Jump to content

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Harvey said:

Binding blade's challenge is mostly because of the overall design of the entire game in itself which has flaws that make it challenging for wrong reasons.

For starters, binding blade's gives you tons of units whom you are either going to use or won't use at all and in this game's case it is the latter. In a tactical rpg, you want to use units whom you can consistently rely on throughout the entire game. Unlike most of the games, fe6 tends to do the opposite only because it's challenge is partly on that aspect. 

Then there is the unit balance in itself...we all know that fe has a concept called HIT and every unit has the chance to HIT the opponent while the enemy has the chance to HIT the unit. HITTING is a needed mechanic because in order to win, you need to reliably HIT stuff.

Where am I getting in this? Half the units you get can't hit reliably and this is the main reason why I end up using Rutger because not only is his skill high, I can trust him to HIT stuff because he will often HIT the enemy. Sure later on you get better units that HIT but till then, you are not going to beat Henning without him.

Then those maps....they are long and only very few units have high move to finish most of them in few hours. None of them take minutes to complete except the first few chapters. As soon as chapter 7 starts, they start to get longer.

This would be fine but then the other problem is enemies get stronger than you and they make it very hard for you to make any kind of progress because again unit balance... This isn't challenging and it's just testing your patience in the long run.

What I am saying is that fe6 challenge is messed up because if game design flaws. If you compare Conquest, it's a challenging game that is pretty well balanced because every unit is balanced and weapons are also balanced despite the annoying debuffs.

Is there a reason you're putting hit in all caps almost every time you say it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Harvey said:

What I am saying is that fe6 challenge is messed up because if game design flaws. If you compare Conquest, it's a challenging game that is pretty well balanced because every unit is balanced and weapons are also balanced despite the annoying debuffs.

I found your initial wording a bit ambiguous.  I couldn't tell if you meant challenge needed to be "improved" in terms of balancing or difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UNLEASH IT said:

While I do accept Echoes for what it is, the manner in which IS handled it greatly narrows the scope of games I want to see remade. FE4, for example, is out.

You know, I kinda agree with this. I feel FE4 has a lot of things that just wouldn't fly with today's audiences, so if it gets remade in the same vein as FE2, it wouldn't do very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jave said:

You know, I kinda agree with this. I feel FE4 has a lot of things that just wouldn't fly with today's audiences, so if it gets remade in the same vein as FE2, it wouldn't do very well.

As much as this is true, people ALSO said the same thing about Echoes and FE2. FE2 was considered the black sheep of the FE franchise for way longer than FE4 has.

Yet Echoes seems to have struck a chord with a lot of people in a way that going back to FE2 never would have, and a lot of it has to do with a lot of the quality of life changes made to the game, rather than intrinsic changes to the gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Slumber said:

As much as this is true, people ALSO said the same thing about Echoes and FE2. FE2 was considered the black sheep of the FE franchise for way longer than FE4 has.

Yet Echoes seems to have struck a chord with a lot of people in a way that going back to FE2 never would have, and a lot of it has to do with a lot of the quality of life changes made to the game, rather than intrinsic changes to the gameplay.

I think the problem is that FE4's flaws are a lot more ingrained into its gameplay, unlike FE2, were some nice QOL additions made the game a lot more playable (namely remaking the slow-as-fuck interface). Those same changes wouldn't fix a lot of FE4's problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jave said:

I think the problem is that FE4's flaws are a lot more ingrained into its gameplay, unlike FE2, were some nice QOL additions made the game a lot more playable (namely remaking the slow-as-fuck interface). Those same changes wouldn't fix a lot of FE4's problems.

I don't think people would agree prior to Echoes with that, either. FE2 had a lot of big sins that were tied to its game design.

Bad hit rates, the way magic worked, the map design, the way Arcanists and Witches work, desert and swamp maps, the limited classes and imbalance within the classes. All things they kept 95% in tact, yet still weren't major detractions from the game for a lot of people.

