Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Pronouns

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Thracia 776

Recent Profile Visitors

393 profile views
  1. Since Tellius is pretty evidently a re-imagining of Jugdral in a lot of ways, it's not entirely impossible that there may be similarities between the two intentionally.
  2. The weird thing about all the irish names in the kaga games is that kaga often spells them unusually, which lead to the fandom for the longest time thinking that Chulainn was Holyn (ホリン) (this is how it's specifically spelled in Japanese in the game) since this is a different spelling from How Chu Chulainn is spelled from in other things, (クー・フーリン) but his name is in fact supposed to be Chulainn. There're some other characters affected by this but I can't remember any others right now. This spelling oddity is a common theme throughout basically everything by kaga, such as the unusual spelling of "fire emblem" in katakana (ファイアーエムブレム) as well as spelling the word "mercenary" differently in Berwick Saga (マセネーリ) compared to Thracia (マシナリ) for some reason
  3. Personally the status staff mechanic is kind of annoying to me in fates because the only way to gaurantee not getting hit is either dodge lmao or have knowledge on the game's ai and realize that status staff users prioritize attacking over using staves. Honestly it makes the status staves in thracia seem incredibly overblown when in fates you can never manually remove debuffs aside from just waiting and the hexing rod will always last until the map ends. It's not a big deal overall but I just prefer the games where status staves aren't always rng
  4. There's only 4 FE games where 1 range bow counter exists as a mechanic that isn't specific to certain weapons, I didn't count fates because i wasn't even aware that was an obtainable player skill (point blank is mostly a "the enemy is allowed to break the rules of the game" skill anyway). Of course Gaiden and Shadows of Valentia count as separate games because they were released as separate games. I think to an extent, permadeath is a product of the time that the original FE games were made. At that point, people didn't really bother hyper optimizing games or feel the need to try to find every single thing in the video game, partially because they had to figure it out mostly or entirely alone. Now that gaming culture in general has changed, largely due to the internet, people more often will know how to get through things and will see more things in the game since they know they're there. As a result, people just view losing a unit as a failstate since really it's far past what you would want to continue without in most games. (Though I know XCOM manages to do permadeath but I'm not sure how it compares to FE). I just don't think something like permadeath does as well today as it does then because the way people play games has fundamentally changed, people don't want to feel like they've lost something if they know they don't have to feel that way. I think the nature of FE games also adds to this, as the characters are actual people with personalities unlike xcom where I believe all your units are just generic mooks. However, I still think that casual mode is only a bandaid solution to this and the game needs to fundamentally change rather than just give you the option to remove the mechanic that the games aren't designed around as much anymore but also are still balanced around. I feel like, to an extent, sometimes the fandom may want too much out of nobody characters. I don't think every single character needs to have a deep personality or something or as if having more characters do more things means the writing is objectively better. Overall I also think the supports in newer FE games feel like busywork and there should be more to get you involved with a character rather than simply "A and B are sitting in a room with no actual aim to anything." Berwick Saga manages to actually have all the side characters do things without relegating them to conversations that are completely irrelevant to anything actually happening in the story or gameplay in order for them to be developed.
  5. I don't know if that could be equated since 3H archers have the ability to counter at 1 range which is a mechanic of only 2 other FE games. But either way, I don't know if I would say the game is enemy or player phase focused.
  6. I think the game is overall more difficult compared to the previous 3, and you probably can't be quite as braindead because enemies tend to hit harder. However, in parts before the tower, you have sothe-- who is basically invincible for all of part 1 aside from maybe the final chapter, then you get haar--who is basically invincible if you bexp him aside from some absurd situation where he runs into 3 thunder mages or something. Maybe it's not completely dumb, but a lot of the game can definitely be solved by just "use haar" or "use sothe," though this isn't as easy on hard. This is also on top of the fact that you can forge 1-2 ranged weapons in this game and make them even better, so even if haar couldn't kill some enemies by just spamming normal hand axes at them, just forge a hand axe and now it doesn't matter L O L. Like at least previous games limited 1-2 range physical by having relatively bad stats, letting you forge them to further remove their inherent weaknesses that were already diminished from the weaknesses they had in fe6 and earlier is just hilarious, it's like the game is begging you to play it as thoughtlessly as possible. (I also think that in the Japanese version you can't forge ranged weapons? not sure though I do know the forge system is vastly different in that version.) But yes, the res thing is a big issue for mages in fe10, I honestly don't understand why they did this because it's not like mages in the 4 previous games were that amazing anyway. I'm really glad the DS and 3DS games made mages more like how they are in the Kaga games.
  7. That depends on the difficulty, I guess. I feel like on normal mode the early game isn't that rough aside from maybe chapter 7. Though I've only played through the game one time and haven't done hard mode.
