Jump to content

Erick

Member
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Erick

  • Birthday 12/03/2000

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Mathematics and Physics

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Genealogy of the Holy War

Member Badge

  • Members
    Arvis (Cipher)
  • Staff
    Leanne

Allegiance

  • I fight for...
    Jugdral

Recent Profile Visitors

1061 profile views
  1. Would you prefer the animations to be just like they were in previous games? That is, character portraits with different facial expressions only. If not that, than what? Also, do you believe the voice acting in the game is any good (disregarding the pauses)?
  2. Well, I do not see how them being on enemies would change the way I view them much. For me, most of the time they are just a bother, regardless on who they are. I never liked the Great Shield on enemies in FE4, for an example. However, that alone does not make the game unplayable. I will not cherry-pick to such a level. While it is not my favourite mechanic, I can tolerate it with no issues. I still find them annoying because it is an inconsistency I have no control of. Of course, I would never want a Fire Emblem game where there is no inconsistency. In fact, chance is a big aspect of Fire Emblem. The growth rates and the chances to hit, avoid, and crit are a few of the examples. I can see why players, such as yourself and many others, like the extra chance because it gives more possibilites, making it more exciting. I enjoy some of the inconsistency myself. Take avoid-tanking for an example. Speed is my favourite stat and I love speedy units. You cannot damage what you cannot hit after all. I love building up fast units and see them avoid every attack. That is one of the reasons I really liked Alert Stance+ and Deviant Avo on Three Houses. The fact is, I can control this. I know whenvever I wait I will get +30 of avoidance and that I will get even more avoidance once my hit points are low enough. I prefer games that give a challange and complexity without using this random chance which I cannot predict. However, this is the least of my worries. Conquest is one of my favourite games gameplay-wise and as long as the game has everything else which I have listed it is going to be my new favourite game. We are talking about perfection, though. My perfect Fire Emblem game would not have that, but it would still be my favourite as long as it had everything else. In fact, I am most likely going to sound like the most obnoxious guy to you now and you probably think this is one of the dumbest reasons to dislike a game, but the nomenclature of weapons is actually a much, much bigger issue for me. I do not like the fact that in Fates, for an example, we have lances and naginatas. The naginata is still a lance, is it not? A javelin is, too, a lance. So is a spear. Why we do have killing edges when we have killer lances and axes? This striggers me. A lot. I want everything to be smooth and clean. Whenever I solve a Math or Physics problem (I am studying to become a mathematician, by the way), I always write it in a very specific way. I always clean my room and I have a specific place and order for everything. I always carefully place food on my plate in such a way that it "fits visually" for me and nothing gets "too mixed". I might seem crazy and I probably am, to some extent at least. Personally, I would use new names to represent swords, lances, axes, tomes, bows, daggers, and anything else which can be used to kill living things. I would have three types of swords: rapiers, broadswords, and claymores. The rapiers would be the sword swords, that is, low might and high accuracy, just like swords in the weapon triangle. The broadswords would be the lance swords, that is, average might and accuracy, just like lances in the weapon triangle. You get the point. The same would apply to lances and axes, that is, three types for each. We could have spoontons, partisans, and scythes for lances. I do not really know what I would do with the axes. I just know the current nomenclature really triggers me. It bothers me way more than Aegis or Pavise. Do not think I am mentally ill, please. I honestly should have listed this before, but I am aware almost no one thinks this is an actual problem.
  3. I can see why some people like the gameplay of Fire Emblem Fates, especially the one seen in Conquest. In fact, even I enjoy it. I actually would not mind the pair-up system of Fire Emblem Fates even though I do not believe it is ideal. I should have mentioned that instead of only rejecting Awakening's. I can totally see your point, but I believe combat arts, supports, and a small number of skills are already enough for the game to work. I believe most skills are not reliable enough to actually use them in strategies, such as skills like Aegis and Pavise. However, I do not mind reliable ones. Therefore, my perfect Fire Emblem game would not have them. I simply do not see myself coming up with strategies that rely on these skills working. Meanwhile, I have complete control over combat arts and supports as long as I execute them correctly. I believe the gameplay mechaninc which you have mentioned would work as long as it is not as broken as it is in Awakening and as long as it is needed to beat the chapters or at least play the game optimally. I definitely do not want to have two paired up units who can solo entire maps like we see in Awekening. I believe Fates managed to take this broken system and make it consistent enough for me to like it.
  4. It has to be dark. That is, it has to have gore, famine, genocide, rape, and everything else that comes with war. War is monstruous and people are slaughtered. Show the player those aspects. Show them soldiers removing the bodies of their dead comrades from a filthy, bloody soil filled with exposed organs, maggots, flies, and broken weapons soaked in blood. Make them feel disturbed. Good voice acting to really demonstrate the feelings of the characters. A dark story where the "bad guys" are not evil just because they want to or because they are possesed. No one truly has evil intentions when they ascend power, they simply have a different point of view or get corrupted with power along the way since humans are flawed creatures. Therefore, make the "bad guys" have good qualities. Also, do not make them all dark priests. The concept of "black" or "darkness" should not be directly associated with evil. I believe Edelgard and Sephiran are examples of good "vilains". It has to be linear and must not have grinding maps. It has to kill off likeable, playable characters without warning the player and without compromising the rest of the game gameplay-wise. It has to limit the player somehow so that the maps are designed with a specific diversity of characters in mind. That is, at most, Sacred Stones branching promotions. It has to have the canto or even super canto mechanic. No ambush spawns. The player has to be able to forge and repair weapons. Combat arts based on weapon usage. It must have branching paths or different routes since the very beginning in order for the game to have replay value. Make the nations based on real ones and make the people from that place resemble each other. That is, no nation with a disgustingly large variety of hair, eye, or skin colour. It is fine to have people with odd hair colours, such as green or blue, as long as they have their own nation. The nation that resembles Germany must have German names, the nation that resembles Japan must have Japanese names. If the main character leads an army, the game must have generic units at the player's disposal which grant bonus experience to be used at the base in order to give the feeling that the player is indeed commanding an army and not a small group of people against an entire nation. That, or at least feature generic units alongside them during combat, just like Three Houses has with nearly every enemy even if they are not commanding a battalion. The battalion feature, alongside gambits, is also nice. Have all units wear headgear during combat animations. What in the world is an armoured knight doing with the most vulnerable part of his body completely exposed above all that heavy armour? It looks ridiculous. The weapon triangle has to be present. Preferably, the one from the Tellius series with at least a boost of 20% to avoid/hit. It must have meaningful support conversations. However, there is no need to have a lot of them if they do not lead to something interesting. Also, there is no need for everyone to have support conversations with each other. It must have different bases along the course of the game. It also has to limit the player's movement around the world map if there is one at all, which I believe there should not be. A small and simple amount of skills is enough. There is no need to overdo it like in Awakening, Fates, or Three Houses. Dear God, do not even get me started on Heroes. No pair-up mechanic, especially not the one from Awakening. No avatar.
  5. Erick

