Hawkwing
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Hawkwing
-
-
..."Stop sending people to kill me! We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle... If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send a very fast working one to Moscow and I certainly won't have to send another..." As it turned out, the letter...
Who here actually gets this reference? -
41 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:
Yeah, I kinda feel the same, to be frank. I never really feel Tharja does anything of note that Robin, Miriel, or Ricken couldn't do. Anyways, exactly why is Awakening the one FE game where you care about skill??
About the only noticeable thing about Tharja unit-wise is she's the mother of Noire (who strangly turns out very well for me in every playthrough so far) and that she makes a decent (though not outstanding) knight with a fair resistant stat.
Well, I've only played three fire emblem games enough to get a hang of the mechanic (I'm starting a playthrough of Blazing Sword, but since I'm in Lyn's story at the moment, I don't yet know which stats are more important than others) and of the three, Awakening is the game where I've actually cared about accuracy. In Gaiden, you weren't even show the hit rates, and in Echoes, the 1 RNG ensures that that 90% to hit is really 90%, but you also do have a 10% chance of missing. In an odd way, I like planning around unexpected hits/misses, and it helps that the animations are visually interesting, making missing less noticable frustrating. In Mystery of the Emblem (the SNES version), the weapon triangle doesn't exist, and base stats and growth rates aren't on the outstanding side, so I take what I can get.
However, in Awakening, were growth rates are very high, and I rely very heavily on my units doing the expected amount of damage, so being able to hit the opponent is of high priority to me. I also care about speed enough so that unit don't get doubled (unless they're a knight, to which I will forgive their low speed because their defense makes up for it) at minimum, regardless if they will attack twice, as well as defense, though that's self-explanatory.
(Well, the only times I've been critted were in SoV and FE3, and the former has Mila's turnwheel to compensate, along with the fact that critical hits aren't always a one hit kill. With the latter, I just accepted the Wolts fate to being hit with a 1% chance critical... twice. It helps that FE3 actually handles the permadeath aspect of the series pretty well, since you have more than enough units to compensate for any losses. Thanks for the warning on Radiant Dawn, even if I've only seen a physical copy Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn once in my entire life :-/)
-
If a sequel to Fire emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia were anounced, would you be in support of the game, or against it? Also, when in the future would you what a sequel to occur?
Feel free to list any gameplay or story ideas you have for the game.
Story Ideas (This assumes you've already played and beaten the game, so spoilers are abound here.)
SpoilerTwo notes beforehand. 1. This is an overview, not the script, so I'm intentionally being broad here. 2. These are also ideas, meaning that some of these are purposefully ambitious, and some may obviously not come to fruition in the final product.
The game is set only a short time after the end of Shadows of Valentia, and largely deals with how Alm and Celica handle ruling over the newly united nation over the course of a few years. The player choice would have a factor in how they would handle the situations they face, and the game would have multiple endings both for the characters and for the nation at large.
Only a short time after assuming the crown, rebellions erupt both in Rigel and Zofia. The both Rigelian commoners and nobles alike oppose Alm taking charge, for a large variety of reasons. They range from could seeing him as nothing more than a conquerer, to believing that Rudolf made him king not because he was his son, but to avoid political chaos, or because Rudolf was impressed with Alm's leadership and wished for him to rule over the kingdom over Berkut, to believing that the story was a complete fabrication and nothing more than a power grab for the Deliverance. Likewise, the situation surrounding Berkut's and Rinea's death would be heavily disputed. Some would believe that Berkut really did go crazy and sacrifice Rinea for power, while others believe that Rinea was died in the crossfire between Berkut madly attacking Alm's group. Other's believe that both of them were killed to remove competition to the throne by Alm's party, or that Berkut was provoked into attacking. The also wanted the Duma Faithful to return back to when Duma was sane and the bright points in their belief that hard-work builds character were prevalent, instead of it being nothing more than a cult, and they don't take to kindly to their "god" being slain by the country that follows Mila, even though she "went to sleep" with her brother. The more fanatical remenants of the Duma Faithful would do all in their power to assassinate/kidnap Alm and Celica, and destroy the newly founded kingdom out of revenge.
