Should Fire Emblem Challenge Its Conventions More?

[Thane]

Hello everyone.

Nintendo has been on a roll recently with both Pokémon and The Legend of Zelda, two of the biggest and most popular series in all of gaming, having their recent installments being both critically and financially successful. While that's not really anything new, what is notable is how they've been praised for breaking new ground and tossing established series conventions to the side in favor of experimenting. I know I consider Sun & Moon to be the best Pokémon game to date, and I believe I can say the same thing about Breath of the Wild as well, though I find the competition in the Zelda series to be a bit tougher.

That has got me thinking about Fire Emblem. Many of the series' traditions can be traced back to some very early entries, and many of the conflicts are very similar at its base. This is not to say the series is static - neither were Pokémon or Zelda - but while I don't have many good suggestions for how the series could be revitalized, I do feel like it would be nice with a breath of fresh air similar to Sun & Moon and Breath of the Wild, which never felt like they sacrificed their identity in spite of the new things they implemented. I know I particularly want a different approach to how they write their overarching stories, for example.

What do you think? Is Fire Emblem in the need of a similar bold new direction? Even if it's not needed, do you think it's something you'd like to see anyway? 

[SatsumaFSoysoy]

Revitalizing the series without sacrificing its core... If we're talking about the core, then I suppose it's the phase-based strategy part of it. If we're to keep any element, it should be that.

I guess they could change the way maps are presented, then, instead of individual story chapters?

How about a sort of open-world exploration, like FFXV? I don't think it should be a full sandbox, though. Instead of just putting us in a castle in the stars, we're put on a giant map that we march our army on as a single entity, kinda like how the car works in FFXV. When we encounter something interesting, we can get off, and have our Lord and a few units go scope out the area. This could lead into a skirmish, so we have to be careful who we bring. Also, when the army itself marches, there could be skirmishes, too. Eventually, after some marching, we'll reach the next important spot with a big battle, which would be like a story chapter in a traditional FE game.

If they do this, I'd like if it they added a day/night cycle as well, so the army would have to stop at spots to set up camp and rest for the night. That'd be a great time for support conversations (well, base conversations) and stuff like that to happen as well, letting you walk around camp to talk to your units. Maybe you could also stop at towns and such where there are shops to buy supplies and weapons.

I would add measures so that players can't take forever to reach the next big battle, however. Things like sending small squads that actively chase your army after a certain amount of time has passed, with increasing frequency, or adding a deadline occasionally, where if you don't make it to the next point in time, you suffer a disadvantage, such as losing out on recruiting a unit, or starting the map in a worse position/situation.

 

But to answer the original question, I think each era of FE has been unique enough to not be just the same thing over and over again for now. The GBA games are similar to other GBA ones, and the 3DS games are somewhat similar to the other 3DS ones. Shouzou Kaga's games were a lot more different form each other, as he liked to experiment a lot, but I don't think every single FE game needs to be a complete rehaul like what Kaga did.

Edited March 13, 2017 by SatsumaFSoysoy

[Thane]

19 minutes ago, SatsumaFSoysoy said:

But to answer the original question, I think each era of FE has been unique enough to not be just the same thing over and over again for now.

Sure, and I said as much in my first post, but a lot of things - particularly the stories - can feel rather samey to varying degrees. That's to be expected of a long-running series, I'm well aware, but I still think there's an interesting discussion to be had in light of Sun & Moon and Breath of the Wild's success. 

For example, I wouldn't object to more exploration like you brought up and that Echoes seems to be introducing, as well as more roleplaying elements in general. Actual dialogue choices with reward and consequences, for example, could work well; maybe they could affect who you can recruit.

[VincentASM]

I don't think a new approach is required, but it would help a lot.

Now I'll start by saying IS isn't a stranger to challenging conventions. For all the hate, Fates was brave for trying to cover a war from three different angles. Also Fire Emblem Heroes, despite its simplicity has managed to capture and refine the core gameplay with the removal of hit rates and critical/skill rates.

