What Changes (if any) Would You Like to See Made in a FE 4 Remake?

[Deenward]

Self-explanatory. Imao, I'd want all the modern QOL improvements from the DS/3DS/Switch Emblems (sans Turnwheel/Divine Pulse), like being able to skip enemy phase and animations, aggro lines from 3H, and stuff like that. I'd replace the love points system with C-S support conversations that can be activated once per chapter. That way, each potential relationship can be fleshed out while also remaining relevant to what's going on in the story at the time. It also makes the romance mechanic more recognizable to modern players and less archaic. I'd keep the context-based talk conversations, but just add supports on top of it. I'd keep the other gameplay mechanics (once a turn save states, inventory management, arena, etc) the same, since I think they've aged fairly well, but I'd smooth out the gold giving system so you could specify how much gold your thief or lover wants to give to another person. That always felt like an arbitrary programming restriction in FE 4 anyways. You could also keep the flexible hair color thing from Fates and Awakening to make each potential child a little more unique. Thoughts?

[eclipse]

Give me a reason to use non-mounted units in gen 1.  Please.

[Lightcosmo]

Fixing all the minor overlooks/bugs that are in game would be a good start. Other than that, i'm fine with it as is.

[Deenward]

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Give me a reason to use non-mounted units in gen 1.  Please.

Amen. I think incorporating rescue dropping from other FEs would do a lot to keeping 'em relevant even as the maps get bigger. 

[Benice]

• My first priority would be to make the maps more tolerable. I cannot think of a time I've had as much un-fun playing a game as FE4. I haven't finished yet, but so far it hasn't been very enjoyable from that perspective.
• Buff the enemies! ARDEN SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE PURSUIT ON GENERIC ENEMIES IN CHAPTER 2 WITHOUT THE SPEED RING!
• I'd prefer a GBA era-style warp staff so people can get warped to the frontlines easier.
• Personally, I'd prefer is pursuit made follow up attacks easier- people without it need +4/5 AS to double, with Pursuit, you need +1 or 2 AS because it makes people like Noish really not that great. A modern weight system would also be greatly appreciated.
• Sigurd and Diedre's romance to be not sandwiched into one or two lines-I feel like that they'd be able to do that because of the fewer engine restrictions.
• Supports, even if the love system is seperate from it.
• Cavaliers can rescue drop.
• Big one: Getting rid of enemies autoequipping to counter/have effective damage. That's really annoying.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Benice

[NinjaMonkey]

Maps that don't take an hour to beat because they're so huge.

[Deenward]

10 minutes ago, Benice said:

• For god's sake, make the maps more tolerable. I cannot think of a time I've had as much un-fun playing a game as FE4. I haven't finished yet, but so far it hasn't been very enjoyable.
• Buff the enemies! ARDEN SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE PURSUIT ON GENERIC ENEMIES IN CHAPTER 2 WITHOUT THE SPEED RING!
• I'd prefer a GBA era-style warp staff so people can actually get warped to the frontlines easier.
• Personally, I'd prefer is pursuit made follow up attacks easier- people without it need +4/5 AS to double, with Pursuit, you need +1 or 2 AS because it makes people like Noish really not that great.
• Sigurd and Diedre's romance to be not sandwiched into one or two lines-I feel like that they'd be able to do that because of the fewer engine restrictions
• Supports, even if the love system is seperate from it.
• Cavaliers have rescue
• Big one: Getting rid of enemies autoequipping to counter/have effective damage. That's really annoying.

I'm a really big fan of the Pursuit idea. Units with it are leagues above their peers, even if both are mounted, so the skill just making the margin smaller balance that out a bit.

This one might be controversial, but I'd reduce the weapon weight of lances and axes. I don't like that swords are the worst weapon type of the triangle in games like FE7, FE8, FE 9/10, but FE4/5 go too far in the opposite direction, imao. Combining the reduced weight with the pursuit changes mentioned earlier would give especially axes more merit. I could see the case being made for changing the weight/AS formula to account for constitution as well.