In Zofia, the reasons for the rebellions are simpler. They don't want a king that was installed by their enemy in the war, regardless if he was a war hero beforehand, and have overall lost faith in the royal family due to the actions of Lima IV, and to a lesser extent Desaix. That, and some nobles simply want to stay in power, and don't known how to do so nonviolently with a king who was once a commoner and wished to reduce the influence of the nobility. Alongside this is multiple bandits and pirates taking advantage of the chaos to spread havoc and fill their pockets, with perhaps another Grieth-level leader rising to power...
Overall, I want this to be a deconstruction of the story in the first game, showing what would probably happen after the events of the previous game. I want to see both Alm and Celica's characters fleshed out more, having both their flaws shown and analyzed, as well as for their strengths to shine. I also want to know what direction they would lead the kingdom, with player choice being involved most of the characters from the first game would appear, as well as some new ones. Characters who became knights at the end of the game would still be present here. Many of the other characters that aren't outright stated to be out of service could pick up arms again. It would allow for expanded conversations and interactions that either weren't possible in the previous game, or that we wanted but didn't get. Both Pythons Militia and Jesse's (or Kamui's) mercenary kingdom would make an appearance (probably pulling a big damn heroes moment) and join, with some foreshadowing on what would become of the two groups in the years and decades to come. Speaking of which, since the story may take over the time span of several years, it wouldn't surprise me if Zeke left when Mystery of the Emblem takes place, with several references to the conflict (and heck, maybe even an optional meeting between Alm and Marth, which could go several ways), and Kamui simply disappearing. And again, I want for their to be multiple moments where the player could choose how to procede through each conflict, with actual cosequences that affect the course of the game, the story, and the endings.
As I said, these are merely ideas at the moment, with very little fleshed out, but this is the template I would see IS taking (or at least, what I would want them to) storywise if they were going to make a sequel.
(This took me two frikken hours to write, by the way, so I don't present this idea lightly.)
Gameplay Ideas (put in a spoiler to save space)
Spoiler- Keep many of the same mechanics as the original game, but greatly improve the map design.
- Add to the already stellar art and animations, but that's a given.
- Add more classes. Have an axe-using class, a fencer, assassin, and thief classes, and maybe a crossbowman and/or acrobat/performer. I also wouldn't mind seeing a wyvern rider and/or a Taguel/Manakete (or both), but I question if that would work in conjunction with the lore.
- Add more characters, though that's also a given.
- Expand upon the world map. Make it less linear, give operating multiple parties more strategic depth (i.e. planning ahead about which party to move and which one should defend on a given turn on the world map), have skirmishes be more complex, and have multiple options of how to deal with a situation. For instance, you can choose to attack a fortress immediately and face a hard battle, or starve them out, which makes the battle easier, but at cost some turns, or you could use less than desirable tactics to make the battle easier immediately (such as using fire or poison) but suffer diplomatic and story consequences. I've already seen enough ideas from others on how they would want to expand upon this area, so it is something that has a lot of potential.
- If summoning returns, add a stronger penalty to it.
- Have some of the memory prisms be playable, such as a hopeless survival and/or defend mission, or an important battle that took place in the past that could explain why some characters act the way they do.
- At some points of the story, you could play as the enemy, and have a mechanic where you can recruit specific unit classes that you want rather than having to work with what the game gives you.
- Have player choices mean something, and have multiple endings.
- New Game+
-
9 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:
Personally, I never found her to be all that great myself - her low skill and luck mean even with aid from her skills (it should be noted that one of those requires her to be adjacent to whatever she's engaging, which gives birth to another problem), she has issues hitting things, at least without using wind magic, and if she wants to take advantage of Hex, she has to eat a counter, which, thanks to her awful luck, can become fatal thanks to critical hits - Nosferatu being broken doesn't mean anything if you get blicked off the map by a critical hit (or miss), after all.
I mean, I get the thought process behind the class. They're supposed to be more defense-orientated mages that physically can take a hit, and can deliver devastating magical attacks against the (supposedly) low resistance of their enemies, with their skills putting the advantage on their side in close combat (supposedly). Unlike their counterparts, however, dark mages don't have as strong as magic, skill, or speed, so they compensate through having very powerful, if inaccurate, exclusive magic available to them. I can see why people like this class and can get a use out of them.
