Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Maof06 said:

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.

Yes, but that´s not an example of skipping gameplay that is fun for you, is it? Going of your favourite FE Awakening if you enjoy its gameplay why would you skip it?

I also politely disagree on the use of skills in Conquest. One look at the enemy and it tells you how to engage them and how not. The only exceptions I would make are the Inevitable End and Staff Savant skills in Endgame and perhaps on Ryomas map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Imuabicus said:

Yes, but that´s not an example of skipping gameplay that is fun for you, is it? Going of your favourite FE Awakening if you enjoy its gameplay why would you skip it?

 
Sorry, I expressed myself badly. What I wanted to express with my statement is that "fun gameplay" is subjective to the player, and what is fun for one person may not be for another. Going by the way you spoke, there is really no reason to skip the gameplay. Also, Genealogy of the Holy War is my favorite.
 
27 minutes ago, Imuabicus said:

 I also politely disagree on the use of skills in Conquest. One look at the enemy and it tells you how to engage them and how not. The only exceptions I would make are the Inevitable End and Staff Savant skills in Endgame and perhaps on Ryomas map.

I don't have a problem with skills in Conquest, in fact I actually like RPG elements like that. Its just that I often hear people criticizing Conquest's usage of skills and saying for example that Thracia's gameplay is much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 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 ask because I've never considered the core tactical gameplay of Fire Emblem to be particularly strong. It's not bad, by any means, but I think I would mostly describe it as unremarkable. If we removed all the story and characters and all the other fluff and pared everything down to an abstract game, then I don't think that Fire Emblem would hold my interest very long at all. There are many other strategy and tactics games that I would rather be playing instead. Chess would probably be the big one for me, but also XCOM, Battletech, Bloodbowl, Europa Universalis, Go, etc.

Except that, obviously, I do like Fire Emblem a whole lot, otherwise I wouldn't be here. For me the big unique selling point that Fire Emblem has over any of the other games I just mentioned is its characters, worldbuilding and story (in that order of preference, for me). Those are the things that can make me choose to sit down and play a Fire Emblem game in preference to some other tactics/stratgey game.

Hence my question. Why Fire Emblem? I don't mean this as some sort of trap question. There's clearly something that you find compelling about the series, and your reasons and your tastes are every bit as legitimate as mine. I just don't understand what they are, and I would like to.

Admittingly, I've never played any other Medieval/fantasy SRPGS, all my other SRPG experiences are games where guns exist such as Jagged Alliance, 9th Company:Roots of Terror and X-com.

I do admit story is important but well, Three Houses tries to focus more on the story (at least I presume they did with the Monestary) and that means I've got less hours in it than Awakening due to hating the Monestary and how the story presented in it is kinda crap honestly

What fully got me into FE is the gameplay, I played Awakening on a whim after hearing bits and pieces about the series over the years and didn't like the gameplay/story at all, I then heard how FE7 was apparently better in both fronts and got super interested when hearing it had Mines, Light Runes and the Rescue mechanic, while I did end up loving the characters, I was only expecting to merely not want to put my head through a wall from a bunch of obnoxious anime cliches, I wasn't expecting to end up loving the characters such as Hector or Canas, they were more of a bonus rather than what I was intending to get out of the game.

Granted, a really ,really terrible story can still make you not want to play a game, hence why I've not touched Fates. (Also admittingly because it still uses Pair-up and other Awakening stuff that I really hate so it's sorta both gameplay/story that I don't want to play it.)

I feel like FE works better when it's trying to tell the story through gameplay a bit, Awakening (In what I've played so far, since I really, really hate it and essentially do only 1-2 chapters a month.) tends to tell the "Friendship" motif through really bad dialogue

Spoiler

And from when I looked it up to see if the plot got any better, Robin just being able to contrivance out of being absorbed by Grima if you pick the "wrong" option later on as well as magically resurrect after the sacrifice ending because heaven forbid we give choices consequences.

As well as really lame repeating barracks "Conversations" Where everyone repeats the same 1-2 lines constantly and basically only serve to make you wonder why the heck they bothered putting this in the game and a "Pair-up" mechanic that I honestly hate entirely. (Since everyone has gimped stats to force you to use it, it's clunky, I don't think you can a healer heal the unit they're paired up with and in general I think it's completely terrible.)

