What do you want to see in the next Fire Emblem game?

[Corrobin]

Three Houses has come, and, for better and for worse, we're devouring it.

What would you be interested in seeing come the next Fire Emblem game? A return to basics? Or an evolution on Three Houses's ideas? Or a mixture? Tell us.

[Vince777]

Would like another remake of one of the older games next. 

Preference being Geneology but I'll accept Binding Blade as well (or Thracia but I don't see how that'd happen without Genealogy being remade first).

 

[NinjaMonkey]

This thread already exists!

[Alastor15243]

A revisiting of Conquest's design philosophy.

I want to see more difficulty modes where they give enemies' interesting skill loadouts. I want to see games designed where they make things hard by means other than numbers, stats, or lying to the player. And I'd love to see more map gimmicks where they give you some means to control the map to help you fight dangerous encounters, like the ninja cave, wind castle, and Soleil's paralogue. Conquest seriously upped the standard for game design in the series, and I'm really hoping to see that philosophy and system tackled with a bit more polish and much better writing.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Alastor15243

[NobodiePichu]

i would like to see the idea of the monastery (central traversal hub where character interactions and management can happen) but placed within the context of a more traditional fire emblem structure (genealogy could be really good for this actually, turning the castle menus into a map interaction instead). I'd also like to see brawling continue as a weapon type since its kinda fun as well.

spell lists ive always felt eh about, either give the player an option to add spells to that list permanently or temporarily, or just go back to tomes. its silly that a book can break but it works gameplay wise and it lets the player better tune character loadouts the way they want.

the class system is interesting but feels unpolished and im personally not a fan of any class being allowed any weapon because it contributes to things feeling homogeneous in my opinion. its more expedient to keep characters locked to the one or two weapons their already good at anyways so just cut out the fannying about.

[Fabulously Olivier]

A refining of Three Houses' design philosophy. Keeping social mechanics, customization, flexible difficulty options, and especially the combat mechanics (gambits, magic system, long range archery, combat arts, and the much more toned down adjutant system). But removing avatars, improving the class system, and improving the presentation. Also, reigning in the story. Focus on a single, narratively tighter story (like Path of Radiance or Geneology of the Holy War) and let the replay value come from the characters and customization of those characters.

 

And contrary to the above, moving as far away from Fates (and Conquest) design as humanly possible. I didn't enjoy that at all. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Etheus

[Alastor15243]

19 minutes ago, Etheus said:

And contrary to the above, moving as far away from Fates (and Conquest) design as humanly possible. I didn't enjoy that at all. 

What exactly didn't you like about it?

[Fabulously Olivier]

48 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

What exactly didn't you like about it?

I didn't like the story. I didn't like the characters. I didn't like the art style. I didn't like the number of maps based around a single gimmick. I didn't like enemies having access to offensive pair up. I didn't like the low hp pools of a majority of player units. I didn't enjoy having so many characters be basically unviable. I didn't enjoy eugenics simulation or child units. I didn't like the game's over-reliance on position manipulation (enemies with swaps, Entrap staves, etc.) to create difficulty. I simply can't name a single substantial aspect of Fates that didn't actively annoy me, break my immersion, frustrate me, or bore me. And it didn't even have the basic decency to be the worst Fire Emblem game because Gaiden/Shadows of Valentia exists and is criminally dull. 

 

You're entitled to your opinion. You can think it's the ultimate evolution of the franchise, and I won't begrudge you your view. I'll just sit in my own corner wanting something very different from the franchise. Preferably something with the storytelling of old and the mechanics and quality of life of the modern day.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Etheus

[Fire Brand]

- Base and Talk Conversations replacing supports

- A move away from an anime art style to a style more similar to the Tellius series.

- The return of the magic triangle and magic class splits (Fire mage, Thunder mage, Wind mage, etc.)

- Removal of gambits and combat arts

- Return of the weapon triangle

- Removal of reclassing and units being able to use all weapons, like in 3H

- A larger cast of playable characters with recruits scattered throughout the playthrough

- Return of secret events and unlockable Gaiden chapters

- Enemy recruits! The more ridiculous requirements the better. Xavier, PoR Shinon or Hannibal style. 

- NG+ secrets and new characters, RD style.

- Bring back Mage Fighters! 

- Return of battle themes instead of the Storm versions of the map themes playing instead.

- Varied objective types. I'd especially like to see the return of escape all, Thracia style. With a minimum deployment, of course.

- Removal of avatar, or any kind of self insert whatsoever. 