But as I said earlier, I already use Robin, Miriel, and even Ricken enough that they end up with stellar magic already, and wise use of pair-up can compensate for anytime they get near the front-lines, so the magic part of my team is already covered. That, and Awakening is the only one of three Fire emblem games I've played so far were I really gave a crap about skill (The 1 round RNG in SoV makes any hit possibly unreliable, and I love the game for it. FE3 has the same deal, and I've just accepted that no-one is a one-man army in that game) and speed, which doesn't help the dark mages case (granted, I have the same problem with skill and speed with Nowi, but the difference there is that I dislike how reliant Manaketes are on their stat boosts. Say what you will about Panne and the Taguel class, but at least she can reclass without worry once she starts falling behind).
I also find Nosferatu to be overrated. Sure, it can heal the unit of any damage they have taken, but so can healers, and since weapons have a limited use in this game, it means I'm not going to use Nosferatu until I absolutely need to, and since I rarely use dark mages in the first place, that situation rarely occurs!
(Just an observation, and nothing more, but I've noticed that you seem very concerned about critical hits and luck more than other players.)
-
...Ponder his options to increase the nation's resources. Then, an idea struck him! He would declare war on every nation, claiming to have found an influx of resources that boosted his supposed war machine. While everyone would fight over the nonexistant materials, he would steal their leftover supplies and other articles that would be found on the battlefield after the battle, including any legendary weapondry that those stupid heroes decided to bring. The next day, when he was making this declaration...
-
I personally find Echoes have good replay value, but its more like a board game kind of replayablility. You take a board game out for an afternoon, play the game until its over, and then put it away until the next time you want to play. Sometimes each game will be very similar to each other, and sometimes they'll be vastly different. That's how I feel towards Echoes. The game is beatable in a week or two, the gameplay moves along quickly because battles that aren't plot important are treated as skirmishes, and the only thing that requires a lot of time put into them is the dungeons. I tend to notice the subtle differences of how the erratic growth rates effect the usefulness or function of the character, while still having everyone be usefull, which add's a little bit of replayability to me personally. Also, while the story has its flaws, it also has its strengths, and because it's presented so beautifully, I don't mind having to sit through the same cutscenes, events, and conversations all over again.
Despite this though, it doesn't reach the heights that Awakening and fates do in replayability, and as I stated earlier, these are personal reasons why I find the game to be replayable, and they obviously don't apply to everyone.
-
If Gaiden was The Adventure of Link, Echoes: Shadows of Valentia is Skyward Sword. I love both SoV and SS to death, but its not hard to see why people both love and hate these games.
First off, my history of the game. I was hooked the moment I saw the game revealed in the January Nintendo Direct. From the story showing that both sides of the conflict were going to be gray, to finally getting a chance to play an older game in the series, to the awesome combat animations showing that units would run into battle and having more visually interesting dodge and counter animations than the previous 3DS games, and than the fact that it was coming out on the same week as my birthday, all combined to make me so excited for the game that I almost completely forgot about Fire Emblem: Warriors or even Heroes! Almost immediently, I searched for any and all information that I could about the game, from visiting wikipedia and tv tropes, to finding and reading a helpful lets play of the game twice (which taught me ahead of time about many of the quirks and mechanics of the original game that were), to even temporarily playing the game on an online emulator once I learned how to work one (which is a fun story in and of itself of how I managed to find two online emulator sites, but that's for a different day. Speaking of which, I couldn't save the game(s) I was playing, which I considered a fair trade off considering I was playing these games for free). In fact, it was in this way that I first discovered Serenes Forest, which provided well analyzed and consistent information on the game, eventually leading to me discovering their (in)famous forums and eventually becoming a member.
As for the game itself, I love how it manages to both be a very solid strategy game on its own, while still being both a Fire Emblem game first and foremost, while still deviating from the established norm.I loved both the things that got a lot of attention, such as the versatility of the villager classes, how magic cost health to cast, Mila's Turnwheel, and how class promotion worked, and the little things, such as the AI retreating at low HP, to the one round RNG, to how the erratic growth rates made each playthrough a little different. I love how you can field everyone, and even if their growths haven't been impressive, they still have a use. I'm also impressed at how well they balanced the dungeons, since I could see them accidently making grinding too easy or too hard, but instead they nailed the balance where they're beneficial, but not game-breaking. You can tell that a lot of heart and effort went into this game, and it shows.
