Chapter 3. The gap between your units and the enemies is so absurdly large at that point that strategical considerations are meaningless: You are crushing ants.
if i came across as being particularly aggressive i apologize, i honestly didn't mean it - i haven't /effortposted about fire emblem in probably a whole year so i might be coming across stronger than i intend
Don't worry, I'm sure I also appear drier than I intend to ;)
but the thing is, "the game has good balance" isn't a subjective statement - the characters can be measured against one another and found wanting and they do, in spades. fe4 has pretty crappy balance in gen 1, and some of the hokiest balance in the whole series once you get to gen 2, and you're arguing that just removing the arena from the equation makes it a pretty well balanced game, which i totally disagree with because i don't see how it's possible to come to that conclusion.
I don't think there's any objective method to determine how balanced or a not a game is, really. Any comparison between units is going to be subject of debate and is going to be rooted on the personal understanding each person has of the game.
The reason I feel the game is well balanced without the arena is because I've played it that way and found that the game worked well, that the enemies were dangerous without the proper tactics and that the challenges used by the level designers (Magicians, big formations of enemies, Brave and Sleep weapons, etc.) are well paired to the power my units had. I did not see my units plough through the enemy lines, they were not powerful enough for that.
Just consider the following. I didn't promote Lachesis until Chapter 5 despite being one of my favourite characters. The power the player has in the No-Arena game is much lower than if you use it, low enough to make the game challenging and meaningful.
-
I don't know why you are being so aggressive dude, we just have different takes on a game.
But no, the fact that Holyn is unlockable through the arena does not mean the developer intends the player to use it as much as possible, otherwise the game would have been designed with it in mind. Similarly, I don't think the trading system is "a piece of shit that makes no sense mechanically", it's clearly intended to limit but not outright forbid trading by imposing a tax because there's a lot of power in the game and free trading could be dangerous.
But I don't know, man, it's just how I see the game. You are free to have your own take on it.
-
Well, I really don't think the game is in a bad place once you remove the Arena from the equation. Sure, Holsety giving Levin a 85% dodge chance is not handled that well despite the game's constant use of time pressures but I think it's good enough for me. At least I can't say I'm not finding it reasonably challenging.
As far as the Arena being an intended part of the design, well, it IS part of the game, it wasn't forced into it by an outside hand and has been there from the beginning of the series. But it is not part of actual level and unit design, the enemy placement and strenght does not match that of an arena game but of a game in which the Arena is not used too much.
The reasons behind this are very complex, but I feel it has a mainly self-regulatory function as it mirrors that found in other Japanese games. It's a bit like grinding and credit feeding. You are not supposed to, but the option is there for those that may want to use it irrespective of its effect in the game, aren't very skilled or continued after character deaths. I'm personally not very fond of this kind of mechanics but they do have an explanation.
(i cannot belabor this point enough; regardless of the balance if you don't factor the arena you have no fucking money and money is the only way to trade)
Well, you are not supposed to trade a lot, but to focus on saving villages, getting the right person to kill the boss for the weapon drop and using Dew to steal from those suspiciously rich barbarians.
-
so is the game well balanced or poorly balanced? if your argument is that the game is well balanced contingent on ignoring a part of the game that costs you the player very little time to use then c'mon buddy :P
Well, that's the thing, really. As I see it, "Genealogy, the Arena game" is awfully balanced and all the things you've said are true because the game wasn't really designed around all that extra experience. But if you don't mind a variant of sorts, you can rule out the arena and play the game closer to its intended design, which is actually balanced.
Not sure if that makes sense but it's what I think ;)
-
And I don't know what you mean by abuse the arena... considering there is a limited number of fights and they don't take up any turns I feel that the arena in FE4 isn't really abusable in the same way as in other games.
Seven times per character, every chapter is enough to break the game, sadly. The game isn't designed to account for all that extra experience nor that extra influx of money, though the latter is not as important.
Seriously, if you guys are using the Arena, I can totally understand why you think the game is poorly balanced because using it completely destroys any semblance of balance it may have had. It's the root cause of practically every issue you guys have with the game. For example:
1) Feeding Cuan experience isn't an issue. Why? Because you are using the arena for experience
2) Dew has nothing besides his money giving utility. But his money-giving utility would be vital if you aren't using the arena to earn cash!
3) Promoted Lachesis at Chapter 3. Why are you able to promote such a frail character so easily? Because you can train her on the arena.
4) Azel isn't useful beyond killing armor. But armor is only easy to kill without Azel because your units have a much higher level thanks to the arena.
I'm not saying you are "wrong" for using it, but I do think it's the entire reason you find the game so easy. Despite the limitations the arena is antithethical to Genealogy of the Holy War's design and completely breaks it.
And Levant, I don't know why you are so keen on regurgitating what other people have said about the game but it's kind of pointless. You haven't played the game, you can't contribute to a discussion of its balance, c'mon :V
-
I think people are very unfair towards some aspects of the design of Genealogy of the Holy War and I can't help but think that some of the most common complaints, like the idea that calvary has a huge advantage over foot units are just patently false.
Let's take the first generation as an example. What units are weak because they aren't mounted? Certainly not Brigid, Levin, Ayra or Dew and I would rather take Holyn over the likes of Noish, Alec or Midir despite not having a mount There are simply more factors in the game that make an unit good or bad than having a horse.
