More Unpopular Fire Emblem Opinions

[ping]

I would like to known a way to make Speed not the best stat ever without also making it pointless.

I was thinking of keeping x2 damage given/taken as the two extrema for huge differences in speed, but creating a scale between them.

If there is any difference in attack speed, the faster unit will always do a second attack, but (if it connects) it will deal only [Δ Spd * 10]% of the damage of the first strike, capped at 100%.

I haven't thought of the details, though, so the numbers might not work as intended in practice. But I would hope that it would make the Spd stat both less binary (either you deal/take x2 damage or you don't) and less overpowered (unless you're +10 ahead of your opponent, the double attack would be weaker than it is now).

[Lord Raven]

You could go for Berwick's mechanics, where it purely calculates evasion and some skills (namely adept on crack, in terms of activation%).

If you hit your attack, the opponent can't counterattack without a skill, but you can't do another attack either unless you activate a skill (that depends on speed probably).

If your attack misses, then if you have enough speed, then you can do another attack after the counterattack (if your opponent misses). If your opponent initiates the attack, then you can do a second attack if the first one misses.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Jedi]

You could go for Berwick's mechanics, where it purely calculates evasion and some skills (namely adept on crack, in terms of activation%).

If you hit your attack, the opponent can't counterattack without a skill, but you can't do another attack either unless you activate a skill (that depends on speed probably).

If your attack misses, then if you have enough speed, then you can do another attack after the counterattack (if your opponent misses). If your opponent initiates the attack, then you can do a second attack if the first one misses.

This might be the best way, Berwick did a lot of interesting things in general that modern FE should look at maybe, for some twists to their formula, although Fates to its credit did do some alterations.

[MCProductions]

This might be the best way, Berwick did a lot of interesting things in general that modern FE should look at maybe, for some twists to their formula, although Fates to its credit did do some alterations.

Honestly, for every thing Berwick did that I liked, there's things I absolutely couldn't stand. I loved the hexagons, mounts being a resource, and it's My Castle before My Castle, but I hated how player/enemy phase was handled, how stupid status elements were, and how it handled weapon durability. Because of this, I can only at most like Berwick, which is a damn shame since I feel it had a good deal of effort put into it.

Tho the more I hear of what FE6 copied from FE5, like four maps were straight up copypastad, tome weights being low, and the scrapped Con growth you can find digging thru the game's code, does make me wonder if FE6 was originally supposed to be an easier port of FE5 or something.

[Lord Raven]

Honestly, for every thing Berwick did that I liked, there's things I absolutely couldn't stand. I loved the hexagons, mounts being a resource, and it's My Castle before My Castle, but I hated how player/enemy phase was handled, how stupid status elements were, and how it handled weapon durability. Because of this, I can only at most like Berwick, which is a damn shame since I feel it had a good deal of effort put into it.

How can you like a game when you dislike a very fundamental aspect of it? It's like saying "I like Fire Emblem, but I don't like how enemy/player phase are divided." Status elements are also about the same as in every FE game and also about as common, so I'm not sure about that complaint. The core of weapon durability was also about how your durability effectively increases as your weapon level gets higher, which is actually cooler than a set durability (if you know how to use your weapon better, you can preserve it). Having a 1-4% chance to break it at certain points isn't good, but alas.

Tho the more I hear of what FE6 copied from FE5, like four maps were straight up copypastad, tome weights being low, and the scrapped Con growth you can find digging thru the game's code, does make me wonder if FE6 was originally supposed to be an easier port of FE5 or something.

They were both worked on by Kaga. I also don't know which FE6 maps were copied from FE5, this claim sounds completely dubious. The scrapped Con growth needs a citation, and the "low tome weight" is a very very broad statement; my point was that they didn't scale it much. FE7 also had higher con for magic users in general in general.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lord Raven

[MCProductions]

How can you like a game when you dislike a very fundamental aspect of it? It's like saying "I like Fire Emblem, but I don't like how enemy/player phase are divided." Status elements are also about the same as in every FE game and also about as common, so I'm not sure about that complaint. The core of weapon durability was also about how your durability effectively increases as your weapon level gets higher, which is actually cooler than a set durability (if you know how to use your weapon better, you can preserve it). Having a 1-4% chance to break it at certain points isn't good, but alas.

