Jump to content

How might they keep the Emblem gameplay mechanics in the future?


Emblem mechanics  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want the gameplay mechanics introduced by Emblems to return?

    • Yes, with the Emblem Stands
      3
    • Yes, but without the Force Ghosts
      12
    • No
      5
  2. 2. If the mechanics return, how do you think they'll be branded?

    • As Emblem lords
      1
    • As battalions
      3
    • As legendary weapons or armor
      2
    • As equippable rings or other accessories
      6
    • As enchantments placed on the character
      2
    • As skill trees through dedicated training
      2
    • Other
      2
    • They won't
      2
  3. 3. How would you like to see the mechanics implemented in future games

    • As Emblem lords
      2
    • As battalions
      0
    • As legendary weapons or armor
      4
    • As equippable rings or other accessories
      5
    • As enchantments placed on the character
      1
    • As skill trees through dedicated training
      3
    • Other
      2
    • I don't like/don't want the mechanics
      3


Recommended Posts

Yeah the ghosts just feel… meh. I’d like a more limited form a support via battalions if we get anything. Battalions actually make it feel like a real battle with your people being leaders, as opposed to 14 kids killing a dragon via ganking him with knives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the super mode and the way it ties in to skills, so I wouldn't mind seeing it return. If they want them to be characters they could be legendary weapon spirits or the like really, which would be fine with me. Or perhaps a way to explore deities or the like which FE doesn't really do much of. Either way I do think it's fun, and I think I'd prefer they keep doing it some sort of supernatural way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fun, for sure, and demands a lot of planning to have the skills you want, etc. But I'm not sure it will return that way.

But, on an other point, it's a nice way to have skills. Before, we had them essentially by changing class a lot of times, or with weapons as in Echoes. I don't know, this system is pretty flexible to give your units certain skill and it's interesting. I think they should do a similar way to get skills or boost, it's cool.

But not with the Emblems, the past lords and everything (Especially when I see what they want to do with the DLC, ahah. Still disappointed by the datamining on that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is probably a good idea to split different emblem gameplay elements. I really like how emblems work in Engage, but they are plot relevant and can't be moved to other titles without changes. So here is the list of different things that they are used for.

1) Inheritance of the skills - I would prefer classes as in several previous titles. It make sense and it motivates you to move units between different classes. FF system(learning skills from items) could also work, but it is a bit unnatural for FE.

2) Sync skills - I like how you have accessories that give you powerful skills, but are limited in numbers. It adds an additional level of decision when equipping your army - could be easily moved to battalions system(battalion that provides canto, battalion that allows staff usage, battalion that add dual strike etc.) accessories is another option, but not weapons as they will greatly limit amount of options. 

3)Engage mechanic - it is really good as it adds complicated decision making to the tactical game, but I don't know how you could generalize it. There are no reasons to do "state switch" in a general FE game. Limited abilities could be used as battalions, but it isn't the best part of the engage:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I much prefer class skills stay solely on the class they start with. I'm not sure what aside from a similarish Engage-like setup of "equip X extra thing" would work for it. Weapons would be interesting. I feel like you'd want another game of no durability though which does take away options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think they are (maybe with the exception of SP balancing) the right direction to take unit-building which they've clearly been experimenting (and imo struggling with) since Awakening.

 Maybe it's just me... but I hated Battalions visually. It's just not what I want in Fire Emblem. Just another thing I hate about Three Houses. 

I could see it being brought back in a slightly more generic way. I don't think weapons would mesh well with other elements.

I'd lean towards equipable rings/accessories or the 'skill tree' idea. 

Actually maybe something like Echoes DLC where they have different 'altars' I could see like picking a 'god' or 'hero' to learn from but in a slightly more generic way rather than with the past character ghost thing. 

They'll probably just scrap it and put in another skill system that doesn't quite get it right for the like 8th time in a row at this point though. 😞



I think it's because the whole idea of reclassing multiple times and picking up various skills/etc. (or in this case very slow sp gain with extreme sp costs) is at odds with 'traditional' fire emblem gameplay of the pre-awakening era where limited resources and optimal in the moment picks rather than 'max stat/cap/etc' gameplay was the norm. There's a constant tension between making things customizable but also limiting the player to not break the game during the actual story but then also usually not having enough postgame/etc to make it all worth it.

The equation just doesn't quite add up so far and I think it leaves it all feeling like "what are all these systems for?" - because in a realistic playthrough of the game where you play how they clearly want you to play - not grinding, focusing on the main chapters, limited resource/choices - you wont even interact with half these systems they clearly spent so much time on. It's in a very weird place. The removal of half the unit building rings during the story is a major sign to me that none of this is really supposed to be utilized in a 'i'm building my perfect unit' kind of way until way late, but then what is it actually for? Some rings you lose in ch10 and don't get back until practically the end of the game.

They need to make firm design decisions about what the goal of unit building is and how much of it is supposed to take place during the game vs after and if all of this is for after then they need to have things like Apotheosis, Thabes, Creature Campaign, etc. to make there be a point to doing it.