 

Meanwhile in FE7, I'm having Pegasus Knights transport units and having Cavaliers and other strong units rescuing weaker units in danger of dying (Yes I know you can technically rescue in Awakening with the Pair up but it's actually risky here.) which actually makes the unit carrying the other one weaker, so I'm having other units try to protect anyone rescuing anyone, so instead of the "Power of friendship" meaning I'm essentially playing a map with 5 units with boosted stats, which isn't very fun, I'm having units drag each other out of danger, which is frankly more strategic and fun, not only is it less obnoxious about the friendship theme, I have to actually think about what I'm doing with it, there's not even that many strategy games where you can carry friendly units away from combat so it's a really neat mechanic that I love.

 

Then you have my next game, Echoes, where I get into it admittingly due to a story thing. (Death Reactions, why it took them this long to realize this should be a standard thing in the series is beyond me and then Three houses removed it.) but I also found myself loving alot of the gameplay changes (Or I guess Reverts since alot of it is from the original Gaiden.) such as Archers actually having range over Mage Users or the Invoke/Expel spells.

Some of my favourite kinda moments in gameplay/story actually revolve around both working togther, I hate how everyone is weak in Awakening at the start (Except Robin and Frederick obviously) since most of your units are military yet they're worse than literal villagers in other games (and your one villager unit is pretty much the worst unit in the entire series and due to a really bad dev oversight in that he uses a lance unpromoted but none of his class-changes do, he's even got a unique downside that no other unit in the entire series has with weapon ranks.) meanwhile, in FE7, you find Lord Pent and well, we don't rescue  his big mage general dude who has worse stats than us because gameplay, we bear witness to him absolutely stomping bandits, the Gaiden chapter for this level even makes so you have to stop him killing all the enemies ahead of you, it's gameplay/story working together to pretty much awe you at least on your first time as you go from "Oh great an rescue/escort mission" to "Oh crap save some exp for me!", you do not protect Lord Pent, you are witness to his greatness and it's awesome and frankly a moment I love.

Granted, Character writing matters too, I very quickly despised Chrom (and still do) because he's frankly portrayed as a jack-ass, unintentionally admittingly but still to the point where I frankly would join Grima and kill him if the game gave me the option, we kill Border guards over a frankly contrived misunderstanding and no one cares and then he recruits Donnel with a really flimsy dumb speech that gameplay promptly proves he was completely wrong about, I'd think anyone else was actively manipulating Donnel to get him killed in that situation his speech is that dumb. (but no Chrom just lacks braincells) and then Chrom has the nerve to talk in a way that implies his Dad bringing farmers to his war was bad thing, despite him essentially tricking a Farmboy who originally had no intention of fighting with a really bad speech.

We kill Caelin troops that Lundgren is forcing to fight us in Fe7, Lyn and the rest of the group react with horror to this news and even bring it up when fighting Lundgren, this humanizes them, meanwhile the Shepherds apparently don't care one bit and it's never brought up again, which isn't exactly a good look for any sort of "Hero".  (It's even pointless on a gameplay front, we already have the dumb time travel zombies for battles so why have us fight the border guards.)

Same with the Villagers, all the "non-military" units in Fe6/7 join up of their own will, they do not need to be essentially tricked by the Lord to do so in my experience and a good few of them have some sort of combat-skill, Donnel lacks both and Chrom's speech would almost sound like intentional manipulation if it was coming out of anyone less stupid. (So Chrom only doesn't look like an evil person because he's frankly dumb enough to believe the crap he's saying.)

The gameplay even actually proves Chrom is a complete idiot here since Donnel is absolute trash as I said, so it just makes Chrom look an absolutely incompetent idiot.

So writing matters too but I feel gameplay should also be prioritized first.

Edited by Samz707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gameplay wise, i would take Conquest over Thracia any day.

Not because i hate Thracia, i love it, but Conquest is one of the most pure fun gameplay experience i ever had in my life.  I love Conquest gameplay so much, that even with rating the Story and characters like 0/10, i rate the game itself ~9/10.

Only very few games can stand up to the gameplay experience that was conquest, and they are mostly action games.

Edited by Shrimperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Emmy said:

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

Nothing wrong with not being interesting as long as they have traits to compensate. 

Characters like Alois, Ashe, Annete, the Morgans and Lugh are all not exactly the most interesting characters. But they are all very likable, cute and wholesome which makes them enjoyable to have on screen. Same for Alm who's just your typical lord and who never really struggles at anything, but he's a joy to have on screen so he's still great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lenticular said:

 

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. 😄

 

Haha. That might just do it.

