If Conquest's Gameplay Is 'Among the Best in the Series', What Are the Other 'Best Gameplay' Titles?

[dragonlordsd]

Going to diverge a bit here, but I always preferred the binding blade/blazing sword duology. These games for me struck the best balance between allowing me to have unit customization and still making the characters make sense (I've always been a huge critic of class changing).

 

One of the major things that I really dislike about awakening and birthright is how small scale the maps have become. I don't think there's a single map in awakening that took me more than 6 turns to clear, and same for birthright. Compare this to past games, especially binding blade, which had both the largest roster of any game (discounting radiant dawn, since at no point in the game can you ever access the entire roster at once), and also the largest map of any game, with the battle against murdock having well over 120 enemies. It really felt like you were fighting a battle, though I understand that that scale isn't for everyone.

[Yexin]

1 hour ago, KnightOfNohr said:

Fates in general has the best gameplay SYSTEM of the series, in my opinion. I’m not sure if any of them have the best GAMEPLAY. Birthright’s map design is...nothing special, really. Revelation has a few good chapters, but most are gimmicky and kind of frustrating. Conquest’s levels fluctuate between “great” and “AAHHHHGGG!!!”

From what I’ve seen, I’d say Path of Radience is the best. Good basic system, largely good level design, and very good character balance. Maybe it’s too easy, but for someone like me, that’s just what the doctor ordered.

i don't exactly know what you mean by "gameplay system"

do you mean that all the mechanics (adjusted duo, skills, supports an so on) mixed together work well? because if this is the case, i could say i partially agree that at least Conquest has a gameplay, differently from awakening, but this alone doesn't instantly make it the best

proceeding through a map should be engaging, fun and challenging, so that when you come up with a strategy and you see it working, you feel great, because you're the one who managed to do it: i like thinking about FE as a sort of puzzle game with potentially limitless combinations (units, stats, weapons, classes, RNG etc. to get it solved

conquest has really too many chapters filled with unengaging """challenges""" that i felt no real reason to keep playing it, except the thought that, if i stopped playing it, i'd have wasted money on a game i didn't like (which happened anyway so eh)

[Interdimensional Observer]

1 hour ago, lightcosmo said:

Also, I'm curious why people rate Thracia 776 so high, the battles are always the same thing, attack, enemy attack, critical hit, in that order, it's never different. Sure. I guess the fatigue system and capture system are neat, but there isn't much in terms of the player having total control. Although I will admit, it's cool to see the CPU go shopping for weapons.

1 v. 1 combat isn't generally so hard about Thracia, true. But, the maps do call for more strategic thinking than in other games. Gratuitous ballistae and siege tomes, status staffs, having to find time for capturing to get weapons. And even if individual enemies are weak, death by a thousand cuts is well within the realm of possibility in this game.

And whilst all maps fall into three categories: Defend, Seize, Escape, the game does keep the map design varied to present new challenges.

 

1 hour ago, dragonlordsd said:

Compare this to past games, especially binding blade, which had both the largest roster of any game (discounting radiant dawn, since at no point in the game can you ever access the entire roster at once)

New Mystery of the Emblem has the largest roster, at 78 units. Radiant Dawn has 72. Binding Blade has 52, but in practice it's only 49 per playthrough, since Larum/Elffin, Echidna/Bartre, and Juno/Dayan. FE1 has 52, 51 per playthrough because Samson/Arran (SD's 7 larger roster is undermined by the need of human sacrifice and the Gotoh/Nagi choice). Fates Revelation has 64 characters not-Scarlet. Thracia has 51, with the Olwen/Ilios, Schroff-Misha-Amalda/Miranda-Shannam-Conomor splits reducing it to 47 per playthrough.

The rest of the game rosters are all smaller total rosters, between 49 (Awakening) and 32 for original Gaiden (which is 16 for Alm, 15 for Celica because Sonya or Deen must die).

Edited July 8, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[Von Ithipathachai]

4 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

And whilst all maps fall into three categories: Defend, Seize, Escape, the game does keep the map design varied to present new challenges.

The most memorable chapter for me involved trying to escort a large number of civilians through a mountain pass while being harassed by enemy Pegasus Riders and Sorcerers.