I think the next big step is to make the next FE (possibly on the Switch) more of a traditional RPG. Rather than have a static world map or castle between battles, I'd love to see a fully 3D castle or town that you can explore. This could perhaps extend to the world map and dungeons.

Battles could begin when you enter a real battlefield with soldiers fighting on both sides. After that, it would transition into a birds-eye/overhead view and you would control your units like in a normal Fire Emblem.

Personally, I think it'd be amazing to have a greater focus on unique map objectives and side objectives. We need more defend and escape chapters, etc. rather than curb-stomping the enemy forces all the time. I think Berwick and Vestaria Saga did a really good job with this. It helps make the war feel more realistic and raises the stakes.

[Eleanore]

I honestly don't know how to drastically change it. To me Fire Emblem is honestly very static.

I can't stand NES graphics so the furthest back I've gone is FE3, but there is honestly very little difference between the old games and the new ones. It's incredibly easy to transition between the generations because the basics always remain the same. I'm not sure if that is a good thing, but it is a comfortable thing. I'd definitely be willing to try something new, but I'm not sure if it would stick.

[Thane]

1 hour ago, VincentASM said:

I don't think a new approach is required, but it would help a lot.

Now I'll start by saying IS isn't a stranger to challenging conventions. For all the hate, Fates was brave for trying to cover a war from three different angles.

For sure, I agree with that, but the core of the conflict remains the same in spite of the interesting premise, which is very disappointing because it effectively repeats the very first game just like too many other installments in the franchise. The whole dragon nonsense is one of my biggest issues with Fire Emblem stories.

1 hour ago, VincentASM said:

I think the next big step is to make the next FE (possibly on the Switch) more of a traditional RPG. Rather than have a static world map or castle between battles, I'd love to see a fully 3D castle or town that you can explore. This could perhaps extend to the world map and dungeons.

Battles could begin when you enter a real battlefield with soldiers fighting on both sides. After that, it would transition into a birds-eye/overhead view and you would control your units like in a normal Fire Emblem.

Personally, I think it'd be amazing to have a greater focus on unique map objectives and side objectives. We need more defend and escape chapters, etc. rather than curb-stomping the enemy forces all the time. I think Berwick and Vestaria Saga did a really good job with this. It helps make the war feel more realistic and raises the stakes.

I can agree with this. It would definitely lend itself to a more interesting presentation. 

56 minutes ago, Eleanore said:

I can't stand NES graphics so the furthest back I've gone is FE3, but there is honestly very little difference between the old games and the new ones. It's incredibly easy to transition between the generations because the basics always remain the same. I'm not sure if that is a good thing, but it is a comfortable thing. I'd definitely be willing to try something new, but I'm not sure if it would stick.

Buckle up for Shadows of Valentia; we'll see just how faithful the game will be to the original game.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Thane

[Augestein]

I don't see a problem with Fire Emblem stepping outside of its comfort zone. It seems like it's still trying to, just not in too drastic of a way to alienate its fans from the series. Each game in the installment has become more experimental since Tellius, while trying to maintain the core gameplay that it's always had. The biggest thing I think that might want to try focusing on is actual RP elements in this case. Especially if they plan on keeping the avatar around. It might  be an interesting idea to have a less story centric game that revolves around your character simply trying to win a war. But I'm not sure how well received that would be on the account that FE fans really like their storylines. 

 

[VincentASM]

45 minutes ago, Thane said:

For sure, I agree with that, but the core of the conflict remains the same in spite of the interesting premise, which is very disappointing because it effectively repeats the very first game just like too many other installments in the franchise. The whole dragon nonsense is one of my biggest issue with Fire Emblem stories.

Hehe, I can't disagree with that.

I would love a game that touches more on the dragons' origins. Too often, the conflicts occur after the dragons are gone and a single crazy dragon has been left behind.

People have been dreaming of a Scouring game for ages, but I want something even earlier than that. Maybe showing the dragons at their prime and how they co-existed with humans. Or even before their prime and how they came to exist.