    Muhammad

    Looks like King Chagall somehow got saved twice.
  6. Does the game ever tell the player who won the duel to be the commander of the Royal Knights?
  7. Well, I will gladly get speed over magic. I am pretty sure I will be dealing more damage by doubling.
  8. I started playing Radiant Dawn for the second time to fully experience the game and somehow my Micaiah has capped speed at Lv. 18. I actually noticed how disgustingly slow she was on my first playthrough and then checked her speed growth rate, which is only 35%. She starts with 7 speed, which means 13 out of 17 level ups gave her speed. The RNG Gods have blessed this playthrough or perhaps they might have cursed me elsewhere...
  9. Conquest. That is a good point. It seems you might have an image of me which I do not show myself, but it is true that I did not say anything good about the newer games until now. I actually like Fates' gameplay a lot. I do dislike the rest of it, though. Now about the story, could you please tell me why?
  10. Do you not think Geneology of The Holy War has a good story and that it would have been presented better had the devopers had better hardware to work on?
  11. If not for Awakening the franchise would be dead. What was introduced in Awakening that saved the franchise? Waifus were. People love waifus and they loved Awakening because of it. It was this very aspect that made the series popular. This is what newer people were looking for in Awakening. You perhaps might not have looked for this aspect specifically, but a lot of people did. Most of the newer fans came because of it. If Awakening were like the previous entries it would not have been as successful as it was. I am saying that the most of the newer fans like the idea of the dating mechanics, not the community as a whole, since this is the very reason that divides us in older fans and newer fans.
  12. Excuse me? Do you not agree this is what people like when you see the community? I do not think whether that is true or not is up to debate. There is a reason these things saved the franchise. Do you seriously think people look for a tactic game in Awakening or Fates?
  13. Fire Emblem was about the story and gameplay, which means it wanted to have a good story with good maps to play on and good strategies to use. However, people did not want that. Not everyone finds strategic games interesting. People do like anime waifus, which is exactly what was introduced in Awakening and expanded on Fates. The newer entries do retain aspects of the previous ones, that is, they are still tactical role-playing games, but it is overshadowed by the fanservice. Older fans did not like this approach and were disgusted by it because it changed how Fire Emblem was. Most people who play Fire Emblem nowadays play it for the anime waifus, characters, and the shippings they can do. The developers added fanservice which sold, thus saving the franchise. However, it did not only save it, it changed it as well.
×
×
  • Create New...