[Interdimensional Observer]

16 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

The most memorable chapter for me involved trying to escort a large number of civilians through a mountain pass while being harassed by enemy Pegasus Riders and Sorcerers.

So you're saying it wasn't actually memorable, thus it shouldn't be so highly revered?

Well I'm not going to debate one's personal memorability of things. How do I argue "You should remember better!"? I only make the general case for Thracia, I'm not beholden to it actually. 

For instance, Chapter 14 looks dramatic and I like its plot, but a legendary Defend it isn't. It can stay on the same tier as RD 2-F and 3-13, but its not CQ-10 and I'm find with that. But Defending is quite easy despite the map looking menacing at first. The only challenge is getting the Dragonpike and Nosferatu without Warping. 

[starburst]

Thank you all for your replies!
I will try to address you all (the emphasis on the quotes is mine.)
 

15 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

As one who also enjoyed Conquest gameplay the most out of the Series, i would recommend Thracia 776 and the Tellius games (Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn, even if PoR is pretty easy). I would absolutely not recommend the GBA and the DS games

 

15 hours ago, Gregster101 said:

Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn

 

14 hours ago, Nobody said:

I feel like RD made a hard effort to integrate gameplay and story as far as possible, and while I can see why lots of people enjoy it, to me it led to some issues that I'd describe as gimmicky, and IMO sort of bring the gameplay down.

 

12 hours ago, Florete said:

Before Conquest, I considered Radiant Dawn to have the best gameplay in the series. Blazing Blade would be right behind that, so those would be my top 3.

 

6 hours ago, Yexin said:

2) probably PoR and RD, and maybe New Mystery

I have tried Path of Radiance in the past, but not Radiant Dawn, because I had read that it is a direct sequel and that it is more enjoyable when experienced one after the other.

I did like the couple of chapters that I played of PoR, but the main reason why I did not keep going was that I usually play these games before going to sleep, and having them on a handheld console suits me better than sitting in front of the tele/ monitor.
Still, I have heard and read multiple positive comments about the Tellius games that I know that playing them is a pending deal. Perhaps it is what I should focus on now, at least to get my own opinion of them, even if they were not what I am looking for.

[Von Ithipathachai]

37 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

So you're saying it wasn't actually memorable, thus it shouldn't be so highly revered?

That's not what I'm trying to say at all.

If anything, I think being memorable is a good thing.

[Interdimensional Observer]

1 hour ago, starburst said:

Still, I have heard and read multiple positive comments about the Tellius games that I know that playing them is a pending deal. Perhaps it is what I should focus on now, at least to get my own opinion of them, even if they were not what I am looking for.

Just don't let the opinions of others build up hype and expectations in you that all gets burned down later! I'll always caution that.

 

58 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

That's not what I'm trying to say at all.

If anything, I think being memorable is a good thing.

My error then. It can be difficult to interpret tone off of the Internet sometimes.

[starburst]

Again, the emphasis on all quotes is mine.
 

17 hours ago, KevinskyHaaz said:

It is hard for me to judge purely off of game play because story is what really hooks me, so I was never a huge fan of Fates. However, my personal favorites (with both great story and gameplay) are Fire Emblem: Genealogy of the Holy War, Fire Emblem: Thracia 776, and Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn.

In these type of games, I value gameplay and re playability over story. But it could simply be that I have not played the FE games with great storytelling yet.

 

15 hours ago, Parrhesia said:

Hey, grognard answer incoming. For gameplay, FE4 and FE5 are both worth playing - though FE4 starts weak, takes around until Chapter 3 to hit its stride. If you're in Chapter 3 and you just aren't feeling it, ditch it. 5 hates you, the player, but it just has that feeling of truly asymmetrical warfare that no other FE's really managed to nail. Like 14, it has plenty of chapter gimmicks and unique stage conditions. And hey, an excellent fan localisation was released like a month ago.

It is really useful that you mentioned a chapter (or a time frame) by which I should either a 'click'. Countless times have I read that one cannot judge a long RPG by the first couple of hours, as if every one of us had enough free time to invest 60 to 80 hours on a game whose first couple of hours did not cause a good impression anyway. If the early hours do not click on you, then either the game is badly designed or it is definitely not what you are looking for.

