What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[lenticular]

I appreciate the replies!

1 hour ago, Benice said:

I've only played two (Or technically three) franchises for Tactical RPGs- FE and Advance wars, (Also KagaSaga, but that's FE in my opinion.)

You say tactical RPGs; does that also mean you haven't played other strategy and tactics games that aren't RPGs? If so would you mind if I ask why? Lack of interest? Lack of knowledge? Intimidating learning curves? Something else entirely? I can certainly see why you're perspective on the genre would be radically different from mine if you've played relatively few games from it, but I'm genuinely curious why you never wanted to branch out.

A lot of what both of you describe aren't things that I think of as unique to Fire Emblem. For instance:

1 hour ago, Benice said:

it didn't scratch the itch that the permadeath and your decisions being indelible FE did.

 

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I dunno how to explain it but a good map will have me engaged through constant danger at every turn and having to constantly check every little calculation and I like that.

This is something that I would consider pretty standard across most strategy games. Or at least, I would consider it fairly standard to at least have a game-mode where decisions are permanent. All of the games that I mentioned above can be played that way, for instance (with the possible exceptions of chess and go, where it's somewhat debatable due to individual games standing alone rather than being joined together into a longer campaign, but even in chess, if you lose a piece, it's gone until the end of the game). If you really want to turn the permadeath side of things up to 11, then there are classic roguelikes (the likes of Nethack, ADoM and Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup). I get how the lack of graphics and the steep learning curve can be a turn-off for a lot of people, but I think they do tension due to the constant possibility of death a whole lot better than Fire Emblem does.

[Benice]

11 minutes ago, lenticular said:

You say tactical RPGs; does that also mean you haven't played other strategy and tactics games that aren't RPGs?

I mean, I've only played Zelda and FE games, (And I guess two mario games,) so not really, although I enjoy strategy board games quite a bit, although I prefer more adventure-y things than true strategic games like Axis and Allies or Chess, even if though I do enjoy all three.

11 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Lack of interest? Lack of knowledge?

Kinda both, -I try not to get into too many video games because they end up zuccing up all my time so I never do anything else, and I haven't really looked around too much to see what else the genre has to offer. I tend to get obsessive about things and have trouble branching out for fear of losing interest in the obsession, which doesn't help matters.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Benice

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

2 hours ago, lenticular said:

A genuine question for the "gameplay reigns supreme" crowd: what is it that draws you to Fire Emblem specifically in preference over the many other strategy and tactics games that exist? [...]

First off, time investment. Assuming I need ~4 hours to get a game in Civ 6 done, by that time I would probably be somewhere around chapter 17-20 in FE Conquest (obviously I´m more experienced with FE14 than Civ 6). One map in the one game, 20 maps in the other.

Secondly, by comparison to the aforementioned games FE is incredibly easy. I don´t even know how many hours it would take someone to be good at e.g. Civilization 6. I wonder how much time it would take someone to be able to reliably beat FE:TH on Maddening compared to the time it would take someone to be able to reliably take on Civ6 Deity. And don´t even get me started on a game like Starcraft. Playing that game on any competent level is stressful and intense (though to be fair that´s PvP). In contrast one of the most difficult things in FE is memorizing things like at which SPD threshold to I double or get doubled? What´s that Skill going to do?

Part of it, at the very least to me, is the ease of access FE provides, as well as the ratio of enjoyment relative to time invested.

I on the other hand do not understand the supposed appeal of FE´s storytelling and world-building or characters. Granted I´m very disinterested in that regard, so I don’t pay attention to it which certainly skews my perception, but it is hard not to catch a glimpse of it, every now and then. But I´m under the impression that it´s very… basic?

[Shrimpica]

9 hours ago, lenticular said:

A genuine question for the "gameplay reigns supreme" crowd: what is it that draws you to Fire Emblem specifically in preference over the many other strategy and tactics games that exist?