8 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

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.

 

Well I do confess that if I'm trying to explain what Fire Emblem is to someone who is wholly ignorant of it describing it as a bit like chess is the go to, just to give an idea of what it looks like, even if that's not really accurate to what it feels like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2020 at 12:05 AM, Jotari said:

Are you saying that you agree to the idea of making it less powerful or that you would agree with me if misses were kept in such a system?

The former. I would go even further and only allow the almighty Wheel to undo the last action (not turn), keeping all of player’s misses (regardless of their original hit chance.) And limit its use to once or twice per chapter.
This way, the super Wheel would be used to undo actual mistakes (like selecting the wrong menu option) instead of to manipulate “bad” rolls.

 

19 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

I on the other hand do not understand the supposed appeal of FE´s storytelling and world-building or characters [...] I´m under the impression that it´s very… basic?

Neither do I.
It would be very difficult to disappoint me because I always assume that the story will be a simple anime. And, well, it is.
Precisely because the narrative never compares to an engaging read or film, I focus on the gameplay and do not bother about the tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, starburst said:

The former. I would go even further and only allow the almighty Wheel to undo the last action (not turn), keeping all of player’s misses (regardless of their original hit chance.) And limit its use to once or twice per chapter.
This way, the super Wheel would be used to undo actual mistakes (like selecting the wrong menu option) instead of to manipulate “bad” rolls.

That would still be manipulative, to be honest. One miss with X hit means a rewind and using a unit with higher hit, since the RN will remain the same post-rewind. As someone who is currently playing with SoV, that's pretty much how it happens. If a casting of Nosferatu with its 60 Hit misses, rewinding won't make it suddenly have a better or worse chance to hit since the RN doesn't change. I can have someone else with higher Hit attack instead, sure, but the RN won't change. It's even less exploitative overall since things like level ups are rolled before the map begins, and no amount of rewinding will change that either.

Limiting the uses and extent of use means it's less exploitative, but not less "manipulative".

Out of curiosity, do you believe RN's are rolled on an as-needed basis? Since most of you talks do come that way, at least to me.

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should get to reroll if you can rewind time.

A 75% hit chance might not be strategically sound, but if you know you can reroll it one time then it's functionally a 93.75% hit chance, which is much more strategically sound. The idea that rerolls inherently diminish strategy is predicated on the false assumption that rewinds cannot used strategically..

***

Availability is dumb.

1 minute ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

FE6 Karel has pretty functional stats. Give him a durandal and he kills dragons good. But he comes so late that most people put him as low tier.

However, what is the purpose of a tier list?

It tells you which units you should use. Perceval is high tier and Wendy is low tier, so its pragmatic to use Perceval instead of Wendy. However, that decision only matters when both units are available.

So, if the purpose of tier lists is to say which unit should generally be chosen over another, availability should not matter aside from factoring in levels gained.

Of course this is false because we know the real purpose of tier lists is to spark arguments on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Availability is dumb.

Near as I can tell, tier lists represent the answer to the question "Who do I most want to draft?" Hence availability matters because the sooner and longer you have them, obviously the more useful they are and the more badly you'd want them drafted. That's why Marcus is better than Athos, for example, despite Athos kicking Marcus's ass by the time you have both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

That would still be manipulative, to be honest. One miss with X hit means a rewind and using a unit with higher hit, since the RN will remain the same post-rewind [...]

Limiting the uses and extent of use means it's less exploitative, but not less "manipulative".

You are correct, the use of the holy Wheel can still be manipulative even if it could only undo the last action and it were limited to one or two uses per chapter. But with only a couple of opportunities to undo the last action, one would be considerably less inclined to spend those uses on risky attack attempts (to later undo them and simply use another unit to attack.)

 

5 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

You should get to reroll if you can rewind time.

In my opinion, if the hit connected, it should be re-rolled upon rewind. But if the hit missed (regardless of its original hit chance), it should always miss upon rewinds. As a deterrent to manipulate "bad" rolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Near as I can tell, tier lists represent the answer to the question "Who do I most want to draft?"

Ah, a well made answer. Availability would be important if its rankings were for that purpose.

39 minutes ago, starburst said:

In my opinion, if the hit connected, it should be re-rolled upon rewind. But if the hit missed (regardless of its original hit chance), it should always miss upon rewinds. As a deterrent to manipulate "bad" rolls.

That's inconsistent.