Since I do not want to start a flame war about FE titles, I will give examples of other games. I remember being bashed when I stated my utter dislike for Xenoblade Chronicles 2 (main and Torna) after a couple of hours, as if those hours did not count as an 'investment' on my part. The voice acting was ridiculously bad, the 'automatic' gameplay was silly as fuck, the characters were bland... There was nothing for me there. In the exact same couple of hours, a game like Ys: Lacrimosa of Dana had already delivered me entertainment and joy.

 

 

4 hours ago, Fenreir said:

from what i've played before:

- Mistery of the Emblem » reworked gameplay mechanics from FE1, the 1st Book has a good difficulty progress. the 2nd Book has more difficulty spikes in late game chapters.

- Genealogy of the Holy War » has huge maps(basicly 1 map is about 3 "traditional" chapters) and requires good management of battle formations. has some difficulty spikes from early chapters to late game. skills and inheritance was also introduced here for the first time.

- Thracia 776 » requires micro-management of items and units, and it makes full use of its gameplay features. a really good strategic game overall, especially if you like puzzles. probably one of the best in the franchise, and it's basicly an improved version of Mystery of the Emblem gameplay-wise.

 

3 hours ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Of the Fire Emblem games I've played, I'd probably rank Thracia 776, Path of Radiance, and Blazing Blade as having the best gameplay in that order.

 

2 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

Awakening: It allows so many options and freedom of choice for the player, allowing for multiple playthroughs without being the same.

Genealogy of the Holy War: for those who like more of a challenge with some flexibility still intact, this is also a decent choice, of course, you might not want to bother considering balance on this one or you'll be disappointed.

Also, I'm curious why people rate Thracia 776 so high, the battles are always the same thing, attack, enemy attack, critical hit, in that order, it's never different. Sure. I guess the fatigue system and capture system are neat, but there isn't much in terms of the player having total control. Although I will admit, it's cool to see the CPU go shopping for weapons.

 

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

1 v. 1 combat isn't generally so hard about Thracia, true. But, the maps do call for more strategic thinking than in other games. Gratuitous ballistae and siege tomes, status staffs, having to find time for capturing to get weapons. And even if individual enemies are weak, death by a thousand cuts is well within the realm of possibility in this game.

And whilst all maps fall into three categories: Defend, Seize, Escape, the game does keep the map design varied to present new challenges.

 

14 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

In a nutshell, not totally accurate, but it'll do for brevity of words: Conquest = Thracia + Stats + Quality of Life.

I decided to quote this comment that mentions 'Quality of Life' at the end, precisely because of how important this was for me when deciding whether or not to try the 'older' Genealogy of the Holy War and Thracia 776.

Do not get me wrong, I enjoy old games (I grew up playing arcades and Super Nintendo), but some games age better than others. And I believe that complex games, specially RPG's full of menus and management, like is the case of Fire Emblem, suffer a lot when experienced today for the first time (so that there is no 'nostalgia blurriness.')
Because of their simpler nature and management, I have no issues enjoying 30-years old arcade games, platformers, fighting games, beat-them-up's and even action RPG's. But what I have seen of Genalogy and Thracia 776 tells me otherwise.

In any case, I heard that Thracia 776 got an improved translation patch very recently, which might justify giving it a go now that the system interactions are more polished.
If they have interesting, challenging maps, playing them may be a curious, retrospective exercise.

[𝐅𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥]

3 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

Also, I'm curious why people rate Thracia 776 so high, the battles are always the same thing, attack, enemy attack, critical hit, in that order, it's never different. Sure. I guess the fatigue system and capture system are neat, but there isn't much in terms of the player having total control. Although I will admit, it's cool to see the CPU go shopping for weapons.

because Thracia 776 has almost everything:

- it has all the basic gameplay features that the franchise has build upon, such as transportation, capture, rescue, trade;

- it has sieze and escape maps, along with fog of war;

- it uses every single feature to make you think about how you can approach and deal with difficult situations through the game, while eventually giving you multiple options for both moving around, deploying units and fighting enemies;

- it has a fatigue system wich will add more difficulty in terms of limited units deployment, since it will make you think about wich units you can/will bring, choosing mainly not by personal preference, but rather by each unit's unique utility;

- it has skill manuals, consumable stats-boosting items, Crusader scrolls(pretty much like Star Orbs from FE3) and arenas, so you can customize/improve the units you like even further.