Imager doesn't want to work with me rip.

Chapter 6 of FE5 is very similar to Chapter 7 of FE6 in how it was designed, tho not entirely 1-1, and Chapter 15 of FE5 is very reminiscent/damn near identical to ironically enough chapter 15 of FE6. 19B of FE6 also boasts a similar layout to chapter 14 of FE5, even tho it's much less 1-1 than the other two examples, and these three were off the top of my head.

As for the Con Growth, just open a FE6 rom in the Nightmare editor, open the character modifier, and where you can change the growths in the hex code, there are unused bytes for a con growth, which are labeled as such. Again, would link images, but imager hates me today

And for your final question, as to how I can like Berwick if I dislike how enemy/player phase is handled, easy answer is to compare it to something like Castlevania 3 for the NES, I don't have anything positive to say about the control of the characters in that game, but I look past that because I still have fun despite my hatred of the core control. It's the same case here, just replace control with enemy/player phase swapping.

[Lord Raven]

Imager doesn't want to work with me rip.

Chapter 6 of FE5 is very similar to Chapter 7 of FE6 in how it was designed

This is a stretch. There's a lot of stuff missing in one version of the chapter compared to the other, and they both play extremely different.

and Chapter 15 of FE5 is very reminiscent/damn near identical to ironically enough chapter 15 of FE6.

Villages in the center/escape points at the ends = seize in the middle? There's a hell of a lot more terrain in Chapter 15 in Thracia too, the only thing you can say is that they have sort of the same mountain pattern. Everything else is extremely different.

19B of FE6 also boasts a similar layout to chapter 14 of FE5, even tho it's much less 1-1 than the other two examples, and these three were off the top of my head.

These are way, WAY different. Next you're going to say FE6 is a ripoff of FE3 because of some vague similarities. Yes, a few urban assault maps between two games are similar, that doesn't mean it's a rip off especialyl since the games play way way differently, and not only that but FE5 and FE6's are just broadly similar at best. And you're still stretching it.

As for the Con Growth, just open a FE6 rom in the Nightmare editor, open the character modifier, and where you can change the growths in the hex code, there are unused bytes for a con growth, which are labeled as such. Again, would link images, but imager hates me today

Also it's imgur... if you're talking about imager then that's probably why it was't working, because imager doesn't exist. I have zero idea how to navigate Nightmare so you'll have to show me.

And for your final question, as to how I can like Berwick if I dislike how enemy/player phase is handled, easy answer is to compare it to something like Castlevania 3 for the NES, I don't have anything positive to say about the control of the characters in that game, but I look past that because I still have fun despite my hatred of the core control. It's the same case here, just replace control with enemy/player phase swapping.

That doesn't make sense to me. You still hate a core part of the gameplay. How can you like the game? How are you having fun if a core part of it is so frustrating too?

It's kinda like this guy I've met that liked Fire Emblem but complains that Fire Emblem is turn based, to a slightly lesser extent. Fundamentally, the lack of distinct phases in Berwick is actually the gameplay, so how you can hate the gameplay and like the game (and by the way I doubt you can read Japanese) is baffling.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lord Raven

[CT075]

Also it's imgur... if you're talking about imager then that's probably why it was't working, because imager doesn't exist.

http://imager.perl.org/

That doesn't make sense to me. You still hate a core part of the gameplay. How can you like the game? How are you having fun if a core part of it is so frustrating too?

"how dare you like some parts and not other parts of this game"

like, what are you even trying to accomplish by nitpicking at this? "ooh i guess i don't like berwick saga after all i only like 'everything except the phase system'"?