The point of a turnwheel is to mitigate bad luck (at least that's what it should be), it doesn't need to be deterred beyond not wanting to waste your limited charges when you might need them later in the map. That's the same sort of conserve vs. use dilemma which weapon durability has offered for decades, it simply scales to one map instead of the time it takes to reach a chapter 17 armory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2020 at 9:52 PM, lenticular said:

Hence my question. Why Fire Emblem? I don't mean this as some sort of trap question. There's clearly something that you find compelling about the series, and your reasons and your tastes are every bit as legitimate as mine. I just don't understand what they are, and I would like to.

Hope I'm not too late.

Having played FF Tactics Advance, Advance Wars, and XCom, I'd say what really drives FE over those for me is that each unit I'm controlling on the field in FE is an individual person rather than a generic. Even if the story is bad (e.g. Fates) there are usually enough characters I can get attached to that allows the conflict to feel more personal. I also just like the style and setting better in FE than those.

I don't know if I would like any of those other series better if they met those above conditions but kept their own gameplay. I do love FE gameplay, though, and Fates is probably my favorite game to play ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

The point of a turnwheel is to mitigate bad luck (at least that's what it should be)

That is only your view, it has nothing to do with that it should be.

I, for one, would like to undo honest mistakes, like choosing the wrong menu option, not to “mitigate” a “bad” roll. I have no problem whatsoever with chance being factored. Why would I whine about a miss? That is not understanding how probability works. One placed a bet and lost. End of the story.

If the magical Wheel is mainly used to manipulate “bad” rolls, then I would rather not have it. Factoring chance is a core element of Fire Emblem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, starburst said:

That is only your view, it has nothing to do with that it should be.

"Should be" is inherently subjective. If you're going to say its only my view, I ask why your view is more valid.

1 minute ago, starburst said:

I, for one, would like to undo honest mistakes, like choosing the wrong menu option, not to “mitigate” a “bad” roll. I have no problem whatsoever with chance being factored. Why would I whine about a miss? That is not understanding how probability works. One placed a bet and lost. End of the story.

The re-roll has been a part of RPGs since they were played on pen and paper.

Fire Emblem is a game full of chance, I agree that this is important, but it doesn't suddenly become deterministic if a turnwheel rolls for hits again. Any action has the same chance of success and failure- given limited turnwheel uses, you can't reroll until unreliable strategies pay off, at least not much more effectively than you can by just resetting the chapter. Chance isn't inherently removed, you don't stop betting, you just have more factors and tools you can take into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2020 at 1:17 PM, Samz707 said:

Lyn and the rest of the group react with horror to this news

Eh, not really. They're more like, "Welp, that's a rip." I personally found that plot point to be underblown quite a lot, as it's touched on for quite literally two lines. They did a good job with Eagler, though.

Spoiler

Kent: I noticed it during the fighting. Our opponents... They were soldiers of Caelin. I even recognized some of those we fought. I trained with many of them... Amd yet they attacked us without hesitation.

Sain: They're black-hearted traitors who've joined Lord Lundgren. Good riddance, I say. It also means less resistance at the castle.

Kent: I hope you're right...

On 9/2/2020 at 1:17 PM, Samz707 said:

Some of my favourite kinda moments in gameplay/story actually revolve around both working togther

I feel like gameplay-story separation is important-Take the Pent chapter, for example. That is one of the most boring chapters in the game-I'd rather just have a cutscene or two where Pent does something godlike-Sorta like how Zephiel destroys Cecilia, which leaves a lasting impression. I find that frequently, the Gameplay-story integration makes the game play more like a book than a game, which I have a problem with. FE4, for example, suffers a lot because of it in my opinion. Being totally segregated is a problem too, (The black fang acting more like an army when they're supposed to be an elite group of assassins, for example, not to mention that 99% are absolutely pathetic) but some looseness is nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Benice said:

Eh, not really. They're more like, "Welp, that's a rip." I personally found that plot point to be underblown quite a lot, as it's touched on for quite literally two lines. They did a good job with Eagler, though.

  Hide contents

Kent: I noticed it during the fighting. Our opponents... They were soldiers of Caelin. I even recognized some of those we fought. I trained with many of them... Amd yet they attacked us without hesitation.

Sain: They're black-hearted traitors who've joined Lord Lundgren. Good riddance, I say. It also means less resistance at the castle.

Kent: I hope you're right...