I think the Tellius games were close with their depiction of Ashunera's origin story. But there seems to be a huge gap between the era of Beorc and Laguz and the rest of the series (with Manaketes and other stone-based shifters).

[Thane]

1 hour ago, VincentASM said:

Hehe, I can't disagree with that.

I would love a game that touches more on the dragons' origins. Too often, the conflicts occur after the dragons are gone and a single crazy dragon has been left behind.

People have been dreaming of a Scouring game for ages, but I want something even earlier than that. Maybe showing the dragons at their prime and how they co-existed with humans. Or even before their prime and how they came to exist.

I think the Tellius games were close with their depiction of Ashunera's origin story. But there seems to be a huge gap between the era of Beorc and Laguz and the rest of the series (with Manaketes and other stone-based shifters).

Again, I agree with you, and that's the biggest reason why I made this thread. How many games are not the result of dragon shenanigans, either directly or through some kind of pawns? I guess it depends on how you define "dragon shenanigans", but far too many Fire Emblem entries originate from that now tired cliché. I don't want to see more dragons in Fire Emblem for the Switch at all; I want to see human drama and conflicts at the forefront.

In general, games just have too many bloody dragons.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Thane

[Eleanore]

Oh yeah, that is definitely a change I would like to see. The Big scary dragon popping up in the third act to show they were behind it all and it's not just some human conflict.

Either do away with the dragons completely, or make the dragons like the regular Laguz nations in Tellius where they are just another country on the map.

[JJ48]

1 hour ago, Thane said:

Again, I agree with you, and that's the biggest reason why I made this thread. How many games are not the result of dragon shenanigans, either directly or through some kind of pawns? I guess it depends on how you define "dragon shenanigans", but far too many Fire Emblem entries originate from that now tired cliché. I don't want to see more dragons in Fire Emblem for the Switch at all; I want to see human drama and conflicts at the forefront.

In general, games just have too many bloody dragons.

Didn't FE7 sort of turn that on its head, though?  Yes, you still have a Dragon/Human war set in the distant past, but since then the dragons have pretty much been doing their own thing until some madman comes along and tries making them become his pawn.  I always kind of liked that the game made the dragons seem as much victims as the protagonists, in a way.

[Thane]

6 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Didn't FE7 sort of turn that on its head, though?  Yes, you still have a Dragon/Human war set in the distant past, but since then the dragons have pretty much been doing their own thing until some madman comes along and tries making them become his pawn.  I always kind of liked that the game made the dragons seem as much victims as the protagonists, in a way.

Let's not get me started on FE7.

[JJ48]

3 minutes ago, Thane said:

Let's not get me started on FE7.

Sorry.  I didn't realize I was broaching such a sensitive subject.

[Thane]

Just now, JJ48 said:

Sorry.  I didn't realize I was broaching such a sensitive subject.

I was mostly joking, but you're definitely right in a way. However, how does the game end? By defeating dragons. How does this unnecessary prequel lead up to FE6? By hinting at more dragons. 

Again, I'm not saying Fire Emblem has never had plots where the formula gets challenged - FE9 being the best example of that - but it usually comes back to dragons at the expense of the human side of the conflicts. I would wager that FE9's more grounded, slightly more realistic and relatable plot is one major reason why many people consider it to be the best written game in the series. 

I realize I'm mostly talking about the story here, and this is a thread for gameplay a well, but my desires for change there are fewer, and I would be content with more RPG elements like I previously talked about and those that VincentASM mentioned.

[SatsumaFSoysoy]

It is true that the FE stories have always followed a formula. Big bad dragon, meddling Dark Mage, pathetic trash mid-boss, etc. It would be nice if they changed it up like Tellius, with FE Switch.

[Dragrath]

3 hours ago, Thane said:

I was mostly joking, but you're definitely right in a way. However, how does the game end? By defeating dragons. How does this unnecessary prequel lead up to FE6? By hinting at more dragons. 

Again, I'm not saying Fire Emblem has never had plots where the formula gets challenged - FE9 being the best example of that - but it usually comes back to dragons at the expense of the human side of the conflicts. I would wager that FE9's more grounded, slightly more realistic and relatable plot is one major reason why many people consider it to be the best written game in the series. 