I won't talk about Civ and similiar games because they are a completely different thing. Same can be said about RTS games, they are a completely different genre (that i love and used to play alot)

however, the reason i prefer FE over other SRPG

• Game Speed: FE games are relatively fast & responsive compared to most other SRPG. Units have high lethality, leading to fast tactical gameplay
• Simple to leart, hard to master: The Mechanics of FE are pretty simple to learn, and in a game they get progressively more complex (by adding more skills and terrain, for example), they don't throw everything at you at once. Despite the ease of access, everyone plays FE in their own way and there are numerous tactics out there for every chapter.
• Perma death, especially in harder games, means your every move matters.
• The amount of units you control. In FE, you control from 5 units early game up to 15 late game, making the scale feel big. Alot of SRPG stick you with 4-6 units, making it more like a overglorified RPG battle
• Access to information: A single look at the stat screen and you can calculat everything in FE. Other SRPG make calculations way more complex and have numbers in the 1000s that make me go ''wtf? How am i suppossed to calculate that?''
• I prefer FE's Map design over most SRPG as well

There are a couple more reasons as well, i am sure, but those are the ones from the top of my head

You talked about Chess, and i love FE exactly because it's like Chess.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Shrimperor

[NaotoUzumaki]

To me it’s permanent death in fantasy setting since a arrow to the knee like in Skyrim in FE is crippled for life while with futuristic ones most of the time tech can heals anything almost defeating the consequences. I like having character take a wound or dying to save more life. It makes your mistakes and theirs death more impact full since you don’t want it to be in vain.

[Whisky]

I haven’t really played very many Tactical RPGs, and the ones that I have all play so differently from FE that it’s difficult to compare, and I wouldn’t exactly do that other games have better gameplay than FE. I think the most similar game I’ve played to FE would be Super Robot Wars. Either that or Shining Force. I pretty much like all the Strategy or Tactical RPGs that I’ve played. I like the whole genre so it makes sense that I’d like FE. To say anything more specific would depend on the game.

Edit:

permadeath is one of the more unique aspects of FE, which I like about it.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Whisky

[Ottservia]

6 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

But I´m under the impression that it´s very… basic?

I mean no FE story is a literary masterpiece by any means. It may be basic but by no means does that make it bad. These stories, for as simple as they are, still have worthwhile ideas they explore with at least a decent level of competency

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

39 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I mean no FE story is a literary masterpiece by any means. It may be basic but by no means does that make it bad. These stories, for as simple as they are, still have worthwhile ideas they explore with at least a decent level of competency

Yes and I am not denying they may have some merit to them as SF alone is a FE board that discusses a lot in regard to story, but what about these stories and characters make someone say: I am going to buy this SRPG/TRPG(?), play through X amount of maps on any difficulty just to enjoy the story/characters, even more so if a person has no prior experience with FE. Especially, and this being the solemn example I can give due to lack of having played many other FE´s, when what @lenticular has described as

Quote

[...] the core tactical gameplay of Fire Emblem to be particularly strong. [...]

is implemented as it was in Echoes (fully keeping in mind that it´s a remake of an older game and thus perhaps limited in what they could do).

I´m sorry if I didn´t get my point across in the first post, but my question is basically the same question that @lenticular posted except, what draws you to FE over other more story focused games out there?

[DragonFlames]

Good/fun gameplay can't salvage a bad story, just as a good story can't salvage gameplay that isn't fun. And if the characters are bad/unlikeable, especially if it's the protagonist of the game, then gameplay and story can be as good as they want, that's a ruined game right there, while I am willing to tolerate a weaker story if the characters are at least good. 
That's my take on that whole discussion.

And there is a certain Fire Emblem game (technically three) that failed in all three of these aspects for me, which in one case would be the unpopular opinion, since its gameplay is rather beloved.

[Emmy]

3 minutes ago, DragonFlames said:

Good/fun gameplay can't salvage a bad story, just as a good story can't salvage gameplay that isn't fun. And if the characters are bad/unlikeable, especially if it's the protagonist of the game, then gameplay and story can be as good as they want, that's a ruined game right there, while I am willing to tolerate a weaker story if the characters are at least good. 
That's my take on that whole discussion.