About the only gripes I have with this game gameplay-wise is some elements of the maps and summoning. I actually don't mind the map design of this game, both because I've never really cared that much for map design with any game, but also because the maps actually match the kind of fight you're in. In this game, you have to earn every step of ground when invading a castle or fort, enduring the defenses that the enemy throws at you, and slowly but surely breaking through. It seems like you're trying to conquer an actual fortified building, not a level with castle aesthetics. Same for the fights in the forests; It seems as if you're actually fighting in forest rather than on a map with a few trees. However, they really needed to add some different maps in place of the copied ones from the original game, as Gaiden only reused maps because of hardware limitations, and while I find the desert maps to be cathardic (seeing Wolf (The archer fort boss
(they missed an opportunity for a Star Fox joke/reference there))or Grieth hit the dust after all the trouble they put me through was worth all the pain it took to get to that moment), the swamp maps can rot in hell. I also think that there needed to be a harsher punishment on summoners for, well, summoning, as while I know some tricks to kill them before things get nasty, I know they have been a legitimate grievance for many players.Storywise... I personally enjoyed it, but it was both a fun and saddening experience to see which areas of the story SoV improved, and which ones Gaiden handled better originally. I love the overall story, and it is presented GLORIOUSLY. I never before though how much voice acting could add to the characters and experience, and speaking of which, this is a very likable cast. Considering that the most you had to go out of the game for each characters personality was their recruitment quote, death quote, and ending
(and yet they still had more personality and character than all of the units in Marth's games), and to a lesser extent appearance and stats, it was fun seeing which interpretations I personally made compared and contrasted with how they appear in the remake, and it's amazing (and sad) that some of the side characters here have as much (if not more) presence and personality as many of the series lords themselves. I also like how the story manages to be surprisingly dark, even in its NES days, without becoming edgy or brooding.Sadly, if you've look at any of the story threads on this site, the story isn't perfect and if having your flaw's be obvious is a flaw, than this game has that problem. Celica and Alm's meeting felt forced, which is sad as it's a big and well-done moment in the original game, and I thought that the reason you could only recruit Sonia or Deen was handled better in the original game as well, as in Gaiden, according to Jesse, they hate each other, but they hate Grieth even more, but neither of them are willing to backstab them as long as the other is alive. This adds backstory to both characters that's up to the players imagination as too why Sonia and Deen aren't on good terms, and the whole backstabbing conundrum is actually pretty clever if you think about it. While in SoV, it seemed like "if you beat one, the other may or may not attack you"... it was pointless drama that didn't pay off or go anywhere. Also, I wish that Alm's recklessness appeared more, as his flaws aren't really shown as well or as often. I also would have liked to have known his thoughts on people assuming he would become king after the conflict was over, or after he unintentionally became a broken Aesop. We could have had some very interesting conversations, and it would have analyzed and strengthed Alm's character, but alas, it is not so.
The big thing about the games flaws, though, is that they're either going to bother you to no end, or you simply won't care. I remember rolling my eyes, face-palming, or not caring about some games story problem and moving on, while some of these moments have greatly and legitimately bothered others. It will depend on the person if the story problems are just minor hiccups or actual grieviences. Same thing with the gameplay, you are either going to very much love or very much hate certian mechanics, which is why I made the comparison to Skyward Sword earlier. I actually think recommending this game altogether is the hardest problem I have with it, as I will have no idea if I'm going to give someone their favorite game, or if they'll think they wasted money on the game.
This took me two fricken hours to write, and I had to go into detail about every single thing I enjoyed or disliked about the game, I'd probably give the longest article on this website. As I've said multiple times earlier, I loved this game since the moment I've seen it revealed, and so many of the things I've enjoyed clicked with me so well that I honestly have a difficult time finding things I didn't enjoy. It's a game that has a lot of heart and care put into it, and its greatest strength and biggest flaw is that all of the gameplay mechanics and much of the story will rely on personal preference, which leads to something being either passionately loved or prominently hated.