- No turnwheel, but keep casual mode for newcomers.

- Tellius or FE4 style base, rather than the monastery. 

 

[Alastor15243]

9 hours ago, Etheus said:

I didn't like enemies having access to offensive pair up.

I didn't like the low hp pools of a majority of player units.

I didn't like the game's over-reliance on position manipulation (enemies with swaps, Entrap staves, etc.) to create difficulty.

Just to make sure I don't put words in your mouth, why don't you like these three specific things?

[Fabulously Olivier]

17 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Just to make sure I don't put words in your mouth, why don't you like these three specific things?

It's a matter of what one considers to be good difficulty and what one does not consider to be good difficulty. If your playstyle is actively discouraged, you are not going to consider that good game design.

 

If you are like me and enjoy enemy phase, turtling strats, let's just say that Fates is unkind. Position manipulation undermines defensive strategies, and it doesn't do so in a good way. I get that the series has always incentivized faster play through side objectives, allied units to be defended, etc., but I'd argue that this approach just demands that the more defensive players vary up their composition with a flying unit or two and split up their team a bit, and that isn't a bad thing.

 

Low hp growths make almost every playable character fragile (and it did not help that I actually dislike quite a lot of the more durable characters like Effie as characters). It isn't fun for a melee character like Hana to die in one hit. It doesn't feel earned. And, again, it forces a player phase style at the expense of an enemy phase one.

 

Enemies having access to pair up is a poor complement to more fragile player units; it's a combination of two factors that make the enemy phase more dangerous. I get that Awakening's pair up system was overpowered, but giving that tool to enemies was not the answer. The toned down Adjuctant system in Three Houses is better, if still a bit too RNG-based for my liking.

 

I take it from your preferences that you are more of a player phase player. I'm not. Never really have been. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Etheus

[Alastor15243]

1 minute ago, Etheus said:

It's a matter of what one considers to be good difficulty and what one does not consider to be good difficulty. If your playstyle is actively discouraged, you are not going to consider that good game design.

 

If you are like me and enjoy enemy phase, turtling strats, let's just say that Fates is unkind. Position manipulation undermines defensive strategies.

 

Low hp growths make almost every playable character fragile (and it did not help that I actually dislike quite a lot of the more durable characters like Effie as characters). It isn't fun for a melee character like Hana to die in one hit. It doesn't feel earned.

 

Enemies having access to pair up is a poor complement to more fragile player units; it's a combination of two factors that make the enemy phase more dangerous. I get that Awakening's pair up system was overpowered, but giving that tool to enemies was not the answer. The toned down Adjuctant system in Three Houses is better, if still a bit too RNG-based for my liking.

 

I take it from your preferences that you are more of a player phase player. I'm not. Never really have been. 

You would guess wrong then. I used enemy phase strategies a lot, and the game gives you a hell of a lot of ways to make it viable. Just not the end-all-be-all solution to literally every situation. And that's what makes it great, the fact that you actually have to strategize in this strategy game. This is the only game in the series that made any effort, beyond just inflating stats and numbers, to make victory more complicated than taking a big strong guy and letting the game play itself. Here, you have to back up your big strong guy with auras, guard stance, maybe some rallies, and also know when enemy phasing is a good idea so you don't have to deal with those enemies on your turn, and when you reeeallly want to player phase it so you can use dual strikes to make sure the enemy doesn't even touch you. That's what's awesome about the ninjas, they really get you to mix things up. They punish you for letting them attack first, but when you player-phase it, you don't have to suffer any consequences for fighting them at all.

[Flere210]

6 minutes ago, Etheus said:

It's a matter of what one considers to be good difficulty and what one does not consider to be good difficulty. If your playstyle is actively discouraged, you are not going to consider that good game design.

 

If you are like me and enjoy enemy phase, turtling strats, let's just say that Fates is unkind. Position manipulation undermines defensive strategies.

A game cannot be challenging if all playstyles are valid, and in fact, a turn based game is only hard whe  there is very few correct moves.

What should happen instead, is that every playstyle  need a roadblock that force the player to adapt out of their comfort zones. Some maps should be almost impossible to turtle(like, an escape map that spawn a godlike enemy behind you after few turns) but others should punish rushing and encouraging holding your ground( a defend map where you get mauled the moment you overextend for example).

Fates and Thracia imo are the only games that force you to adapt, wich imo is a good thing.

[Darkspellmaster]

I would say keep the support system but allow more talking on the feild as well. 

I guess a mix of Three houses and the older style works best for me in regard to play style I would like best.