I realize I'm mostly talking about the story here, and this is a thread for gameplay a well, but my desires for change there are fewer, and I would be content with more RPG elements like I previously talked about and those that VincentASM mentioned.

This is a key area that I think fire emblem could improve on Fire emblem has focused on overt and extensive wold ending plots far too many times now. This if done right can lead to "epicness" however in a series where each entry has attempted this scale it becomes dull and unnecessary.

 

Personally I would like to see a smaller scale plot perhaps focused around a "true" band of mercenaries that picks their own contracts (Unlike the Greil Mercenaries in FE 9 which are basically on a single contract the whole game).  That combined with a more grey over arching conflict where both sides have redeemable sides would I feel make a great stage for a more character driven story. In fact you could go even grayer and give the player more questionable options that would affect the players relationship with their soldiers for instance.

Do you formally pick a side or play around on the fence? Do you play the bidding war between two enemy commanders on who's side if any to pick? Do you take no prisoners or do you offer prisoners deals , extortion's, bribes or god forbid interrogate through implied darker means.  If the opportunity to raid supplies in the harsh of war in order to resolve a severe supply deficit even if others may starve? All of these types of decisions could be used to affect who sticks around  joins or might decide to strike of on their own for various reasons financial political ideological etc.

Fire emblem's far more character driven nature as well as some of the older more "questionable" mechanics; debuffs, (stealing capturing etc.) I feel would lend  towards a great opportunity for this sort of story as a character and choice driven narrative far better than a grand epic tale of supernatural powers.

 

[Thane]

2 minutes ago, Dragrath said:

This is a key area that I think fire emblem could improve on Fire emblem has focused on overt and extensive wold ending plots far too many times now. This if done right can lead to "epicness" however in a series where each entry has attempted this scale it becomes dull and unnecessary.

This is why the first Ace Attorney game is my favorite game ever in terms of story. It's Phoenix Wright defending his falsely accused clients against all odds by trying to solve impossibly detailed murder cases with interesting characters and their subplots thrown into the mix. No more, no less. The worst thing that can happen is strictly on an individual level, but because the characters are so good, you feel it way more than the umpteenth time an ancient evil is trying to destroy the world. Personal investment is key, not the scale. 

In short, I agree.

8 minutes ago, Dragrath said:

Personally I would like to see a smaller scale plot perhaps focused around a "true" band of mercenaries that picks their own contracts (Unlike the Greil Mercenaries in FE 9 which are basically on a single contract the whole game).  That combined with a more grey over arching conflict where both sides have redeemable sides would I feel make a great stage for a more character driven story. In fact you could go even grayer and give the player more questionable options that would affect the players relationship with their soldiers for instance.

Do you formally pick a side or play around on the fence? Do you play the bidding war between two enemy commanders on who's side if any to pick? Do you take no prisoners or do you offer prisoners deals , extortion's, bribes or god forbid interrogate through implied darker means.  If the opportunity to raid supplies in the harsh of war in order to resolve a severe supply deficit even if others may starve? All of these types of decisions could be used to affect who sticks around  joins or might decide to strike of on their own for various reasons financial political ideological etc.

I've toyed with a similar idea, so I definitely think this could be a very good setting for a Fire Emblem game for sure. 

[Dark Holy Elf]

Like many others in this thread I would love to see FE move away from its stale and repetitive plotlines involving an evil mage supporting or reviving some sort of world-threatening Ultimate Evil. It wasn't a very compelling story the first time and recycling it over and over has done it no favours. I would love to see the series move in a direction of more human conflicts, for certain. FE9 has been mentioned and I agree that it went further in that direction than most, but is still tainted by the fact that ultimately Ashnard aside from having an idiotic might-is-right bully motivation just wants to revive a dark god llke most other FE villains (though RD does put a twist on this at least).