Edited by Slumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I don't think people would agree prior to Echoes with that, either. FE2 had a lot of big sins that were tied to its game design.

Bad hit rates, the way magic worked, the map design, the way Arcanists and Witches work, desert and swamp maps. All things they kept 95% in tact, yet still weren't major detractions from the game for a lot of people.

Weren't they? I remember several people criticizing precisely those things in the remake, both here and outside SF, and map design in FE15 was still considered pretty bad for the most part. While I'll agree Echoes didn't do terrible, the impression I get from the reviews is that it was the least liked of the 3DS games.

I feel that if FE4 gets remade, it will require a lot more changes than what FE2 ended up getting in order to resonate better with today's audiences. In addition to fixing unit balance, there's also the fact that the maps are... well, boring. It's not just that they're huge, but the lack of variety is honestly pretty hurtful. Every single map is outdoors with 90% of the visuals being green plains and forests, with the only exceptions being the one snowy map (which is just a palette swap) and a couple of desert sections (which are terrible anyway).

There's also the fact the game has a lot of beginners' traps and things that can only be gotten with a guide, some of which are completely unintuitive of what the game initially tells you. Remember that armor dude the game tells you should always stay guarding the castle? Well, if you drag him to this lonely spot you actually get an item that makes him decent!

I don't know, FE2 kinda got away with its remake being decent since the changes made the game a lot more playable, yet still had plenty of flaws. I feel that if FE4 gets the exact same treatment it just wouldn't work, because the issues with FE4 and FE2 are completely different.

Edited by Jave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

Is there a reason you're putting hit in all caps almost every time you say it?

Well in my playthroughs of it, most of the units I used had troubles hitting enemies let alone deal less damage to them. If only their skill growth were on par with Rutger...

5 hours ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

I found your initial wording a bit ambiguous.  I couldn't tell if you meant challenge needed to be "improved" in terms of balancing or difficulty.

When a game challenges you, that challenge needs to be balanced for it to even be acceptable. If the game was more balanced, then I could easily put up with Roy's late promotion because that is part of the game's challenge since the main objective of the entire game is seize, having to protect Roy throughout the entire game is also another main objective as well so it helps to add some variety to it. While I usually like strong lords, I'm fine dealing with a weak one as long as the game is balanced enough to do so. Even hard mode is unbalanced due to the inconsistent hard mode bonuses and enemies being overpowered compared to you in general.

Unfortunately, because of the mentioned reasons, the challenge to me just can't be accepted. Even if Conquest had some bad units (which it doesn't but some would say otherwise) atleast you can deal with it because the cast is smaller.

I would even go as far as to say that I like FE5's challenge better simply because it was balanced well. Fatigue isn't really an issue because you have lots of good units that you can always switch from this unit to that one for every chapter. So if like Asvel can't be used due to fatigue, Homer is a good substitute for that even though he doesn't have the grafcalibur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Harvey said:

Well in my playthroughs of it, most of the units I used had troubles hitting enemies let alone deal less damage to them. If only their skill growth were on par with Rutger...

When a game challenges you, that challenge needs to be balanced for it to even be acceptable. If the game was more balanced, then I could easily put up with Roy's late promotion because that is part of the game's challenge since the main objective of the entire game is seize, having to protect Roy throughout the entire game is also another main objective as well so it helps to add some variety to it. While I usually like strong lords, I'm fine dealing with a weak one as long as the game is balanced enough to do so. Even hard mode is unbalanced due to the inconsistent hard mode bonuses and enemies being overpowered compared to you in general.

Unfortunately, because of the mentioned reasons, the challenge to me just can't be accepted. Even if Conquest had some bad units (which it doesn't but some would say otherwise) atleast you can deal with it because the cast is smaller.

I would even go as far as to say that I like FE5's challenge better simply because it was balanced well. Fatigue isn't really an issue because you have lots of good units that you can always switch from this unit to that one for every chapter. So if like Asvel can't be used due to fatigue, Homer is a good substitute for that even though he doesn't have the grafcalibur. 