 

i said almost because the only exception made is for inheritance in terms of skills/items/stats. if the game had that as well, it would have been perfect.

[𝐅𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥]

...and apparently i can't edit my previous post no longer, so i guess i'll just answer here this time around:

18 minutes ago, starburst said:

I decided to quote this comment that mentions 'Quality of Life' at the end, precisely because of how important this was for me when deciding whether or not to try the 'older' Genealogy of the Holy War and Thracia 776.

 Do not get me wrong, I enjoy old games (I grew up playing arcades and Super Nintendo), but some games age better than others. And I believe that complex games, specially RPG's full of menus and management, like is the case of Fire Emblem, suffer a lot when experienced today for the first time (so that there is no 'nostalgia blurriness.')
Because of their simpler nature and management, I have no issues enjoying 30-years old arcade games, platformers, fighting games, beat-them-up's and even action RPG's. But what I have seen of Genalogy and Thracia 776 tells me otherwise.

 In any case, I heard that Thracia 776 got an improved translation patch very recently, which might justify giving it a go now that the system interactions are more polished.
If they have interesting, challenging maps, playing them may be a curious, retrospective exercise.

visually, FE4 and FE5 are pretty much like the GBA titles in terms of graphics, and they did age really well. especially Genealogy, since you really get the feeling of moving around the world.

as for the menus and overall management, while they may feel old at first, they have pretty much the same functions of every other title in the franchise. once you get used to them, checking units and other stuff becomes natural.

Genealogy also had a "hidden" function about menus(not really hidden, but it was always something new to check once in a while), since players were able to see wich conversations were available between some characters, allowing them to get stats boosts and even items.

 

in any case, if you are new to those older titles, i'd suggest you to start with Thracia 776, just to keep the same "gameplay vibe" compared to the latest titles.

Genealogy is a whole different beast by itself, and while i really liked it a lot for the kind of game it is, it can be very tedious at times.

[Shadow Mir]

2 hours ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

If anything, I think being memorable is a good thing.

IMHO, that's not necessarily true.... Especially when the reasons for being memorable are not good ones. Just look at chapter 14 in Binding Blade. Most people here would grimace upon hearing of that chapter.

Anyway, I'm legitimately curious why people think the Jugdral saga is even in the discussion for best gameplay, because I *REALLY* fail to see it, with Genealogy being an exercise in tedium of the highest order and Thracia not being much better due to obtuse mechanics that drag the gameplay down.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Shadow Mir

[starburst]

17 hours ago, eclipse said:

If you're looking for difficulty, check out FE12.  Both you and the enemy die in three hits.

It is not only about sheer difficulty, but more about how engaging it is to overcome the challenge.

I understand your recommendation and have read various other users recommending FE 12 because of its gameplay and re playability, and not long ago have I got both DS games. I only wanted to state that difficulty (artificial or by design) is not my main goal.

You see, I enjoy games like Gris, which other that some puzzle-solving is as easy as it can get, and it is its presentation what sets it apart from other games (seriously, I could not stress it enough how beautiful it is.) I also like exploration games like Metroid (specially the GBA ones) and, more recently, Hollow Knight. And I am also very fond of action RPG's, like the Ys series, and platformers. These games have varying difficulties and while some do require synchronisation and pattern-learning, no one would say that high difficulty is one of their main traits.

On the other hand, games like Dark Souls, which has become the archetypical 'difficult game', have no appeal to me. As soon as I read that a game is 'Dark Souls-like', I move on and check others (I also filter 'Rogue-like' and the now-severely-misused 'Metroidvania'; so it is not that I have something against Dark Souls in particular.)