[MCProductions]

This is a stretch. There's a lot of stuff missing in one version of the chapter compared to the other, and they both play extremely different.

Villages in the center/escape points at the ends = seize in the middle? There's a hell of a lot more terrain in Chapter 15 in Thracia too, the only thing you can say is that they have sort of the same mountain pattern. Everything else is extremely different.

These are way, WAY different. Next you're going to say FE6 is a ripoff of FE3 because of some vague similarities. Yes, a few urban assault maps between two games are similar, that doesn't mean it's a rip off especialyl since the games play way way differently, and not only that but FE5 and FE6's are just broadly similar at best. And you're still stretching it.

Also it's imgur... if you're talking about imager then that's probably why it was't working, because imager doesn't exist. I have zero idea how to navigate Nightmare so you'll have to show me.

That doesn't make sense to me. You still hate a core part of the gameplay. How can you like the game? How are you having fun if a core part of it is so frustrating too?

It's kinda like this guy I've met that liked Fire Emblem but complains that Fire Emblem is turn based, to a slightly lesser extent. Fundamentally, the lack of distinct phases in Berwick is actually the gameplay, so how you can hate the gameplay and like the game (and by the way I doubt you can read Japanese) is baffling.

No, I wouldn't say FE6 is a ripoff of FE3, beyond Hardin v. Zephiel, but I think we're talkng about different things in map similarities, I was mostly referring to copied appearances of the maps I mentioned, not actual gameplay, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression, because that wasn't my intention.

That was legit my bad on the spelling, had to transition to mobile for the final reply, and autocorrect screwed me over.

I have no real further explanation beyond the Castlevania 3 comparison than masochism however, if me liking a game despite me hating a core aspect of how it handles is that odd to you, I guess the best explanation I can provide for it is masochism, because to be frank, and hopefully not rude, I have no better explanation than the Castlevania 3 comparison or Masochism.

Edited January 4, 2017 by MCProductions

[Tequila]

Also it's imgur... if you're talking about imager then that's probably why it was't working, because imager doesn't exist. I have zero idea how to navigate Nightmare so you'll have to show me.

Can't comment on Berwick and whatnot, having not played it, but I can explain the con growth, having used it.

All 3 GBA games have a byte immediately following resistance growth in the class data module that says Con growth (unused).

In the battle struct, which is where the data for the attacker and defender are stored, bytes 0x73-0x7A are used for stat gains (hp, str, skl, spd, def, res, luk, con). 0x7A is the con growth, and is, in fact, read; since those values are zeroed out before stat gains are calculated, and that byte is never written to, the gain will always be 0. But if you go to the battle struct (2039214 for attacker, 2039294 for defender) and manually add a value, it does actually increase.

(This does, in fact, work for all 3 games; I used that byte for the magic growth in my str/mag splits.)

Hope that helps!

Edited January 4, 2017 by Tequila

[Lord Raven]

That does help, thanks. It doesn't show me that FE6 tried to be an EasyType FE5 so much as they had a plan to expand upon (or streamline) FE5's gameplay mechanics, but didn't end up liking things such as Con growth. FE7/8 using the same engine is probably more indicative of that.

"how dare you like some parts and not other parts of this game"

like, what are you even trying to accomplish by nitpicking at this? "ooh i guess i don't like berwick saga after all i only like 'everything except the phase system'"?

You're simplifying what I'm saying. It makes zero sense as a statement. "I like the game, but I don't like the gameplay itself." I'm trying to understand what the hell he's saying.

If someone walked up to you and said "I like Fire Emblem but I hate how it splits up enemy and player phase into distinct player phases" what do you have to say to that? It's actually baffling because that's what he's saying. You can argue it's not optimal design (I'm not saying it is or isn't by the way), but it's not congruent with liking the game or the gameplay.

I have no idea why you're calling me out for nitpicking when you nitpicked with the imager thing, because he was clearly referring to Imgur when it came to producing screencaps, but I don't really care.

