Jump to content
Ronnie

Should IS stop using archetypes?

Recommended Posts

Jagen, Navarre, Cain and Abel, etc. Do you think IS should stop using archetypes and try creating units that are a little more original so that they're not just compared to previous iterations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jagens, at least, should stay.  They're there to make the earlygame more bearable and fulfill an essential niche.  

As for other archetypes, I don't really care, some of them are super loosely defined to the point that I question why we even call them archetypes to begin with (ex. "Gordin archetype" is essentially synonymous with "early game archer" and has no real meaning beyond that).  But keep Jagens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the idea of "archetypes" is really exaggerated to the point that it doesn't even matter

there's like, 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long there is a similar character, it's already called name-of-first-one archetype.

You can more or less have 80% of characters be a copy/variant of someone previous and have 20% try to be original but hardly be likeable (the numbers is totally random).

 

if you mean "guy to try help you early game and useless late" or "red and green dudes" or "trio brothers/sisters", I don't feel they run any way the game.(I don't know Navarre have something like this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Glaceon said, Jagens need to stay. They allow more difficult early games (which I very much like) and fill nice niches. That said, they don't need to be paladins/great knights. I'd be fine with any pre promote class as the Jagen.

Other than that, I really like the Cain/Abel archetype, but I'd be okay with a game without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Jagens did Gaiden/Echoes not having one matter all that much, in the end? Now that I think about it, FE2/15 is missing a lot of archetypes; probably because a lot of the series mainstays weren't established yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on whether you're referring to unit or character archetypes.

If you're talking about units, it isn't too harmful for them to keep to conventions.  It's mostly the variations in how you're made to use them that makes them fun.  Besides, they cover just about every base possible for a game like this.  They could try to make others, but they ought to be actually fun to use.

As for character archetypes... well, everything is technically an archetype, but FE has a clear set of archetypes that sometimes even the best of characters can full under.  I suppose that proves that much like it is the case for units, character archetypes can remain interesting if you use them a certain way, but others such as the few different flavors of shonen protagonist we get tend to get stale really quick.

1 hour ago, Tessiro said:

Speaking of Jagens did Gaiden/Echoes not having one matter all that much, in the end? Now that I think about it, FE2/15 is missing a lot of archetypes; probably because a lot of the series mainstays weren't established yet.

It's because they had pseudo-Jagens in the form of Alm, Lukas, and Saber (the latter two mostly for their significantly higher defense than the rest of the early game cast).  Even so, the Valentia games weren't particularly difficult to beat barring the Thabes Labyrinth, which is far enough into the game that the concept of a Jagen wouldn't exist anyway.

On that same vein, wouldn't it be interesting if a Jagen was the main character of the game?  Yeah, I know some games in the series have their lord units that start OP and remain OP, but I'm even talking someone who's supposed to take on the role of adviser to younger troops/commanders.  Like a sort of "passing on the torch" type story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should keep the unit archetypes.

However I wouldn't be against ditching some of the character archetypes (like most manaketes being thousand year old little girls, not including Bantu/Xane)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be frank, I'd say archetypes have all but vanished from the series as is (the only ones that are still going strong are Jagen, Cain, Abel, and possibly Lena).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unit archetypes are fine, they don't really effect the game in any negative way (And if anything, they aren't that common since Awakening).

As for character based ones, it would be nice to have more originality in characters, though the odd flirtatious womanizer, klutz or shota who wants to looked at as an adult aren't always bad to have here or there as long as they are done in moderation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind archetypes reoccurring the way they are in the Fire Emblem series, since I like how the series tries to stick to its roots from the very first game and pay tribute to its origins/history. In a way actually, looking at FE Echoes and how it didn't really follow the general archetypes like Jeigans and the Cain/Abel pair actually bothered me a strange amount (not enough to dislike the game or anything drastic like that). I don't consider Lukas/Forsyth to be the Cain/Abel pair since Forsyth was originally purple in Gaiden, and not green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unit archetypes are pretty nice, and it's fun to compare which characters are similar. But they must have some distinct personality to set them apart. Personally, I don't like most manaketes being little girls. I'm okay with Tiki, Fae, and Myrrh, but I really dislike Nowi. The only male manaketes who were part of the playable cast are Bantu and Male Kana. Xane and Gotoh probably count too. So a Bantu archetype could be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that Glaceon Sage said. Jagens are necessary for making the game easier, especially for the newcomer. However, archtypes aren't that defined nor necessary after that, and while it's nice to have a little connectivity between games (such as the red and green themed Cain and Able), they aren't really needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, they're fun. They kind of further the define the series in terms of fun little tributes.