I agree the big maps are daunting and time-consuming, but the game is structured around them, so I don't think it'd be worth the extra work to try and split them into smaller maps based around individual castles or something like that. I'm pretty sure said castles are supposed to represent "checkpoints", points where you can cleanly take a break (it helps that they're punctuated by cut scenes), but I think a lot of players don't like leaving a map uncompleted. They'd rather finish at least one chapter in a sitting, especially compared to older Fire Emblems. However, I do think QOL like skipping animations and what not would significantly decrease the time the maps take to complete. 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Deenward

[Benice]

1 minute ago, Deenward said:

I'm a really big fan of the Pursuit idea. Units with it are leagues above their peers, even if both are mounted, so the skill just making the margin smaller balance that out a bit.

Glad you liked my idea! I apologize for my very angry wording of my response; I'm hangry right now.

1 minute ago, Deenward said:

This one might be controversial, but I'd reduce the weapon weight of lances and axes. I don't like that swords are the worst weapon type of the triangle in games like FE7, FE8, FE 9/10, but FE4/5 go too far in the opposite direction, imao. Combining the reduced weight with the pursuit changes mentioned earlier would give especially axes more merit. I could see the case being made for changing the weight/AS formula to account for constitution as well.

Oh yes, I totally agree. Especially since the default iron axe weighs 18 whereas the brave one weighs 12- I know that balance wasn't the point of the game, but it's absurd that Arden can double units that my level 22 great knight Lex can't.

And of that note:

balance the magic- give Fire and Thunder a purpose please. The base tomes all have the same might and hit, yet fire wieghs more than a building and Thunder's fairly weighted while wind weighs nothing? I'd personally like to see that change by giving the other two kinds of anima magic merits.

[eclipse]

4 minutes ago, Deenward said:

I'm a really big fan of the Pursuit idea. Units with it are leagues above their peers, even if both are mounted, so the skill just making the margin smaller balance that out a bit.

This one might be controversial, but I'd reduce the weapon weight of lances and axes. I don't like that swords are the worst weapon type of the triangle in games like FE7, FE8, FE 9/10, but FE4/5 go too far in the opposite direction, imao. Combining the reduced weight with the pursuit changes mentioned earlier would give especially axes more merit. I could see the case being made for changing the weight/AS formula to account for constitution as well.

 

Hmmm, that gives me another idea - what if physical weapon types had innate skills attached to them?

Swords - Pursuit
Axes - Critical
Lances - Charge
Bows - Continue

[null]

1. Increase the speed of every animation.

The game is slow and fairly tedious to play in its current state, so increased animation speed would be great.

2. Trade between units and an actual convoy.

To have a FE4 remake without the ability to trade between units on and off the battlefield would be incredibly frustrating. And a proper convoy to store extra items would be nice as well.

3. Remove skill-based doubling.

Personal preference here. I simply don't like how doubling is bound to a skill. It automatically makes certain units less valuable because, without the pursuit ring, they will never be as useful as the units that can double consistently.

4. Proper supports and love system.

Since FE4 originated the marriage and children mechanics, it makes sense to have actual support conversations added and have them work similar to how Awakening and Fates handled building support points.

5. Add rescue as an ability for all units.

It's just useful to have this ability when you need it, without making the game significantly different or easier.

6. Split the chapters into separate parts so they don't drag on for so long.

Keep the individual chapters as they are, but split them into different parts based on when story events take place and maybe add a distinct subtitle for each part of the chapter.

Edited June 7, 2020 by twilitfalchion

[Lightcosmo]

I actually don't mind Pursuit as a skill. If anything it should have a % activation rate, like other skills. Simply because double hits are generally a little too strong. That or make the second attack have lowered power. 

[Deenward]

22 minutes ago, Benice said:

Glad you liked my idea! I apologize for my very angry wording of my response; I'm hangry right now.

Oh yes, I totally agree. Especially since the default iron axe weighs 18 whereas the brave one weighs 12- I know that balance wasn't the point of the game, but it's absurd that Arden can double units that my level 22 great knight Lex can't.

And of that note:

balance the magic- give Fire and Thunder a purpose please. The base tomes all have the same might and hit, yet fire wieghs more than a building and Thunder's fairly weighted while wind weighs nothing? I'd personally like to see that change by giving the other two kinds of anima magic merits.

You're good! I didn't even notice the hangriness, lol

Tbf, it is a special item that lets Arden potentially do that, but I share the sentiment. Locking pursuit as a skill only a specific few can have through much of the game just makes some units too much better than others imo, and having to buy/sell extremely expensive band just to give others the perk in Gen 1 is kind of annoying and arbitrary. 