And there is a certain Fire Emblem game (technically three) that failed in all three of these aspects for me, which in one case would be the unpopular opinion, since its gameplay is rather beloved.

Which one?

[DragonFlames]

Just now, Emmy said:

Which one?

Starts with an "F", and ends with "ates (Conquest)".
I hate that game with a burning passion. It wasn't fun to play, the story was atrocious, I hated every single major character in there...
It's no overstatement if I say that that game is one of my absolute least favorite games of all time, let alone least favorite Fire Emblem game. 

Granted, the game not being fun was probably BECAUSE I hated pretty much 80% of the entire roster, but still... no. I'd rather forget it ever existed, to be honest.

[Emmy]

I did have a feeling. Characters, in my opinion, are what makes FE3H, one of, if not THE best game i've ever played. The story and Gameplay are great too.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Shrimperor said:

 

You talked about Chess, and i love FE exactly because it's like Chess.

Well...they're both grid based, but I wouldn't say the games are any way similar beyond that at all. Chess is hugely about the different movement types of the pieces you control, while in Fire Emblem all units can move the same way with only distance changing. Chess also has a massive focus on sacrificing your pieces for the advantage where's Fire Emblem is basically the complete antithesis of that concept. Chess also pits you against an enemy who has completely equal resources to you with the game being about how you handle those resources while in Fire Emblem this is almost never true. Even in the rare PVP games, chances are you're fighting against enemy units that are quite different to your own (unless your messing around in the link arena fighting yourself because you have no friends 😞 )

Edit: Pawns can promote I confess, so there's one similarity beyond just functionally being on a grid. I'd still rank them as being wildly different gameplay experiences though.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Jotari

[DragonFlames]

35 minutes ago, Emmy said:

I did have a feeling. Characters, in my opinion, are what makes FE3H, one of, if not THE best game i've ever played. The story and Gameplay are great too.

The characters definitely make Three Houses, that's true.
There are a few that I am not really a fan of, and sadly, nearly all of them are forced on me if I want to play my favorite route (that being Verdant Wind), but the good characters far outweigh the bad. I love the story and gameplay in Three Houses as well.

22 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well...they're both grid based, but I wouldn't say the games are any way similar beyond that at all. Chess is hugely about the different movement types of the pieces you control, while in Fire Emblem all units can move the same way with only distance changing. Chess also has a massive focus on sacrificing your pieces for the advantage where's Fire Emblem is basically the complete antithesis of that concept. Chess also pits you against an enemy who has completely equal resources to you with the game being about how you handle those resources while in Fire Emblem this is almost never true. Even in the rare PVP games, chances are you're fighting against enemy units that are quite different to your own (unless your messing around in the link arena fighting yourself because you have no friends 😞 )

Edit: Pawns can promote I confess, so there's one similarity beyond just functionally being on a grid. I'd still rank them as being wildly different gameplay experiences though.

This also leads to certain units and skills being far more useful to the AI than they are to the player. Counter being one example, because the AI can afford to sacrifice its units, while players cannot.
In general, in Fire Emblem, the player is at a constant state of disadvantage, because losing a unit is a minor inconvenience to the AI (not only because of superior numbers, but especially if we look at the long term), while to the player, it is enough of a blow that many consider resetting unless they force themselves not to do it through challenge runs. Not to mention that one (or in some cases multiple) units dying can lead to a game over for the player while the AI can afford to lose units until a player manages to clear the chapter.

[Emmy]

2 minutes ago, DragonFlames said:

The characters definitely make Three Houses, that's true.
There are a few that I am not really a fan of, and sadly, nearly all of them are forced on me if I want to play my favorite route (that being Verdant Wind), but the good characters far outweigh the bad. I love the story and gameplay in Three Houses as well.