  8. I think VW of 3H kind of does this, since the major conflict of the story is resolved 2 chapters before the end then the rest is some kind of weird stuff that wasn't really significant to most of the story. To an extent I think you could say this is also true for fe9 since you defeat the main rival of the protagonist 2 chapters before the game actually ends, the part after kind of being less integral to the development of Ike. However, I'm not sure I think this kind of change would make the most sense gameplay-wise, it's more interesting to have each chapter be progressively more difficult than the last, even if realistically that wouldn't make the most sense in an actual war. The enemy withering away doesn't necessarily mean the final confrontation will be easier than the previous ones either, If they know they have no other choice they might use/do certain things they hadn't considered before.
  9. I'm not sure I would agree that the ending part of every older game (though this could mean a lot of things) is easy, though I do think that during the period around fe7-10 the series was much easier than most games before or after those. While I'm aware that Genealogy is known for having an easy 2nd half, and I'd generally agree with that, I do think the difficulty does actually curve in the final two chapters in which the game actually uses the full extent of the game mechanics to challenge you, which I feel I can't say is true for fe7-10. The start of chapter 10 as well as many of the things chapter 11 throws at you, such as the falcoknights and deadlords at the end, do not feel to me like something you would see in fe7-10 as these points actually feel to an extent like you need to use status staves or some pretty precise positioning, such as in the miletos castle portion of chapter 10, in order to avoid something bad happening. The final chapters of fe5 definitely can be a struggle even if you have OP units at the end, and I've seen people before have issues with it. fe3 is not particularly difficult but I still feel as if the game gets more difficult as it goes along, and your units can die much more easily than fe7-10 units even if they're already pretty strong. Excluding the final 2 chapters of fe6... which I honestly think you won't miss much if you don't experience them, I do think the game has a solid difficulty curve, with chapters 21-23 feeling like they expect more of you than previous parts of the game. In comparison, I think much of fe7-10 can be solved by "throw jagen at the enemies" or "throw highly invested unit at enemies with 5 javelins/hand axes in their inventory," I know that this is not as true for higher difficulties of these games, but I think when it comes down to it, this is how you solve a lot of these things in these games, even if it's more difficult to do at higher difficulties, it's still going to be the most optimal thing, and there's not much else you'll need because utility classes like staff users and thieves aren't incredibly important in these games (furthermore, staff healing is almost completely invalidated in fe10 because you get healing items that basically never run out and heal a lot). This ultimately kind of reduces the help mages can offer if Marcus is better at 1-2 range than them and also the other roles that mages can fill (such as how useful they can be with staves in fe4-5 or to do more damage because lower enemy res) are either diminished in their usefulness or completely gone, reducing the amount of strategizing you have to work with if there's such a huge power difference between the best and worst classes in the game. After fe11, I think a pretty large design philosophy occurred in the series for whatever reason, I think fe11 and later games seem like they expect more from you while also having standard difficulty curves (I know that awakening is supposedly easy but honestly I'm not sure I would say normal classic awakening is easier than normal fe7). I do think that, while newer games might be harder later on because they're not designed around permadeath like some previous ones, I'm not sure this is the exact reason that they're more difficult because I think these kind of difficulty curves are also seen in games that are designed around permadeath. I would probably say that I think the difficulty curves of fe11-16 are just better designed than the ones of fe7-10, but of course, that's only my opinion. It's possible I'm overlooking things in my analysis here with certain things, but I don't think this topic has an objectively correct answer anyway.
  10. I wouldn't consider most Resident Evil games to be horror, mostly just action games with spooky enemies. 7 and 8 and OG 1-3 seem like you could call them horror but I haven't played those Silent Hill is really good, though personally I was never really scared by silent hill 2-4, I think making a horror game actually scary if it's not first person is really difficult, at least for me personally.
  11. I'd say you probably want your pairings planned in advance, and also don't worry too much about being as efficient as possible because the turn count maximum for A rank isn't difficult to be under. I remember I was like 100 turns under the maximum. Also you should always be spamming staves on people who can use them whenever you can.
  12. Yeah, that's an interesting point because if you look at Gaiden or its remake, you'll realize that they do rout maps very differently from fe7-10 and 13. Gaiden has less enemies and they're usually more difficult to kill, along with terrain being a larger consideration usually. ORKOing enemies in general in this game is also uncommon, and the focus seems to be more about figuring out what to do as situations unfold and mitigating the danger you're kind of forced to deal with for multiple turns, rather than just, send good character into 40 enemies with 1-2 range and then everything dies. This is not to say that gaiden is a masterpiece or something--but I do think I enjoy rout maps in fe2/15 the most.