 

17 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Let me do a laundry list of everything I've played:

• Mystery- Simple, but its balanced. But balance is only one factor of gameplay goodness.
• Genealogy- The maps are too divisive for this to be generally considered among the best.
• Thracia- It really wants to be among the best. It's just a lot of rough edges from being the first take on a whole load of ideas turn off a lot of people.
• Binding- I can't see it. Not to call it the worst in gameplay, but to call it among the best is difficult.
• Blazing- I can see it being considered among the best. Balanced, more map variety than FE6, but it's easy, its biggest issue.
• SS- I can see it more than Binding, but less than Blazing. Ephraim Route >>> Eirika's for gameplay.
• PoR- I can see it, being among the best. Same as Blazing, it suffers from being easy, but it has balance.
• RD- Jagged like Genealogy, less divisively deviant than Genealogy overall, but its Part structure and individual character balance are real issues. It like PoR does have the nuances of the Jugdral games which Awakening brought back again- Skills I mean primarily.
• SD- Generally considered a step back, but some do love its 5* difficulty. Some ironman/draft fun if you use the weaker units who most brush off as being worthless.
• New Mystery- Its Maniac and Lunatic(+) are generally considered some of the better balanced highest difficulties. It remains something of a challenge even on Hard. Lots of imbalance due to the severely bloated roster, but the same ironman/draft fun as SD "fun" might apply here.
• Awakening- Well it offers a lot of choices as to how you want to play, and it has nuances, but poor map design, inflated stats, and a poorly executed Lunatic difficulty are faults with this game.
• FB- Not among the best, but I enjoy it more than others I think.
• FR- Certainly not among the best, unless maybe you're playing on Normal and you can actually use everyone you want without so much pains of training them.
• SoV- Map design and dungeon fighting are the two things holding this back.
• 3H- TBD.
• FEW- Sounds like it is one of the best.
• TRS- I wish I could play it.
• BS- I really want to try this black sheep when Aethin finishes his translation patch.
• VS- Darned SRPG Maker is Hell for translation efforts!

Great comments, mate; thanks. I find it useful that you differentiated among map design, re playability and overall difficulty, since I assign a lot of value to map design. It is the main reason why I do not enjoy Awakening, Birthright or Revelations. (The second reason being that they break themselves easily, even by mistake.)

And you should give FE Warriors a try. I downloaded it recently and have only played it for a little bit, but it is like therapeutical boxing. Play a long map of your favourite FE game, get kill by a low-percentage critical hit close to the end, then load Warriors to eliminate anger from your soul. He, he, he.

 

47 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Just don't let the opinions of others build up hype and expectations in you that all gets burned down later! I'll always caution that.

Do not worry, Awakening already did that for me. I still fail to see the hype.
Do not bother defending Awakening, I simply find its gameplay very bland and have more fun playing Advance Wars or Wargroove.

[𝐅𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥]

Quote

 I'm legitimately curious why people think the Jugdral saga is even in the discussion for best gameplay, because I *REALLY* fail to see it, with Genealogy being an exercise in tedium of the highest order and Thracia not being much better due to obtuse mechanics that drag the gameplay down.

probably because the people that have actually played those games from start to end know their pros and cons very well compared to the other titles from the franchise.

and unlike other people that prefer bitching all day about games they haven't even played, probably those who completed and replayed them did so because they actually enjoyed those games for what they are.

i'm more curious about why those who never played with FE4/5 and talk crap about them think that their opinion has some vague form of value, because it obviously has none whatsoever.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Fenreir

[starburst]

Sorry, mate, it seems that we were posting concurrently and I could not read your comments before.
 

1 hour ago, Fenreir said:

because Thracia 776 has almost everything:
- it has all the basic gameplay features that the franchise has build upon, such as transportation, capture, rescue, trade;
- it has sieze and escape maps, along with fog of war;
- it uses every single feature to make you think about how you can approach and deal with difficult situations through the game, while eventually giving you multiple options for both moving around, deploying units and fighting enemies;
- it has a fatigue system wich will add more difficulty in terms of limited units deployment, since it will make you think about wich units you can/will bring, choosing mainly not by personal preference, but rather by each unit's unique utility;
- it has skill manuals, consumable stats-boosting items, Crusader scrolls(pretty much like Star Orbs from FE3) and arenas, so you can customize/improve the units you like even further.

i said almost because the only exception made is for inheritance in terms of skills/items/stats. if the game had that as well, it would have been perfect.