For example, Azel has fairly mediocre stats. But he's a ranged magical unit that attacks twice in a game in which most units have no resistance to magic and there are no other wizards to take his spot in the team until the game is midway through. That makes him an useful unit, even if he's fairly slow and weak to direct hits.
One should also notice that other than Sigurd, every other mounted unit of the first generation has some kind of drawback, they are not just "foot units but better". Kaga is a very sharp designer and realizes
1) Noish has mediocre stats, weak skills, attacks only once
2) Alec has mediocre stats, low strenght.
3) Lex hits hard, but lacks Pursuit and is better suited to a defensive role, which beggets more units around him.
4) Finn starts with lances against axe-infested fields and needs care to grow into a solid (but not great) unit.
5) Midir has worse stats than Jamka on every single aspect, needs more babysitting.
5) Cuan is (intentionally) more powerful than other units but leaves halfway through. He's like a different take on the Jeigan archetype, serving a similar role on the game.
6) Ethilin is similar to Cuan, but for different reasons.
It's also difficult to take the huge armies of Genealogy with only those horsemen, you are bound to get ganged up by a superior force it. It's better to wait a turn and get Ayra ready to hit than to plough through and restart because getting hit by the enemy boss or the wizard gets Alec by any other unit.
Of course, some players abuse the Arena so I wouldn't be surprised if they think this or that unit is overpowered. The arena breaks the game but that's hardly something exclusive to Genealogy :V
I won't deny that the advantage mounts had over infantry was always a thing, but it's like you said - they're better in FE4 than in any other game by far. The only other game I could think of that had anywhere near this level of mount dominance was Path of Radiance (and maybe Binding Blade).
How can you know that if you haven't played it?
-
The last patch fixed the incredibly overpowered trade routes and that makes the game much more tolerable but it still has the same issue: After turn 100, the game spirals out of control because expanding is the best possible tactic and there's no actual drawback to it or alternative to it.
Concerning personality, yeah, CivBE has none and I doubt it ever will. Our only hope at this moment is to have someone mod the SMAC factions in, which will inevitably happen.
-
Given the previous game was released on the 3DS and was very successful, it would be kind of weird to release it in another console. The development costs of handheld games is also lower than for desktop consoles which is why so many JRPGs and other niche games that would be expensive to develop for moved to the DS.
-
Stealing technologies might be useful at first, but once you hit the industrial age it's a 50% gamble that takes 60 or more turns to pay off so generally you want to steal a couple easy techs with your first spy to raise his level and then hit city states.
-
Doubt you'll find it for the price you want, it had an extremely limited print run and it's sought after. I would comission a repro cart.
-
First off, games are not cheap. Depending on what kinds of games you like (old vs new, digital vs retail), the price of games can be anywhere from $5 to $60. $60 is a very significant amount of money.
That's a bit like saying that eating is expensive because you only like to eat out at your city's most popular restaurants.
Sure, if you refuse to play games that aren't brand new, that have digital versions, that are indie or released through Humble Bundle and you absolutely must play them on release day instead of watiing three months for the inevitable price drop or Steam sale then you'll spend a lot of money on games. But you will spend a lot of money not because games are expensive but because of the rules you are imposing on yourself.
And even if not, try the following scenario: There are two games. They are (presumably) the same cost and the same quality, but one is slightly longer (perhaps an extra level).
You can only afford one. Which will you get?
Does it really matter?
Of all the things I might look for in a game, lenght just isn't important. It's isn't a decisive factor, I won't buy a game because it's longer. It's not a concern to me because I have access to more games than I can actually play.
-
The point of my argument was that there has to be a cutoff point for the quality/length/cost ratio that you would pay for. It was an interesting question though, right?
Of course, there's a point in which money enters into play but what I'm saying is that most people won't ever reach it because games are cheap and chances are that long, poddling 80 hours game with inmense replay value will sit on a shelf with a hundred other unplayed games.
There's a point which the limitation is not the monetary expensive but interest and time. Most gamers have enough money and enough games that comparing the lenght/cost ratio of a game makes as much sense to them as valuing their food on its caloric intake. It's simply not the main limitation and probably not even an important one.
After all, if Commandos costs 60 cents, Thief II costs 2 euros and Railroad Tycoon three, does their lenght really matter that much?
-
Oh, I realize now that I loaded a state and had Sylvia killed before thove. Oh well. BTW, who are you pairing brigid with?
Based on purely aesthethic reasons I'm pairing her with Lex. I suppose Jamka or any other guy I have unpaired would be better but I do like Lex a lot so why not.
-
In Castellón, Spain. :3
That's why my English isn't good xDYo nací allí :D
I live in Madrid
-
Wouldn't the jealousy system have allowed Fuey and Lewyn to fall in love without killing Sylvia? Fury has the higher priority so Sylvia wouldn't get any points and she would still be alive. What's done is done now though.
I didn't quite understand how the Jealousy system works, so I didn't try to use it but it should work since apparently you can funnel Sylvia's love points into Fury if you keep them like this:
SF
L
But that seemed difficult and, hey, she was annoying enough that getting her temporally killed would serve her right ;)
-
I've got one for ya. There's a book - the best book in the world, I promise - but it's only one page long and costs as much as an average book. Will you buy it?
I don't see how the question relates to the quote, sorry.
So...where's all the incest?
in NES and SNES Era
Posted
Oh, true! I didn't think of it from that angle. It's incredible how much backstory Kaga and his team created and didn't end up in the game.