Agreed. The magic triangle doesn't mean much when wind is superior 99% of the time. I think the easiest way to give the heavier magic merit is by giving them a bit more might and lowering the weight. Wind is the lightest but does the least damage, thunder is the in between, and fire does a LOT of damage, but it's a bit heavier. Like a more balanced version of what's going on with swords, axes, and lances in the base game.

24 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Hmmm, that gives me another idea - what if physical weapon types had innate skills attached to them?

Swords - Pursuit
Axes - Critical
Lances - Charge
Bows - Continue

I like that. It'd be another way to incentive classes that can use multiple weapons to actually opt for the versatility an Ax or a lance provides, instead of spamming swords all the time. I'm brainstorming whether continue/accost should be an automatic trigger based on AS/HP like in FE5, or a proc like it is in base FE 4.

36 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

2. Trade between units and an actual convoy.

To have a FE4 remake without the ability to trade between units on and off the battlefield would be incredibly frustrating. And a proper convoy to store extra items would be nice as well.

I think free trading and a convoy would break the game because of the plurality of OP weapons the game gives you and the lack of strong enemies (they don't even have skills for the most part). FE 4 is balanced around having to manage your funds and resources between your characters. My brother came up with a potentially good compromise that would involve allowing you to trade between characters on or off the battlefield, but you still have to buy and sell them to other units. I'd use the higher prices the pawnbroker uses in FE 4. That way, you get rid of the tedium of having to go through a third party, while still making inventory management a core part of the experience that helps immerse you into the blue-blood-dominated land of Jugdral. 

37 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

I actually don't mind Pursuit as a skill. If anything it should have a % activation rate, like other skills. Simply because double hits are generally a little too strong. That or make the second attack have lowered power. 

Interesting... If they went that route, I'd definitely make the enemies have less HP. While FE 4 enemies (especially generics) have pretty bad combat, they tend to have lots of HP, so making pursuit a random chance proc as is would make fighting swarms of enemies more monotonous. If that change was implemented, I'd reduce characters HP a little bit all around to compensate.

[Lightcosmo]

11 minutes ago, Deenward said:

Interesting... If they went that route, I'd definitely make the enemies have less HP. While FE 4 enemies (especially generics) have pretty bad combat, they tend to have lots of HP, so making pursuit a random chance proc as is would make fighting swarms of enemies more monotonous. If that change was implemented, I'd reduce characters HP a little bit all around to compensate.

I suppose that's a fair point, but if you need it to play the game, doesn't that speak for itself? Eithrr way, I dont mind which system they use, but for the sake of keeping it "in the spirit of FE4", I would try to keep it around somehow.

For the sake of fairness, most skills should have an activation rate.

Another thing I thought of, great shield. Please, just change it, somehow. It's very annoying the way it is.

Edited June 8, 2020 by lightcosmo

[Deenward]

Point taken. I get why making too many mechanical changes from the OG might take away a little from FE 4's unique identity.

Great shield's the worst, lol. I think just making it half damage like pavise does would be an easy and sensible fix for it. 

[Lightcosmo]

3 minutes ago, Deenward said:

Great shield's the worst, lol. I think just making it half damage like pavise does would be an easy and sensible fix for it. 

This is alot of my bias after FE4 inflation, so dont take that too seriously. I'm not sure whether or not that actually matters.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

I would mostly want the story expanded upon a little bit. Things like diving a bit deeper into Sigurd and Deirdre's relationship so it doesn't feel rushed; going into Lewyn's arc a little more; actually showing how Edain survived and was living on during Seliph's part of the story; stuff like that. Aside from that, some simple quality of life changes would be nice, maybe some proper support conversations.

[Yexin]

literally the only thing i'd love to see is support conversations, unless they dive too much into the "bland and forced romance" trend like some of modern supports tend to do

the second thing i'd do with a Genealogy Remake would be making it in 2D: no one can deny that the GBA era was the best in terms of battle animations, and i wanted to tear my eyes out of their cavities for how bad looking many of 3H's parts were, so the best case scenario for a Genealogy Remake for me would involve it being 2D (and no, i do NOT want to imagine this remake's potential cutscenes with 3H's engine nor its animation studio)

everything else is irrelevant to me: things like choosing how much money you want to give, faster animations and whatnot, i couldn't care less, i just want them to nail the core gameplay and the visual aspect

also, adding things which would make Genealogy Remake NOT a Genealogy Remake (free trading, changing the skill system and stuff like that which i read some comments above) is a huge no no for me

[Lightcosmo]

5 hours ago, Yexin said:

also, adding things which would make Genealogy Remake NOT a Genealogy Remake (free trading, changing the skill system and stuff like that which i read some comments above) is a huge no no for me

Not that I don't understand this, but if things don't change, then the game would just end up like Shadow Dragon. So I think change is kinda necessary.