Good points, and I will definitely come back to you once I decide to dive in and try Thracia 776.

 

46 minutes ago, Fenreir said:

visually, FE4 and FE5 are pretty much like the GBA titles in terms of graphics, and they did age really well. especially Genealogy, since you really get the feeling of moving around the world.

as for the menus and overall management, while they may feel old at first, they have pretty much the same functions of every other title in the franchise. once you get used to them, checking units and other stuff becomes natural [...]

in any case, if you are new to those older titles, i'd suggest you to start with Thracia 776, just to keep the same "gameplay vibe" compared to the latest titles.

Genealogy is a whole different beast by itself, and while i really liked it a lot for the kind of game it is, it can be very tedious at times.

Fair enough. Thanks for the heads up. I was already favouring Thracia 776 over Genealogy, and your comments support this idea.

 

8 minutes ago, Fenreir said:

probably because the people that have actually played those games from start to end know their pros and cons very well compared to the other titles from the franchise.

and unlike other people that prefer bitching all day about games they haven't even played, probably those who completed and replayed them did so because they actually enjoyed those games for what they are.

i'm more curious about why those who never played with FE4/5 and talk crap about them think that their opinion has some vague form of value, because it obviously has none whatsoever.

I think that you need more 'Ignore List' in your life, mate. Consider it a 'Quality of Life' improvement. He, he.

[Von Ithipathachai]

1 minute ago, starburst said:

I think that you need more 'Ignore List' in your life, mate. Consider it a 'Quality of Life' improvement. He, he.

Tried it once.  Didn't work because the person kept getting quoted by other people.

[starburst]

3 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Tried it once.  Didn't work because the person kept getting quoted by other people.

Yeah, it happens to me, too. But it is still better than no filter at all. The troll goes away after a while.

[Von Ithipathachai]

Just now, starburst said:

Yeah, it happens to me, too. But it is still better than no filter at all. The troll goes away after a while.

If only that were true.  This one's been around forever.  Far longer than I have in fact.

[Shadow Mir]

41 minutes ago, Fenreir said:

probably because the people that have actually played those games from start to end know their pros and cons very well compared to the other titles from the franchise.

and unlike other people that prefer bitching all day about games they haven't even played, probably those who completed and replayed them did so because they actually enjoyed those games for what they are.

i'm more curious about why those who never played with FE4/5 and talk crap about them think that their opinion has some vague form of value, because it obviously has none whatsoever.

Sounds like you think people would need to play, say, Superman 64 before they can actually say it's bad. At least that's the implication.

[starburst]

7 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

If only that were true.  This one's been around forever.  Far longer than I have in fact.

Do not tell me, mate. I mostly participate on the Fates board, and it is not fun watching all threads full of blank space. He, he.
I meant that he will go away from the thread when people stop caring about his never-ending negativity.

Anyway, keeping things on topic, your recommendations for best gameplay were Thracia 776, Path or Radiance and Binding Blade, all of which resonate with most other comments. So, despite all of its differences, one of these games might 'click' on me in a similar way as Conquest did. Let us organise the trials.

[Von Ithipathachai]

14 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

Sounds like you think people would need to play, say, Superman 64 before they can actually say it's bad. At least that's the implication.

The problem with relying entirely on secondhand sources for your information as you seem to be doing is that you can't be certain whether or not your source (I'm assuming some kind of Let's Play or two of the games) is playing improperly or otherwise doing something wrong.

For all you or I know, Superman 64 is actually some kind of misunderstood masterpiece and all these reviewers/Let's Players are overlooking something.  The only way either of us can know for certain if the issues we're being shown affect the game as badly as they do is by playing the games ourselves.  You can't fully comprehend how badly Superman 64 controls unless you're interacting with them yourself, controller in hand.  I have not played it myself, so I don't.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Von Ithipathachai

[Flere210]

To me a good map is one that force you to adapt to it or fail. Nothing is worse than a battle when you can just push forward with the power of large enought numbers. I actually don't hate any gimmick because they encourage a different playstyle instead of a Camilla one woman show.

