What if Fire Emblem Went Isometric

[Captain Karnage]

this is something I've been wondering about for a while now.

so unlike every other srpg FE has kept the same kind of map since the begining and has yet to adopt an isometrice battlefield

I for one would absoultly hate this change, I feel that it would slow down the battles dramaticly and make the maps seem empty, and I believe that it would just become clunky to move around my units.

[Maritisa]

FE would be even more dead to me than it is now.

[Locke087]

[The following paragraph is intense sarcasm please do not take it seriously, though I do actually advocate for diversity in the strategy genre.]

well all they would need to do is add AOE attacks and give bows actual range and it would become Final Fantasy Tactic. Hey Fire Emblem is already making more and more steps become less unique, might as well move it even closer to every other strategy game in the market....

But really in all seriousness this is highly unlikely to happen as isometrics perspective has been kind of drops in turn based strategy games as of late (at least as far as seen). And for good reason I think that the current perspective is perfectly capable of displaying a fight in a way that you can see everything on the map. I see no actual gameplay benefits having an isometric perspective can provide or really any benefit from it. I think that Radiant Dawn proved that height based gameplay provided by isometric games is perfectly doable in the style that fire emblem does. In fact if they start doing Final Fantasy Tactics again I would prefer they lose the isometric perspective, it literally does nothing but hinder the game because it makes everything harder to fetching see and limits map design.

[Solcalibre]

I don't think it would work, plus you can view the camera angle in that view (I think so in Radiance/Dawn).

[maybe]

it would lose its most unique characteristic among srpgs

like i rarely say "if they did this x wouldn't be x anymore"

but if they did that fire emblem would not be fire emblem anymore

[Katie]

Wasn't TearRing Saga and/or Berwick Saga isometric? It'd probably be something like that. I haven't played either though, so someone should probably correct me if I'm wrong.

[Harvey]

HELL NO!

That is the worst case scenario to bear.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to play Final Fantasy Tactics on the phone? If it weren't for that view, I could play it easily.

Now now, don't get upset. There is a place for isometric games. Examples include Bastion, Landstalker etc. But for something like Fire Emblem, it needs examining the environment and since isometric view limits that, the maps have to be small to compensate for the lack of big maps.....something which Fire Emblem can do but not in this approach.

Besides, if an already cliche perspective is fine with everyone, then why bother to change it? That's like saying if you're fine with the controls of the previous game why make it worse for the sequel?

Wasn't TearRing Saga and/or Berwick Saga isometric? It'd probably be something like that. I haven't played either though, so someone should probably correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think either one has that view. I think you mean Tactics Ogre which does have that view.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Harvey

[Wist]

Are you thinking of elevation differences and character orientations being introduced as well? Because I don't understand how introducing isometric battlefields would affect anything beyond aesthetics. The grid wouldn't be transformed, just rotated 45 degrees. And Nintendo handhelds now feature analog directional input, so I imagine it wouldn't be a difficult transition for players.

I think it could be a fun change (if only for the novelty).

[Reality]

Having played many isometric games I don't find them that clunky most of the time. Sure they break down a little when ding the transition between the top of a cliff to the bottom, with overpass/tunnels, and when things are obscured behind walls, but they actually work well most of the time.

My main problem with them is the way that since the bottom foreground doesn't exist, the maps look like "boards" that are suspended over a vacuum. I mean this is great for clarity, but it's a bit too much of an ultimate between gameplay and story. In the worlds of FFT and Disgaea, there seems to be no land routes connecting anything. You just go to the edge of the map and materialize on the edge of another map.

This doesn't happen in ALL isometric SRPGs, but the ones that tried for better level art haven't come up with elegant solutions to the out-of bounds area. It's often just nicer looking grass with no grid marks.at the divide and then 3d whatever beyond of the "obviously less interesting variety" so you don't try to move toward it.

[Alertcircuit]

That change doesn't really add anything to the gameplay, and would probably make the game more generic, since so many SRPGs already use the isometric viewpoint. I'm gonna say on to this one.

[False Prophet]

Excluding the matter of "Isometric means NO Fire Emblem", I would say that giving FE the isometric treatment can bring some problem. The most important point to address is the "Line of Sight". You can imagine how messed up FE would be if your character can only attack and counter on a single direction? Imagine the horror of Archers! Not to mention how Attack Stance and Guard Stance would work in that situation.

So if are not using Line of Sight, then what is the point of going isometric? Don't mistake me, I do enjoy isometric view, but I do think its view and control make the player feels more "clunky" when he is in the control.

[Rxmonste]

Have you played Disgaea? It's pretty good, as far as Isometric turn based RPGs it's one of my favorites, rivaling Xcom. I think Fire Emblem can do it but the maps need to be smaller otherwise it would last forever.