[Yexin]

2 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

Not that I don't understand this, but if things don't change, then the game would just end up like Shadow Dragon. So I think change is kinda necessary.

although i understand what you mean, you have to consider that Genealogy is already much more complex than Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light, it has many more mechanics and things you have to handle, take care of and keep in mind
SDatBoL is a much simpler game, which worked in 1990, but in 2008, when it got remade, not so much; imo a Genealogy Remake would play perfectly even without new gameplay additions
i agree that faster animations and other easy QoL improvements are perfectly fine, but honestly those are secondary things for me, if I were IntSys i would focus my time and resources on something else first

also, i liked SD anyway

Edited June 8, 2020 by Yexin

[Shadow Mir]

-Rebalance the weapons. It's stupid that wind magic is head and shoulders above every other magic type.

-Rework the inventory system. It's clunky as hell in general.

-Nerf Pursuit or get rid of it altogether.

-Add supports and integrate them into the love system.

1 hour ago, Yexin said:

although i understand what you mean, you have to consider that Genealogy is already much more complex than Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light, it has many more mechanics and things you have to handle, take care of and keep in mind
SDatBoL is a much simpler game, which worked in 1990, but in 2008, when it got remade, not so much; imo a Genealogy Remake would play perfectly even without new gameplay additions
i agree that faster animations and other easy QoL improvements are perfectly fine, but honestly those are secondary things for me, if I were IntSys i would focus my time and resources on something else first

Personally, I think Genealogy hasn't exactly aged gracefully, which is why I disagree that a remake of Genealogy would be fine with a minimalist approach.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Shadow Mir

[Benice]

1 hour ago, Yexin said:

imo a Genealogy Remake would play perfectly even without new gameplay additions

Personally, I disagree; if there is a genealogy remake announced and it didn't change the gameplay, there is no way in heck that I would buy it and I'm not so sure that the gameplay would appeal to the masses very well.

[Yexin]

22 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

 

 

16 minutes ago, Benice said:

 

i don't think IntSys is stupid enough to expect a Genealogy Remake to sell even a quarter of what 3H sold

so, by this logic, it would make sense for them to keep the game as faithful to the original as possible: after all, that's what Genealogy fans want, to play their beloved game with modern, updated graphics and some tweaks here and there

if SoV is anything to go by, at least

although you could argue that they added Combat Arts, forge and some other stuff, my counterargument would be "that's most likely because Gaiden literally had no gameplay mechanics, something which Genealogy has plenty of"

heck, they didn't even add the Weapon Triangle

Edited June 8, 2020 by Yexin

[Shadow Mir]

4 minutes ago, Yexin said:

i don't think IntSys is stupid enough to expect a Genealogy Remake to sell even a quarter of what 3H sold

so, by this logic, it would make sense for them to keep the game as faithful to the original as possible: after all, that's what Genealogy fans want, to play their beloved game with modern, updated graphics and some tweaks here and there

if SoV is anything to go by, at least

although you could argue that they added Combat Arts, forge and some other stuff, my counterargument would be "that's most likely because Gaiden literally had no gameplay mechanics, something which Genealogy has plenty of"

heck, they didn't even add the Weapon Triangle

If they keep it faithful, then odds are it bombs sales wise, and they lose money, not to mention the risk that it goes the way of Shadow Dragon. Also, it was sensible for them to not have the weapon triangle in SoV because it wasn't built around it in the first place (to say nothing of axes remaining enemy only).

[Lightcosmo]

I'm sure alot of people enjoyed SD, but to me personally, it was boring. 

34 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

-Rework the inventory system. It's clunky as hell in general.

Isnt it the exact same as RD?

[Shadow Mir]

17 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

Isnt it the exact same as RD?

I mean the individual money system and all that jazz. Even compared to FE1, it feels clunky and clumsy.