For example, a defend map that became a route map with more enemies imo is a failed map. For this reason i think that Thracia is the only one with consistenly good maps. I played it only once, but i really enjoyed the lategame of fe12, mostly because it was cap base and did not have RD skills that prevent enemies from having tier 3 classes. Too bad that is as balanced as RD and Rev.

[starburst]

16 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

To me a good map is one that force you to adapt to it or fail. Nothing is worse than a battle when you can just push forward with the power of large enought numbers. I actually don't hate any gimmick because they encourage a different playstyle instead of a Camilla one woman show.

I concur. If one can just push forward without any tactic, it disappoints me (specially in a tactical game, but also on action RPG's.)
 

16 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

For example, a defend map that became a route map with more enemies imo is a failed map. For this reason i think that Thracia is the only one with consistenly good maps. I played it only once, but i really enjoyed the lategame of fe12, mostly because it was cap base and did not have RD skills that prevent enemies from having tier 3 classes. Too bad that is as balanced as RD and Rev.

Interesting. Another vote for Thracia 776 then.

[𝐅𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥]

1 hour ago, starburst said:

I think that you need more 'Ignore List' in your life, mate. Consider it a 'Quality of Life' improvement. He, he.

that's fine, but sometimes i prefer the "report post" function. watching trolls getting banned is always a pleasure.

 

anyway:

1 hour ago, starburst said:

Fair enough. Thanks for the heads up. I was already favouring Thracia 776 over Genealogy, and your comments support this idea.

you're welcome. also, another couple things i forgot to mention:

- Genealogy has stats capped at 30 and you keep your current level after promotion(20).

there's also weapons/items that give additional stats boosts, wich allows many items combinations to be available for each character, and since there's no stats-boosting consumable items available, each unit with class stats spread around will become even more unique in the long run.

- double attacks and criticals in Genealogy are based on personal skills such as Pursuit and Critical, so it plays in a very different way compared to other "traditional" titles.

this is also why inheritance is a big part of the game in terms of planning character builds, because there's special items that give those passive skills as well. the only exception made is for critical hits, because the critical chance can be eventually unlocked after reaching 50 kills on any weapon.

 

- Thracia 776 has stats capped at 20, and also has a secret Elite(Paragon) mode that can be unlocked via input code on the main menu, wich should work in the same way of that from Gaiden(each character has a hidden Elite ability).

since stats caps are lower, and there's plenty of options for leveling/improving units, it's far more easier to reach a unit's full potential compared to other titles such as Mystery of the Emblem, making the game overall more enjoyable for those who like to use multiple units and try them all out.

also, double attacks and critical hits are based on stats as usual, not mainly on skills like in Genealogy. healing staves can also perform double heals, however they can miss too sometimes(so it's always wise to train well your healers in order to land heals when needed).

[starburst]

1 hour ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

The problem with relying entirely on secondhand sources for your information as you seem to be doing is that you can't be certain whether or not your source (I'm assuming some kind of Let's Play or two of the games) is playing improperly or otherwise doing something wrong.

Exactly!

A couple of months ago I started playing Octopath Traveler, and while I do think it that it is definitely overrated in most reviews, I liked the game nonetheless and played it repeatedly.
I noticed that all of these players and reviewers of 'renown' had spent 80 or more hours playing it, and that they focused on grinding, and manipulating different exploits to increase their levels and power (like 'save scumming' until they got the desired RNG outcome) to overcome the game challenges.
Well, all I can say is that all these people must be very, very bad at playing, almost as if they did not care to grasp the very basics of the battle mechanics and the balance of the game they so much played. For I have systematically completed the game (four characters) in 10-12 hours multiple times (and length variation is mostly dependant on conversations and scenes, and not on actual gameplay), without grinding once or using exploits, and facing bosses at 12-15 levels below the suggested ones. The game is so easy that it breaks itself if one actually follows the in-game recommendations.
So, yeah, reviews are subjective. But I would not trust reviewers who could not mention a single useful recommendation for playing a game.

Edited July 8, 2019 by starburst