 

Raphael is just... cute, but not that great of a character. I've learned to like him kinda. Thank god i don't have to have Hubert for VW

Edited September 2, 2020 by Emmy

[lenticular]

First, thanks to everyone who has replied and helped sate my curiosity.

7 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

Secondly, by comparison to the aforementioned games FE is incredibly easy. I don´t even know how many hours it would take someone to be good at e.g. Civilization 6. I wonder how much time it would take someone to be able to reliably beat FE:TH on Maddening compared to the time it would take someone to be able to reliably take on Civ6 Deity.

This is really interesting to me, because it's completely different to the way I'd look at things. I'd be more likely to look at the time to learn the game at a basic level, by comparing Settler difficulty in Civ VI and Normal/Casual in FE:TH, which I think can both probably be beaten by a first time player, though it's been so long since I've been a new player for either that I'm probably not well placed to judge the new player experience. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that the skill floor for both of them is fairly low; it's fairly easy to learn either one of them well enough to muddle through on easiest settings. I do definitely agree with you that FE:TH Maddening is easier than Civ VI deity, but I would count that as a point in Civ's favour. I like having a higher skill ceiling because if a game captures my interest enough, I like having more room to improve.

 

1 hour ago, Shrimperor said:

• Simple to leart, hard to master: The Mechanics of FE are pretty simple to learn, and in a game they get progressively more complex (by adding more skills and terrain, for example), they don't throw everything at you at once. Despite the ease of access, everyone plays FE in their own way and there are numerous tactics out there for every chapter.
• Access to information: A single look at the stat screen and you can calculat everything in FE. Other SRPG make calculations way more complex and have numbers in the 1000s that make me go ''wtf? How am i suppossed to calculate that?''

These are things that I value a whole lot as well, but I've never particularly considered them great strengths of Fire Emblem. I guess a lot of it depends on what other games we've played and how well FE does these things relative to those games.

7 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well...they're both grid based, but I wouldn't say the games are any way similar beyond that at all. Chess is hugely about the different movement types of the pieces you control, while in Fire Emblem all units can move the same way with only distance changing. Chess also has a massive focus on sacrificing your pieces for the advantage where's Fire Emblem is basically the complete antithesis of that concept.

Agreed with this. And I do kinda see not being able to sacrifice as something of a weakness to FE's gameplay. Maybe I should start a "permadeath is bad for gameplay" thread and see if I can make everyone hate me. 😄

47 minutes ago, Imuabicus said:

I´m sorry if I didn´t get my point across in the first post, but my question is basically the same question that @lenticular posted except, what draws you to FE over other more story focused games out there?

For me, there are two answers to this, depending on whether I'm comparing to big budget games from major companies or to indies. When it comes to big budget games, the big draw is the genre of gameplay attached. For instance, I love the universe and the characters of Mass Effect, but they come attached to a third-person shooter, which isn't a genre I particularly enjoy. Mass Effect 1 in particular, I hated the gameplay, so I turned everything down to the easiest possible settings and suffered through the gameplay sections as quickly as I could to get back to the story parts that were interesting to me. Obviously, having good gameplay in a genre that I enjoy is far preferable to that.

On the other hand, there are indie games, and I think that a lot of the best storytelling in games is in the indie sector. And with indies it is possible to get games that are essentially all story and no game, in the form of visual novels and walking simulators, both of which I play. And while I love the storytelling in games like Gone Home or Analogue: A Hate Story, one area where they absolutely cannot match games like Fire Emblem or Mass Effect is in budget and production values. Just think of something like voice acting, for instance. A really good indie might be able to have a couple or even a handful of decent voice actors, bu there's no way any indie is having a fully voiced cast of the same size and quality as something like Three Houses. That's just not happening.