No, I wouldn't say FE6 is a ripoff of FE3, beyond Hardin v. Zephiel, but I think we're talkng about different things in map similarities, I was mostly referring to copied appearances of the maps I mentioned, not actual gameplay, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression, because that wasn't my intention.

It's barely copied... It's like broadly the same. You're saying that two urban assault chapters were similar, and that's kind of where the similarities end. I can guarantee you that FE6 wasn't meant to be an easytype FE5, especially since those are like 3 select chapters.

I have no real further explanation beyond the Castlevania 3 comparison than masochism however, if me liking a game despite me hating a core aspect of how it handles is that odd to you, I guess the best explanation I can provide for it is masochism, because to be frank, and hopefully not rude, I have better explanation than the Castlevania 3 comparison or Masochism.

And the reason you didn't bring this up is because...?

EDIT: To be clear, I don't even care why you didn't bring this up so much as you should probably say it.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lord Raven

[CT075]

You're simplifying what I'm saying. It makes zero sense as a statement. "I like the game, but I don't like the gameplay itself." I'm trying to understand what the hell he's saying.

yes, it is possible to like a game without gameplay. believe it or not, some people play games for plot, or for atmosphere, or even because their waifu is in it and no other reason

never mind that i (and presumably MCP) don't even agree that the phase difference is the core part of the gameplay or whatever

If someone walked up to you and said "I like Fire Emblem but I hate how it splits up enemy and player phase into distinct player phases" what do you have to say to that?

"cool, tell me more"?

It's actually baffling because that's what he's saying.

it makes sense to me? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You can argue it's not optimal design (I'm not saying it is or isn't by the way), but it's not congruent with liking the game or the gameplay.

You still hate a core part of the gameplay. How can you like the game?

Edited January 4, 2017 by CT075

[Lord Raven]

yes, it is possible to like a game without gameplay. believe it or not, some people play games for plot, or for atmosphere, or even because their waifu is in it and no other reason

berwick doesn't have any of that (and I highly doubt MCPro can read japanese, he was solely talking about the gameplay at any rate)

this isn't like Nier which has shitty gameplay that I lived through due to the atmosphere/music/plot, considering MCPro was solely talking about gameplay

never mind that i (and presumably MCP) don't even agree that the phase difference is the core part of the gameplay or whatever

okay why not? Because the entirety of the game flow is dictated by two things in both games

- the battle system (which is pretty much FE's but with more complicated rules on counterattacks)

- the way the turn queue works (you don't move all of your units on player phase; the turn ends when every unit on the map has moved, and the # of moves between two units of your units moving depends on how many enemies there are)

so how does one like the game (fyi this person noted the gameplay in particular) despite one huge, huge difference in the functionality of the turn queue?

"cool, tell me more"?

let's not take statements literally

it makes sense to me? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

cool but we're not the same person so don't pretend the same thing makes sense to both of us

fyi, those two statements you quoted are NOT contradictory, b/c I said that design quality is not related to personal taste. I'm not even arguing that Berwick's turn system is better or worse (I believe it's better, but that's a matter of my personal taste), I'm arguing how someone can like the game when a core part of it is so different. Having no distinct player or enemy phase in Berwick affects the gameplay quite significantly, and being able to get past that is like trying to get over the fact that you can't directly control units in combat like a fighting game.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lord Raven

[CT075]

"i was frustrated at how the game handled in main parts of gameplay but i came away from it with a very positive impression"

[solrocknroll]

But honestly, does it matter that much? Lots of things go into a game and disliking parts of the gameplay doesn't stop someone from liking the game.

I can think of Sonic 06, which had bad gameplay but a lot of interesting elements.

[Lord Raven]

You're rephrasing what he said, you're not saying anything new. That sentence doesn't make sense if we're talking purely in terms of gameplay (which we were).