I get what you're trying to say.  It's just that "balancing" just isn't the first meaning that pops into my head when I heard the word "challenge".

Actually, what I should have said is that it wasn't clear if you meant the challenge needed to be improved quantitatively or qualitatively.  When I hear the word "challenge" I (and probably a lot of other people) usually think of it in the quantitative sense and I'm not used to hearing people mean the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fe7 is basically unplayable

SoV plays worse than Gaiden, fixed nothing with it that needed to be fixed and removed everything that made Gaiden mildly enjoyable to play

Fe6 is the only good original FE game IS has made without Kaga, the rest are mostly either remakes of his games, their own versions of his games from either his notes (Tellius) or straightup stolen ideas from a game he published years before (fe7)

Tear Ring Saga: Champions of Yutona and Tear Ring Saga: Berwick Saga: Lazberia chronicals chapter 174 are more Fire Emblem than TMS #FE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Ablast6 said:

straightup stolen ideas from a game he published years before (fe7)

Could you elaborate on this?  What ideas, from what, did FE7 "steal," exactly?

I don't mean to insult you, I'm just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Glaceon Mage said:

Could you elaborate on this?  What ideas, from what, did FE7 "steal," exactly?

I don't mean to insult you, I'm just curious.

To start fe7 came out about 2 years after TRS was released.

They basically have the same cast, except 7's is characterized noticeably worse. The only exception to this is Sonya I would say is more interesting than Karla and Eliwood who's also pretty good but for completely different reasons to Runan.

The Black Fang is basically the nation of Cannan except the Black Fang is more "tell them they used to be good and having them all act fairly evil regardless" while Cannan is "show them the country is kinda good through Prince Sennet working with Runan and Barker/Julius working to restore the country despite Runan trying to destroy it"

Nergal and Gwenchaos are basically the same character except Nergal has his backstory arbitrarily locked behind 19xx

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ablast6 said:

Fe6 is the only good original FE game IS has made without Kaga, the rest are mostly either remakes of his games, their own versions of his games from either his notes (Tellius) or straightup stolen ideas from a game he published years before (fe7)

Even FE6 isn't fully original, a lot of the plot and character concepts can be traced back to FE1/3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If authority stars come back, it should be an enemy - only mechanic.

 

If the player "must" have it as well, it should be given exclusively to bad units to encourage their use. Tacticians don't fight, Dynsasty Warriors Sima Yi is a lie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Refa said:

How so?

I also prefer infantry classes because I find most cavalry classes (except for Great Knights and cavalry archers) boring.

I'll even go further and say I prefer armored classes over both, because I like characters with high Defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Von Ithipathachai said:

I also prefer infantry classes because I find most cavalry classes (except for Great Knights and cavalry archers) boring.

Why are they boring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Refa said:

Why are they boring?

To me they don't have a lot of personality (I'm mostly thinking of classic Social Knight Cavaliers/Paladins) and they seem to get the most preferential treatment of the different class types throughout the series.

I suppose most of my preference towards armored units and most axe users is out of pity because IS seems to neglect them the most.  But that's just what I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

To me they don't have a lot of personality (I'm mostly thinking of classic Social Knight Cavaliers/Paladins) and they seem to get the most preferential treatment of the different class types throughout the series.

I suppose most of my preference towards armored units and most axe users is out of pity because IS seems to neglect them the most.  But that's just what I see.

Do you mean they don't have a lot of personality character wise, or something else?

The second point is a valid perspective.  It's always fun to use characters who are unique, even if they're objectively worse off in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Refa said:

Do you mean they don't have a lot of personality character wise, or something else?

Nothing about those classes stands out to me.  Mercenaries/Myrmidons are skilled and agile swordsmen.  Fighters/Brigands are inaccurate but hard-hitting.  Knights and Generals are super tanky.  Cavaliers just seem like boring old knights on horseback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...