[DragonFlames]

1 minute ago, Emmy said:

Raphael is just... cute, but not that great of a character. I've learned to like him kinda. Thank god i don't have to have Hubert for VW

Raphael is a gimmick, you could say. He's all about training and food, and nothing else. Not too compelling.
And then Balthus is just him, but with money problems instead of food.
The list of characters I don't really like also includes Ignatz, because he's boring (and sort of creepy in some supports), Lorenz, who is just an arrogant douche, and Leonie, who can't shut up about Jeralt for two seconds (and is also not too likeable outside of that, if you ask me). And then, of course, Sylvain. And also Linhardt.
Sylvain because he belongs to the philanderer archetype, which I hate (and he's one of the worst), and Linhardt, because he's not that interesting, and his supports with Flayn and Lysithea are unsettling, to say the least.

Hubert is a straight up villain. I do like his voice actor, the character himself is... eh. Take it or leave it, I suppose.
 

[Emmy]

I agree with that but i do like Leonie and Linhardt, even if they aren't exactly interesting characters.

[Shrimpica]

42 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'd still rank them as being wildly different gameplay experiences though.

Yeah, they are majorly different, true

But i would be laying if i said my love for chess wasn't a major motivation to get into FE.

 

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

3 hours ago, lenticular said:

I'd be more likely to look at the time to learn the game at a basic level, by comparing Settler difficulty in Civ VI and Normal/Casual in FE:TH, which I think can both probably be beaten by a first time player, though it's been so long since I've been a new player for either that I'm probably not well placed to judge the new player experience.

I mean the first time I played Civ 6 I played on Settler and won through a coincidental Religious Victory. Perhaps the more accurate thing to ask would be how long does it take someone to know what they do in the game. 

3 hours ago, lenticular said:

For me, there are two answers to this, depending on whether I'm comparing to big budget games from major companies or to indies. When it comes to big budget games, the big draw is the genre of gameplay attached. [...] one area where they absolutely cannot match games like Fire Emblem or Mass Effect is in budget and production values. Just think of something like voice acting, for instance.

In respect to the first part. A good story may enhance gameplay, but it will never redeem bad gameplay. I stopped playing Xenoblade Chronicles 2 because of this (among other factors), as well as Valkyria Chronicles (though that may have been because I was expecting the wrong things for both of these games). Both simply bored me out of my mind. But good gameplay doesn´t need a good story, because I will be too busy playing the game.

As for the second part, at the very last for voice acting, I tend to not notice it because I read faster than the voice actors can say it and thus skip it.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Imuabicus

[null]

1 hour ago, DragonFlames said:

Good/fun gameplay can't salvage a bad story, just as a good story can't salvage gameplay that isn't fun. And if the characters are bad/unlikeable, especially if it's the protagonist of the game, then gameplay and story can be as good as they want, that's a ruined game right there, while I am willing to tolerate a weaker story if the characters are at least good. 
That's my take on that whole discussion.

I completely agree. That was why I stopped playing games like Genealogy of the Holy War and Tales of the Abyss.

3 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

Simple to leart, hard to master: The Mechanics of FE are pretty simple to learn, and in a game they get progressively more complex (by adding more skills and terrain, for example), they don't throw everything at you at once. Despite the ease of access, everyone plays FE in their own way and there are numerous tactics out there for every chapter.

Playing Radiant Dawn has been my most engaging FE experience for this reason. It forces me to improve my skills to adapt to each progressively more difficult situation more than any other FE so far. No gimmicks to break the game or put things in my favor.

FE in general doesn't need to be complex to be good, imo. But the gameplay becomes that much more satisfying when I can use the simple abilities I'm given to execute more complex tactics in the most efficient way possible.

[Venger_06]

 18 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

if you want to skip good gameplay... well let's just say I can't think of such a circumstance off the top of my head.

Let's take Conquest for example, there are people who don't like its gameplay because of the excessive use of skills and prefer to play games like Thracia or Binding Blade for the challenge. I'm not a big fan of Conquest myself and I dropped off the game when I got to Fuga's map because I didn't care about the conflict or the characters (or rather, because I didn't care about this side of the conflict). I only picked up the game again 3 months later and I didn't care enough to keep my units alive.