Otherwise I think the series is doing enough innovating on the gameplay front to keep me happy... certainly more than Pokemon has (disclaimer: haven't gotten around to Sun/Moon). I really, really hope the series doesn't go in the direction described in the second post; to be quite honest it made me sad just reading about it. I do not like open-world games and one of the reasons I have turned to Fire Emblem so strongly in the past decade is because it is so starkly not that. Please keep focusing on tightly-balanced story campaigns, whatever else the series may add.

I'd be cool with more roleplay aspects if avatars are gonna stick around (though I'd be just as happy if they didn't), though it's difficult to add those effectively when they start to require story branching. Can be done, though, and I'd not object to IntSys trying to long as they can maintain the core gameplay and balance I go to the series for.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

There are a million directions to go if we want to try new plot conventions, but one I'd like to see is Fire Emblem seriously acknowledging its Death Toll. These games ask us to tactically slaughter scores of enemies, preferably without the loss of our own units. Because their lives are precious, they have portraits, they have names, they can level up, we cannot help but emphasize. Prince Marth, the liberator of Archanea who murdered all that stood in his way. When Conquest tried to tell us at the end of the map that there were no fatalities on the enemy's side, it makes us laugh. We didn't hold back or approach the map any differently, but what if that were an actual side objective? 

Using weapon types and battle commands intended to subdue, disarm, or capture enemy combatants instead of taking their lives. I dare not suggest a blue to red karma scale like it's 2008, but it's a good way for the player to affect the story when they take the role of a Lord who's in a position of power and influence. And more importantly from my perspective, some new gameplay elements. Non lethal solutions to combat should be much harder and take a great level of decision making than killing outright. Your archer can make a difficult leg shot to cut an enemy's movement range, letting a new hand-to-hand unit come in for the KO. Lure a pack of enemies into a room with a gas trap that knocks them out. Have your healers wield sleep staves and Mages use lightning tomes that behave as tasers would. But to keep the "kill them all" path from getting too easy, increase the amount of enemies in later chapters to reflect the main character creating more and more enemies for himself. Meanwhile, different characters join your cause. On the tyrant path, you earn the respect of dudes like Walhart while you find a Donnel type character angry that you killed his Pa. Who was his Pa? Dunno, enemies don't have unique portraits and names, after all.

[LucarioGamer812]

15 minutes ago, Gustavos said:

There are a million directions to go if we want to try new plot conventions, but one I'd like to see is Fire Emblem seriously acknowledging its Death Toll. These games ask us to tactically slaughter scores of enemies, preferably without the loss of our own units. Because their lives are precious, they have portraits, they have names, they can level up, we cannot help but emphasize. Prince Marth, the liberator of Archanea who murdered all that stood in his way. When Conquest tried to tell us at the end of the map that there were no fatalities on the enemy's side, it makes us laugh. We didn't hold back or approach the map any differently, but what if that were an actual side objective? 

Using weapon types and battle commands intended to subdue, disarm, or capture enemy combatants instead of taking their lives. I dare not suggest a blue to red karma scale like it's 2008, but it's a good way for the player to affect the story when they take the role of a Lord who's in a position of power and influence. And more importantly from my perspective, some new gameplay elements. Non lethal solutions to combat should be much harder and take a great level of decision making than killing outright. Your archer can make a difficult leg shot to cut an enemy's movement range, letting a new hand-to-hand unit come in for the KO. Lure a pack of enemies into a room with a gas trap that knocks them out. Have your healers wield sleep staves and Mages use lightning tomes that behave as tasers would. But to keep the "kill them all" path from getting too easy, increase the amount of enemies in later chapters to reflect the main character creating more and more enemies for himself. Meanwhile, different characters join your cause. On the tyrant path, you earn the respect of dudes like Walhart while you find a Donnel type character angry that you killed his Pa. Who was his Pa? Dunno, enemies don't have unique portraits and names, after all.

This would most certainly be a welcomed  feature for me at least, kinda like capturing in fates but let's make it beyond two units able to do this. Also pulling from Percy's paralogue in fates, the use of the dragon veins there was very similar to what is being discussed.