But honestly, does it matter that much? Lots of things go into a game and disliking parts of the gameplay doesn't stop someone from liking the game.

I can think of Sonic 06, which had bad gameplay but a lot of interesting elements.

I can think of Nier, but the difference is that I highly doubt the user I am responding to understood the plot of said game (and neither did I, considering I can't read Japanese). That means that judgments are solely on gameplay.

If you think the gameplay is bad, but you liked it or had fun playing it, that's different than saying you did not like the core part of the gameplay, but still liked the gameplay.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lord Raven

[CT075]

what explanation are you looking for beyond "the turn system wasn't as central to the gameplay for me [MCP] as you're making it out to be"

edit:

to weigh in on my opinion of this, i also didn't find the turn order to be a particularly centralizing part of gameplay

Edited January 4, 2017 by CT075

[Zane Avernathy]

Purely in terms of gameplay, knowing Japanese had nothing to do with anything. Let's all agree to disagree on what makes the game enjoyable.

[Crazycolorz5]

I like Est units and Micaiah too.

A really close friend who is also into Fire Emblem also has Micaiah as one of his favorite characters.

[Lord Raven]

what explanation are you looking for beyond "the turn system wasn't as central to the gameplay for me [MCP] as you're making it out to be"

edit:

to weigh in on my opinion of this, i also didn't find the turn order to be a particularly centralizing part of gameplay

You're going to have to explain to me why it's not. Game flow is dictated by battle and turn order; if one of those things are off, then the entire game flow is off. It is a huge deal in terms of gameplay when your units can move, and the fact that it's not enemy-player phase makes it extremely different in terms of strategy and planning because of the difference in game-flow. Adjusting the way the turns work in a video game makes for a significantly different experience.

Purely in terms of gameplay, knowing Japanese had nothing to do with anything. Let's all agree to disagree on what makes the game enjoyable.

If I were trying to be correct, then "agree to disagree" would work here. As it stands, nobody's point seems to be correctness, so we can "agree to disagree" but it's not satisfying.

The idea of not knowing Japanese has little to do with gameplay. That's my point. It means that the only thing he could've possibly enjoyed either the music (A+), character designs (not relevant) or the gameplay (the actual thing that is being discussed). It's a constraint as to which parts we are likely to enjoy.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lord Raven

[circleseverywhere]

I commend you on your dedication to arguing this point even though literally nobody agrees with you.

Now drop it, please.

[CT075]

Adjusting the way the turns work in a video game makes for a significantly different experience.

didn't feel that different to me once i got used to paying attention to it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edited January 4, 2017 by CT075

[Lord Raven]

I commend you on your dedication to arguing this point even though literally nobody agrees with you.

Now drop it, please.

I'm allowed to question things that make no sense to me. Especially since it turns into a "what is/isn't a core part of an argument." I'm not insulting anyone or being hostile. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, nor do I care if anyone agrees with me or not.

didn't feel that different to me once i got used to paying attention to it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that the game objectively plays differently because of the turn order. You got used to paying attention to it doesn't mean it's not a fundamental part, that just means you got used to the game and nothing more.

What is the core part of the gameplay to you then huh?

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lord Raven

[CT075]

What is the core part of the gameplay to you then huh?

moving individual units?

you say "the game objectively plays differently", but if the discussion is "how can you dislike this core difference but like the thing overall" (which is fundamentally a subjective discussion) then i'm not sure why "it didn't feel that different" isn't an adequate answer

Edited January 4, 2017 by CT075

[Lord Raven]

moving individual units?

you say "the game objectively plays differently", but if the discussion is "how can you dislike this core difference but like the thing overall" (which is fundamentally a subjective discussion) then i'm not sure why "it didn't feel that different" isn't an adequate answer

Moving individual units at different times is still a big difference.

It doesn't feel different to you, doesn't mean it's not a big part of the gameplay. And clearly, if he disliked it, it felt pretty different. You sounded pretty indifferent to it.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lord Raven