17 hours ago, twilitfalchion said:

Those are definitely fair points to make. I'd say it's all a matter of what one's priorities are in gaming. For me personally, I'd rather have characters to connect to and a story to be immersed in than the most optimal gameplay experience if I had to choose between the two.

My feelings as well. I just want to form a connection between myself and the game's world.

2 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

´m sorry if I didn´t get my point across in the first post, but my question is basically the same question that @lenticular posted except, what draws you to FE over other more story focused games out there?

Fire Emblem is one the few game series that is pretty balanced in terms of Story/Gameplay quality.

2 hours ago, DragonFlames said:

Starts with an "F", and ends with "ates (Conquest)".
I hate that game with a burning passion. It wasn't fun to play, the story was atrocious, I hated every single major character in there...
It's no overstatement if I say that that game is one of my absolute least favorite games of all time, let alone least favorite Fire Emblem game. 

Granted, the game not being fun was probably BECAUSE I hated pretty much 80% of the entire roster, but still... no. I'd rather forget it ever existed, to be honest.

I agree with some points that you said about Conquest, although I must say that I'm pretty fond of Fates as whole. Takumi is probably my favorite final boss of the franchise.

19 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

I completely agree. That was why I stopped playing games like Genealogy of the Holy War and Tales of the Abyss.

Now you made me curious, since they are my favorite games from their respective series. What exactly did you dislike about Genealogy's story or characters? Regarding Tales of the Abyss, I must say that although Luke is unbearable at first, he gets much better as the game progresses.

[null]

Just now, Maof06 said:

Now you made me curious, since they are my favorite games from their respective series. What exactly did you dislike about Genealogy's story or characters? Regarding Tales of the Abyss, I must say that although Luke is unbearable at first, he gets much better as the game progresses.

For Genealogy, there just wasn't a single character I liked enough to hold my interest in the story, not to mention the gameplay was quite boring as well.

For Tales of the Abyss, Luke was an irritating enough character to me that I had no desire to continue with the story. And none of the other characters had enough personality to balance him out in my opinion.

[Shrimpica]

In general, i would say

Gameplay > Characters > Story

I'd rather have a prdeictable Story with good characters over a unique Story with bad characters

58 minutes ago, Maof06 said:

excessive use of skills

I honestly never found the skill use in conquest to be that excessive, except for stuff like poison strike and inevitable end on Nightmare.

I wish more FE had more enemies witj Skills ala Conquest

58 minutes ago, Maof06 said:

there are people who don't like its gameplay because of the excessive use of skills and prefer to play games like Thracia

Thracia not only has many enemies with Skills, but also employs the "let's excessively hide information from the player" game design philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, i love Thracia, but it isn't a paragon in keeping things simple

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Shrimperor

[Venger_06]

1 hour ago, twilitfalchion said:

For Genealogy, there just wasn't a single character I liked enough to hold my interest in the story, not to mention the gameplay was quite boring as well.

For Tales of the Abyss, Luke was an irritating enough character to me that I had no desire to continue with the story. And none of the other characters had enough personality to balance him out in my opinion.

Fair enough. If you didn't like Genealogy's gen 1, you probably wouldn't like Gen 2 as well. I still recommend you to play Abyss a little bit more. If you can push through the boring first part you can get a genuinely good story.

52 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

I honestly never found the skill use in conquest to be that excessive, except for stuff like poison strike and inevitable end on Nightmare.

I wish more FE had more enemies witj Skills ala Conquest

I don't have a problem with skills in Conquest, in fact I actually like RPG elements like that.

52 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

Thracia not only has many enemies with Skills, but also employs the "let's excessively hide information from the player" game design philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, i love Thracia, but it isn't a paragon in keeping things simple

I don't have much experience with that, as I never played Thracia myself. Its just that I often hear people criticizing Conquest's usage of skills and saying Thracia's gameplay is much better.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Maof06