Recommended games for newcomers or beginners ?

[Dark Holy Elf]

8 hours ago, hi_scroes said:

FE4 is interesting in part because it's such a departure in both plot and gameplay from FE1-3; 3 Houses and even Awakening would have been 100x less interesting if I didn't have the context of FE4.

My experience was close to the reverse; FE4 was a game I absolutely could not get into when I tried around 17 years ago, but when I had played more Fire Emblem games it became more interesting because one of the things it provided was context for later games. One doesn't have to experience the games in release order to appreciate how a later game can draw on the former. In fact, since the relationship can only be appreciated once both relevant games have been played, the order is arguably irrelevant because one won't be able to make those connections after playing just one game, whichever one is played first.

[Jotari]

14 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

My experience was close to the reverse; FE4 was a game I absolutely could not get into when I tried around 17 years ago, but when I had played more Fire Emblem games it became more interesting because one of the things it provided was context for later games. One doesn't have to experience the games in release order to appreciate how a later game can draw on the former. In fact, since the relationship can only be appreciated once both relevant games have been played, the order is arguably irrelevant because one won't be able to make those connections after playing just one game, whichever one is played first.

I wouldn't say the order is irrelevant. I wouldn't say either is naturally superior, but there is a difference. I deep dived into the Metroid series starting with the NES game and knowing very little about subsequent games. At the start, NES Metroid was Metroid for me. Which meant when I played Metroid II: Return of Samus, the fact that you could crouch and shoot, or jump and shoot downwards made an impact. That was not something you could do in the original game, and it had a big bearing on the gameplay with enemies and even puzzles. There's a segment near the beginning of Metroid II where you have to jump and shoot downards to get through a series of blocks. Someone who has played later Metroid games would run right past it without hesitation, but having played only Metroid,  players instinct would be to search for the bombs as that is how you dealt with such threats in the original game. This leads to a eureka moment where you play around with the game and come to the realization that that is something you can actually do. Such a eureka moments is lost if you already know and expect you can do that from later games. Metroid II having those abilities when its predecessors didn't made them worth something. While coming from the other direction, it would feel like a limitation in NES Metroid that you have to work past, rather than a natural aspect of the game that was later expanded upon. In contrast, I didn't play NES FIre Emblem first, so the lack of a battle forecast does feel like a limitation on the design that needs to be worked around. The game wasn't built with a battle forecast in mind, so it's not hard to work around it, but the feeling is still quite different to what it would be like to come at the series from the other direction.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Jotari

[hi_scroes]

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

In fact, since the relationship can only be appreciated once both relevant games have been played, the order is arguably irrelevant because one won't be able to make those connections after playing just one game, whichever one is played first.

The same could be said for direct sequels, and actually I'd argue that modern media production directly allows for out-of-order approaches to everything since it's economically wise to have sequels be enjoyable regardless of whether or not the audience is familiar with the original. But I think it's safe to say that this approach, while not invalidating the experiences of those who use it, can also dampen the effect of stories. You can never get back the experience of not knowing what's going to happen.

This is true for all modern media franchises, but video games are especially relevant since participation is so important to them. It's not just the story that can be spoiled -- level design, mechanics, graphics, music can all be "spoiled" as well by playing games out of order. I know it sounds silly but I stand by it -- just look at Jotari's example of how someone could be "spoiled" on Metroid's gameplay.

And since the vast majority of people approach series out-of-order, there have been some side effects in fan discussion. For one, I think it's nearly a truism at this point that "Seliph is a generic lord character" -- I saw this expressed multiple times in a recent thread. But in the context of FE4 as the sequel to FE1-3, this is an absurd statement. Seliph's cutscene dialogue is strikingly different from Marth's (who must be the prototype/genre-defining FE lord, as he is the first); Seliph is unsure, unfocused, and in constant need of guidance even though he hates the empire whereas Marth is typically confident and focused. So it's odd to me that Seliph is often spun as a "return to form" when he is so unlike the lords that preceded him. My theory for why this happens is that, in comparison to modern FE lords, Seliph's story is not nearly as personal -- we rarely get into Seliph's mind and he never suffers major losses (aside from the obvious one, which he does not directly react to), which is wildly different from your Edelgards or Dimitris. So when people approach Seliph with the context of modern lords, he doesn't seem so unique since he never goes to the extremes that modern characters do. But this is because Edelgard, Chrom, Roy, Leif, etc. are all reactions to these past series developments. It's like being spoiled -- Seliph is significant as a reaction to FE1-3, but he seems insignificant in the context of what "an FE lord" will eventually become, and the latter mentality produces this odd impression of the character (not to say you have to like Seliph, you don't).

This isn't to say that the writing has been getting better or worse over time, just that new writing definitely draws upon old writing in the same way that a sequel draws upon the events of the original. And I also want to reaffirm that, for the purpose of enjoyment, you can do whatever you like and I can't judge you -- I instead want to advocate for this method which helps to navigate modern media, since I have fun approaching series like this. The very concept of a "media series" is kind of a novel idea and people are still getting used to it, and they can be left confused if they approach a series in a way that the authors couldn't have anticipated -- this confusion can be assuaged if you try to figure out what the authors were anticipating, what they were drawing from as they wrote. Of course this can still be figured out afterwards as you said, but it's straightforward (and fun!) to "accompany the development of things," and if you have the opportunity to do, it's worth taking it.

Post is already too overlong but I should also acknowledge that some people just can't get into retro games, to which I say... more for me 😁

[henrymidfields]

I'd actually avoid 3H as the first game. As far as the gameplay is concerned, the choices are very overwhelming given that you can reclass anyone into anything (at least on paper), and the gameplay balance isn't exactly the best. I'd also avoid Binding Blade, as they've got a bad case of favoring certain classes and weapons over others.

Fates Birthright, Awakening, or Sacred Stones would probably be a better choice, at least for first stints.

For some more experience, and if you don't mind the story, Conquest is actually not too bad on Normal Mode (can't say about Hard onwards). It's challenging, but has better balance.