I also wouldn't mind them stepping outside the traditional story path they've done. As said PoR and RD did the closest to this but still followed the norm. Using the mercenary idea though, I'm pulling a page from another Strategy RPG series I enjoy, Mercenaries Saga. While inspired by Fire Emblem, they did do some unique things storywise. For starters the second one has the protagonist be a knight commander who tries to defend his prince from corruption in the kingdom. He even works with the underworld part of the kingdom to get info, it also offers some dialogue choices that can reflect how dedicated you are to your duty as a knight protecting your kingdom or getting revenge. And Mercenaries Saga 3 has you play as an actual mercenary group hired to take down a rebel army, while I haven't played as much of 3 as 2, it still has a unique concept from the get go Ultimately I think a game where the protagonist is a unit captain in an army and makes choices to fight corruption in the army or follow orders could be a interesting narrative. Especially if they don't bring in dragons as the big bad enemies this time, maybe have this game take place during the scouring and have the protagonist get the legendary heroes from the different lands to end the scouring by fighting the other people and convincing them they're wrong. Or if that fails then peacefully have them send the dragons away for their own safety. Then the legend of the scouring could be created and we get blazing sword and later binding blade.

[Hardin]

I'm open with making changes to the franchise, but I'm fundamentally against the removal of dragons as part of the central plot. I strongly believe that the opening line from FE1 "At first there was Dark Dragon, Sword of Light, and Fire Emblem" speaks to the ethos of Fire Emblem. 

[SatsumaFSoysoy]

30 minutes ago, Hardin said:

I'm open with making changes to the franchise, but I'm fundamentally against the removal of dragons as part of the central plot. I strongly believe that the opening line from FE1 "At first there was Dark Dragon, Sword of Light, and Fire Emblem" speaks to the ethos of Fire Emblem. 

I think maybe instead of having the dragon as the final boss, they could serve other purposes?

It'd be interesting if we had a game where Manaketes were common and already integrated with humans in society, instead of them being legendary people close to extinction.

[NekoKnight]

Story-wise, I am always on board for new and exciting things. I'm never going to say "Man, this story is annoyingly original and engaging. I wish we had another omnicidal dragon god as the antagonist"

For gameplay, my answer is more mixed. Obviously I can't say never do innovation, because there are plenty of positive features that came out post Blazing Sword (my first game), but I do wish that they kept some of there fun mechanics and developed them further rather than treating them like a flavor of the month. I miss light/dark magic as well as thieves actually stealing things. Some people call the Pokemon series stale but I kind of like how they continue to build on what they have so each new game has a little (or a lot) more new things to play with in addition to everything you loved from past generations. That doesn't mean I need literally everything to come back (fucking Biorhythm, man) but if there is no reason to take out a feature (such as different balancing priorities), then I don't see why they do. 

Fates pair up and personal skills are a positive direction for the series. Will we see them again or will they be lost in FE Switch?

[Sunwoo]

I agree with most of what has been said in this thread -- about how dragons being the root of all issues is kind of cheap and to have a somewhat different approach to the lore of the story. FE gameplay isn't the problem for me (although SD took out so many things that I was used to, like rescue, that I just couldn't get into it, but it is the sole exception), but the story and characters are what I play FE for.

A few days ago, I had an idea for how IS could implement an avatar system and making choices, and do it really well. There is a catch, however, and the catch is that the decisions would have to actually matter (maybe to the point of changing certain chapters of the story, losing certain allies, maybe even multiple ending choices and the possibility of a "bad ending"), and the characters around the avatar have to react to them realistically.

[Reality]

On 3/13/2017 at 7:44 AM, VincentASM said:

I think the next big step is to make the next FE (possibly on the Switch) more of a traditional RPG. Rather than have a static world map or castle between battles, I'd love to see a fully 3D castle or town that you can explore. This could perhaps extend to the world map and dungeons.

Battles could begin when you enter a real battlefield with soldiers fighting on both sides. After that, it would transition into a birds-eye/overhead view and you would control your units like in a normal Fire Emblem.

So basically Arc the Lad Trilogy? No thanks.