I feel like gameplay-story separation is important-Take the Pent chapter, for example. That is one of the most boring chapters in the game-I'd rather just have a cutscene or two where Pent does something godlike-Sorta like how Zephiel destroys Cecilia, which leaves a lasting impression. I find that frequently, the Gameplay-story integration makes the game play more like a book than a game, which I have a problem with. FE4, for example, suffers a lot because of it in my opinion. Being totally segregated is a problem too, (The black fang acting more like an army when they're supposed to be an elite group of assassins, for example, not to mention that 99% are absolutely pathetic) but some looseness is nice.

I don't think the idea of Pent appearing early as an NPC who trashes an army is an inherently bad idea. It's just that that chapter is bad in itself. It's less that gameplay story integration is bad and more just that the gameplay is bad, which is also bad for the story because they're...integrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jotari said:

I don't think the idea of Pent appearing early as an NPC who trashes an army is an inherently bad idea. It's just that that chapter is bad in itself. It's less that gameplay story integration is bad and more just that the gameplay is bad, which is also bad for the story because they're...integrated.

Fair enough, bad gameplay does reflect poorly on the plot-Note that I only complain about the plots for games that I disliked from a gameplay perspective; even though FE6's plot isn't very strong, I rarely criticize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

“Should be" is inherently subjective. If you're going to say its only my view, I ask why your view is more valid.

It is not. That was the point.
 

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Fire Emblem is a game full of chance, I agree that this is important, but it doesn't suddenly become deterministic if a turnwheel rolls for hits again.

True, it does not become deterministic. Nor does it become more faithful to its chance-factoring nature through a holy Wheel that “corrects” “bad” rolls.

 

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

given limited turnwheel uses, you can't reroll until unreliable strategies pay off

And yet it is exactly used in the way that you fear: To retry “bad” rolls and force “strategies.” This is what undeniably contradicts the essence of the game. The thrill inherent to chance is lost when rolls can be manipulated.

You may say that there are not enough divine-Wheel uses to force every “strategy”, but being able to force it once already taints a core element of the game. For the notion of being able to “correct” “bad luck” will always be present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, starburst said:

And yet it is exactly used in the way that you fear: To retry “bad” rolls and force “strategies.” This is what undeniably contradicts the essence of the game. The thrill inherent to chance is lost when rolls can be manipulated.

You may say that there are not enough divine-Wheel uses to force every “strategy”, but being able to force it once already taints a core element of the game. For the notion of being able to “correct” “bad luck” will always be present.

Being able to redo a couple hits is not "forcing" a strategy, nor do I think your assumption that people use it for that is actually correct.

You don't use it to "correct" bad luck, but compensate for it. The turnwheel may have some strategic value but is also a convenience to reduce resets. There is nothing gained in redoing the first five turns the same way while figuring out the best approach to the sixth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the turn wheel mechanic simply because Witch- warp= death of X unit in Echoes. Anything like that is not "chance" or "luck" at least not the way it should be. Cant really plan for an enemy that can move anywhere.

That's just me, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gray and Clair are a good couple. Their dynamic and the man having to earn her heart after the war easily makes them such a refreshing couple. Heroes better give them something good in the future. Especially if the same damned company's all over Berkut and Rinea.

Edited by Seazas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Armor Knights/Generals should have high resistance in addition to high defense. Lower their attack though... 

2. Units that are children (think Sakura and Ricken) have no place in these games, wtf is up with Japan and child soldiers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no issues with Corrin being able to marry the Hoshidan royals.

I understand the hesitation with the Nohrian siblings because Corrin was raised with them and recognizes them as family. But Corrin never knew the Hoshidan siblings and is not blood related to them. It makes sense that there would be no awkwardness about it.

Yeah, the whole blood-relation fake out is an annoying story point, but once you get past that there's nothing really strange about that kind of relationship at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn’t the sibling par regardless of norh or hoshido. It’s the fact that the writing is poor. Imagine if you were Corrin and you learn that Camilla /Xander/Leo/Elise are not siblings and neither are Ryoma/Hinoka/Takumi/Sakura but you’re mom Mikoto married Sumeragi therefore making them familly. What’s worse is the nohrian royal knew of Corrin Loyalty Seal that changed her memory. The point is Norh was a lie they made her live. With that logic hoshido should be the Canon one. Since norh and vallah are nothing logically.ore the alternative Canon would be Corrin leaving this place for awakening since it shows dragon gate awakening intro in text. Point they painted the chose you path setup to poorly with the background before that making having a choice pointless 

Share this post


Link to post
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...