 
Edited by ckc22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it could be interesting that instead of Emblem/ghost people, have books to learn skills from. Have a slot for the 'Strategy of Sigurd,' 'Lessons with Lyn,' 'Marth's Manual' etc. You could study the books, and instead of 'bonds' with the rings, have levels of understanding. You could even have a scene of your character reading, hearing the words of the author, get a tutorial if needed, etc.

Depending on how deep you went, you could have a way for a character (say, Alcryst) write a book to teach Luna, or say give options to change class. Maybe loot a book of strategy from an enemy general who doesn't join, but you can learn their special skill from their writings. You could even blur lines with a book of a 'fictional' war hero for in the game lore, and have it be the Art of War. If you double down on this, you could do really weird cross over stuff, like a book from Link that taught his 'spin in a circle' move that does (X). It would never happen, but I'd buy that DLC lol. 

 

For the 'engage' part of the emblems, I think it would make sense to make it a morale system. Start off with high morale, it goes down, you can increase it by doing well in battle, etc. You could potentially tie this to battalions again, even. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The skill trees themselves are the easy part. They could be inherited through manuals or training.

 

It's the temporary enhanced form that's difficult to implement without breaking immersion. This could be specifically tied to magical weapons or items, or it could be a Berserk/Desperate/Adrenalized state that leaves you vulnerable when it ends. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they make a Bleach game with Fire Emblem gameplay, the Emblems could be Zanpakuto Spirits

For a more serious suggestion, I have yet to play Engage, but one way they could keep the emblem mechanics in a game that isn't meant to be a crossover/celebration would be to have the emblems be ancient kings/heroes who have left behind their wisdom and/or a fragment of their powers or something along those lines. Or, they could be like the zanpakuto spirits in Bleach: reflections of different aspects of the person that's using them, rather than a separate individual. All they have to do to change the flavour of the rings to work in a new context is to change who the emblem is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really have been enjoying the engage mechanic. It adds a fun way to change characters on the fly and it leads to some insane build variety.

It is a little fan servicey, but I love it. Just wish the vested boy Chrom was here >_<. 

 

I think from a lore perspective, some type of legendary armor or weapon could work maybe?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like IS wants to lean heavily on old characters since they have had good success with Heroes, and have tried this before with awakening. I don't really get it myself, as while these characters are technically in these games, they are kind of empty characters without their own story and world. Like Ike is in Engage, but without Tellius and his allies, he doesn't really have real character. This is fine for heroes, which is just a mobile game where the story doesn't really matter, but in mainline titles, it detracts from the world. I think the series would be strengthened by taking a step back and focussing on the story they are trying to tell (3H was good in this regard).

I did really like the skills that came with the emblems and the associated gameplay improvements. Kind of wish they were locked to certain characters as it makes everyone seem more unique and brings more utility to certain characters. I kept benching people this game because stronger characters just kept coming, and there was no punishment in terms of growths or limited levels. While not my favourite story, I really enjoyed Cindered Shadows, in large part because battalions were individual-specific and you had to carefully strategize over who to use based on their overall utility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MiaMain said:

Seems like IS wants to lean heavily on old characters since they have had good success with Heroes, and have tried this before with awakening.

In the case of Awakening, it was going to be the last game in the series if it didn't sell enough copies, so it was made to be a celebration and culmination of the series; essentially a 'Fire Emblem Greatest Hits'. Even Engage was very likely supposed to be an anniversary celebration that got delayed, so I don't really see IS leaning heavily on old characters outside of special cases like these two games and Heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I see emblems as this games evolution of the "pair up" mechanic we've had from Awakening. From a gameplay standpoint it's by far the best implementation of this gimmick. So I'd like to see it developed further. 

 

I think the magic ring idea works, doesn't necessarily have to have any sort of character attached to it, could just be based on unit class. And maybe the unit has a skill in it that grows with use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, scigeek101 said:

So I see emblems as this games evolution of the "pair up" mechanic we've had from Awakening. From a gameplay standpoint it's by far the best implementation of this gimmick. So I'd like to see it developed further.

You know, maybe it's a bit too involved, but maybe they really could just evolve pair up into this. Like, equip characters from your bench as back-ups to each of your characters, gaining skills and inheriting skills from them. 

 

It would be too much if each character had more than one unique skill to teach, but maybe every character of the same class could offer the same core set of skills. Between Lord, Swordmaster, Hero, Warrior, Berserker, Sniper, General, Paladin, Sage, Bishop, Wyvern Knight, Falcon Knight, and Thief, that's 13 skill sets for the core, which is about the same. Another handful for the recommended optional classes (Bow Knight, Halberdier, Mage Knight/Dark Knight, Monk, and Great Knight).

 

This is a thought experiment I'd consider building on.

Edited by Fabulously Olivier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that could work. Might be kind of hard to utilize in a good way though if it removes characters from being active in battle. 

Perhaps something akin to Final Fantasy 7's "materia" system might be workable where your equips level up on their own and can be swapped around. 

Lore wise I think you could do something like, have a small pantheon of various gods who've sealed their power in dragon stones or something like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...