  13. I'm not sure I would say it's fe6 that introduced that, as many of the improvements made to the series' speed that are used in fe6 are pretty much re-used entirely from fe5, the only major difference being that fe5 doesn't have simplistic animations where units just ram into eachother. I'd prefer having the option like Radiant Dawn to either have map animations or no animations at all, but it's not a huge deal either way. However, in all the like 10 FE games i've speedran, I would still say that the most obnoxious game after the first 2 FE games in terms of game speed is definitely Radiant Dawn, due to how many required combats you have to go through as well as how long the animations take, even with animations off you still have to watch every single enemy's death animation, which are much longer than the death animations of any of the 2d games. I would imagine fe9 is actually worse in this respect, though I haven't done that game. My point here is that, even if fe3 is slower than most of the games after it, I think that forcing you to fight ridiculous amounts of enemies will outweigh the increased game speed at times and be more annoying than if the game had less enemies but was slower. Also because dealing with enemies in these games often entails something like "send Haar at them with 5 hand axes" because the enemies themselves are kind of just there to die and not trying to give you any interesting challenge or circumstance a lot of the time As for fe4, I don't think I would say the game has an unusually high enemy density, moreso that the enemies are just more concentrated into small areas than other games. I can definitely see how this can be irritating since this doesn't lend well to precise positioning being that helpful... you often just kind of run at the enemies and attack all of them.
  14. FE1 Est joins in chapter 18 of 25, while fe3 book 1 Est joins in 16 of 20, and book 2 Est joins in 16 of 24-ish. Gaiden Est doesn't join until the very end of chapter 3, which at that point, you have like 5 or so required maps in Celica's route left I do think this gives a more constricted image than the examples you provided, but I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything, though I do think it's pretty evident fe1-3 Est joins very, very late except for fe3 book 2. Overall I don't think that the archetype is bad, but I am kind of dissappointed by how useless Est characters tend to feel. I think it might need more uniqueness to be worth it a lot of the time, which is something I think fe1-3 anf 6-8 kind of struggle with providing, because in those games a character's overall existence is determined almost entirely by their stats. This isn't a Fire Emblem example, but I do think Berwick Saga does a decent job with providing niches to characters who might otherwise seem worthless or just a different stat variation of another character, such as how the xmas cavaliers in that game are distinguished by one having vantage and the other having deathmatch, as well as another character who is pretty unremarkable aside from her ability to global silence all dark magic, these are the kind of things I think would make an Est more worth it, and like I said, I feel like these characters are just kind of doomed to be bad in fe1-3 and 6-8 because of how those games work.
  15. So, awhile ago I went in and individually counted the amount of enemies in each game from fe3 to fe6 to see if there was a significant difference in enemy amount. Of course, I know this can be hard to compare because reinforcements are often integral and some games have larger maps and so on... so it's harder to compare but I haven't made the effort to take that all that into account fairly, moreso just making some basic observations. The reason I wanted to do this in the first place because I sort of had the idea that the reason 2RN and OP 1-2 range weapons were invented in the first place was to account for the greater amount of combats the player would experience in games like fe6-10, especially since fe7 reintroduces rout maps. However, the results don't necessarily seem to go along with what I thought. so fe1 book 1 has on average 18 enemies per map, book 2 has 22, then fe4 through 6 all have about 28 enemies per map (a map in fe4's context is considering a single castle as a map) While it is very obvious that fe3 has less enemies overall than the games after it if you think about it for a bit, for the later games this proposes a bit of a more complicated answer. My guess is that, due to the various mechanics in each game that make it easier to influence how certain things turn out at certain points, the developers decided that 2RN would be appropriate for fe6. What I mean is, if you compare fe6 to fe4 and 5, fe4 has many ways of trivializing combat or making it easier through skills, leadership stars, as well as the ability to just... run past the enemies sometimes. Fe5 is different since it sort of is built around the idea that you won't fight everything in every map because a good portion of the game expects you to use warp staves or other staves to ignore a lot of the enemies, along with the fact that enemy stats in the game aren't the greatest. This is also ignoring the fact of skills like charm, accost, and other mechanics such as capture baiting and innate supports. So, in comparison to each of those games, fe6 both doesn't have any many ways of trivializing enemies through warp or similar things, but it also doesn't have much of any way of altering combat other than just...using a different weapon or attacking from a different space. Essentially, its design is taking the mechanics of fe3 but then not including some pretty integral things from that game such as warp staves and innate supports, (but also introducing a few other things such as reaver weapons) while also having much more enemies in general. This is not really to say anything bad about any game here, but I think with the lack of ability to influence combat in general in fe6-8, and arguably fe9-10 as well, the usage of 2RN makes a lot of sense since you're both doing a lot more unavoidable combat in those games while also having less tools to manipulate the outcomes of them. So while fe6 has about the same amount of enemy density as fe5, I would say that fe6 has more enemies you have to fight and also has less diverse ways of dealing with them, and that's a large part of why 2RN as a mechanic was made, to reduce frustration due to lack of agency in other areas. This isn't meant to claim that this is a good or a bad thing, just that, I think that this is a consequence of those things. There's also later games but I don't want to make this too long by going into details about those things. Anyway, what does everyone else think about enemy density, 2RN, and why these things changed over different games?
  • Create New...