 

4 hours ago, Glaceon Sage said:

As for other archetypes, I don't really care, some of them are super loosely defined to the point that I question why we even call them archetypes to begin with (ex. "Gordin archetype" is essentially synonymous with "early game archer" and has no real meaning beyond that).  But keep Jagens.

Take it you missed the green hair part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only archetype I don't need is the "Wendy" or "Fiona" archetype, characters who join underleveled late and are hard to train to limited ressources or poor usage or availibility.

I don't mind all the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really appreciate the Cain and Abel archetypes.   They have always had a special place on my team and in my heart.  While they are not required to make the game enjoyable a player, especially one who loves the older games, can appreciate the character type.  I did find Echoes a tad bit weird without a distinctive Cain and Abel, though Lukas and Forsyth(though originally purple) could possibly fill the role.  It made me appreciate the games that had the archetype a little bit more but it did not take away anything from the game.  This being said if they took the archetypes out, the game would still go on and be alright.  To me the Christmas knights are more of a bonus to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Soul~! said:

Nah, they're fun. They kind of further the define the series in terms of fun little tributes.

 

Take it you missed the green hair part.

I never thought green hair was a requirement to be Gordin.  Sure it's a fairly common trait among early game archers (Gordin included) but as far as I was aware Gordin literally means early game archer in the same way Merric means early game mage.

Share this post


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

I never thought green hair was a requirement to be Gordin.  Sure it's a fairly common trait among early game archers (Gordin included) but as far as I was aware Gordin literally means early game archer in the same way Merric means early game mage.

An archtype is more than just filling that kind of role. There-s at least either certain color tributes or patterns, such as the "Lena/Julian" dynamic which Ellen and Chad somewhat follow, at least in that aspect.

Share this post


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

I never thought green hair was a requirement to be Gordin.  Sure it's a fairly common trait among early game archers (Gordin included) but as far as I was aware Gordin literally means early game archer in the same way Merric means early game mage.

 

16 minutes ago, Soul~! said:

An archtype is more than just filling that kind of role. There-s at least either certain color tributes or patterns, such as the "Lena/Julian" dynamic which Ellen and Chad somewhat follow, at least in that aspect.

that brings another problem with this whole idea of "archetypes", they're so loosely defined people don't even agree on what they constitute

there's really no point in trying to categorize characters like this, there are patterns and stuff like that but it really doesn't go any further than that

13 hours ago, Reimu Hakurei said:

The only archetype I don't need is the "Wendy" or "Fiona" archetype, characters who join underleveled late and are hard to train to limited ressources or poor usage or availibility.

I don't mind all the others.

thats not an archetype that's just a description of a bad unit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, unique said:

that brings another problem with this whole idea of "archetypes", they're so loosely defined people don't even agree on what they constitute

Archtypes definitely exist, at least in said form of small tributes to older characters. Take you're referring to the wiki some people might quote aa

t times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gameplay-wise I see no problem with archetypes. Its a simply way to space out of the various characters you get at the game. You start with a set that teaches you the ropes with your high move cavalry/Jagen, Defensive knight and an Archer to showcase ranged combat. After that you gradually get some more exotic units like Myrms, Mages and Pegasus knights. Its a simply way to introduce you to the classes of the game.

Archetypes can be more problematic from a story perspective, but I think they are already fixed that problem. Early game Myrms are often very brooding, but you also get characters like Zihark and Joshua who fit in the enemy myrm archetype who avoid using that personality trait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Soul~! said:

Archtypes definitely exist, at least in said form of small tributes to older characters. Take you're referring to the wiki some people might quote aa

t times.

what

although if they're "small tributes to older characters", I don't think that necessarily makes them archetypes. stuff like jagen and the red and green knights are distinct enough to be considered archetypes, but others are just kinda references or homages

Edited by unique

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soul~! said:

Archtypes definitely exist, at least in said form of small tributes to older characters. Take you're referring to the wiki some people might quote aa

t times.

Archetypes aside from the 4 I named, which are distinct enough to easily recognize, have pretty much vanished into the ether, as I see it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Nobody said:

As Glaceon said, Jagens need to stay. They allow more difficult early games (which I very much like) and fill nice niches. That said, they don't need to be paladins/great knights. I'd be fine with any pre promote class as the Jagen.

Not every Jagen is a Great Knight or a Paladin. Dagdar's a Warrior, Sothe's a Rogue, and Jakob/Felicia's a Butler/Maid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Just call me AL said:

Not every Jagen is a Great Knight or a Paladin. Dagdar's a Warrior, Sothe's a Rogue, and Jakob/Felicia's a Butler/Maid.

I know, but most of them are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...