SpoilerThis is a little off-topic, but is anyone else interested in seeing a sequel or expansion pack to this game? Storywise, I honestly want to see how Alm and Celica handle being King and Queen of a United Valentia, and how they handle the rebellions that pop up. I could see that being a great deconstruction of the games current story, and it would give the writers and opportunity to fix some of the problems the original story had. Gameplaywise, can we take the mechanics of this game and give them some solid level design, and maybe add some new classes and mechanics? I could see an excellent continuation of this game, though I wonder if anyone else would want another round with this world and its characters and mechanics.
-
Both games deserve remakes, though I think that Binding Blade will probably come first, since it should be easier to improve. As far as I can tell, it just needs some better balancing, have supports be quicker and easier to unlock, and have Roy promote earlier. I haven't actually played Binding Blade, or either of the Judgral games for that matter, so I have to go off secondhand knowledge when talking about these games. I would love for Blazing sword, or even Sacred Stones, to be remastered alongside this game, but I'm not holding my breath.
As for Genealogy of the Holy War, it is most certainly doable, though as seen in the various threads on this site that already discuss how the game should be remade, there's a lot of areas that could be improved, and a lot of different ways to do so. All I know for certain is that IS will need to drop their habit of keeping remakes as close as they can to the original, because this game has aged, and not always in good ways. That being said, this game does definitely need more recognition, and it could become an even more solid masterpiece if IS successfully pulled the remake off
I also wouldn't mind if Tharcia 776 was remade, if only to get a proper translation. I do think they should add a tutorial in the veins of how the 3DS games handled it, and make it a bit more beginner-friendly, since it's not kind to a blind player at all. The only thing I'm concerned about is how they balance both modernizing the game while keeping faithful to its roots, since I see major problems that could happen if they went either way (speaking of which, has anyone made a Tharcia 776 Echoes thread yet? I'm interested on what the people who've played the game want in a remake).
If Nintendo wanted a quick buck they could remaster the Tellius games, since I know a lot of people want to play those but can't because the games are so rare (seriously, I've only seen a copy of Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn ONCE in my entire life). Seriously, people would buy the games for Ike alone, but they're also among the more challenging games in the series, which would attract certain players.
-
20 hours ago, Jotari said:
Dungeons exist but the vast majority of them are like really small. Only four have any considerable size to them, Fear Mountain (which incidentally warps you back to the start of it after a failed path), Tower of Duma (where multiple uses are pretty useful), Duma's Shrine (which actually is fairly liberal with save points meaning the Turnwheel isn't super useful) and Thabes (which is post game). So I can definitely see where they were going with it, but by retaining how bare bones the dungeons were in Gaiden, and how easy the encounters are, for the most part, the Turnwheel's number of uses still kind of breaks the bank if you've managed to collect any extra cogs.
I know, and I do agree that the game gives you more uses that you'll probably need in the dungeons (except on hard mode, where the game teaches you that even with the high about of cogs you're given, you still shouldn't use them liberally. I nearly learned this the hard way when facing Grieth and Sonia). It's just hard to tell sometimes if people remember this fact when discussing how Mila's turnwheel should return.
Also, something I forgot to mention in an earlier post, I would like for archers to have a 2-3 range as well as the ability to counter-attack. This would give them a greater usage and help them not to be outclassed by mages. Plus it adds to overall strategy, and when isn't that a bad thing?
-
"Shame on you, boy! Don't you know how much I paid to give you those linguistic lessons? Talk like a proper gentleman, not a backwater...Hey!"
For at that moment Shigure had stolen some pants that were hung up to dry, and while he was running away while putting them on, he was confronted by...
-
2 minutes ago, Purple Mage said:
(I had this whole thing prepared, but @Hawkwing posted first, so I improvised.)
Sorry 'bout that, but I guess the point of this thread IS to improvise and have fun, right?...Donnel's mother, who angrily asked Shigure what game we was from and why he's buck-naked outside her house. Before Shigure could say anything, Donnel appeared and said...
-
...order them to restate the entire story of this thread in a single paragraph. Upon hearing this, they responded...
-
...take a bath, remembering that the fight took place in the bathroom, and he forgot to wash his hands. When he looked in the mirror, however, to his horror...
-
2 hours ago, Jotari said:
Do you try to train absolutely every unit? Because if someone's lagging behind I generally drop them even though I can field them (that is to say they're still there but kept pretty far from combat and only around in case of an emergency).
I must be one of the few people to actually aim to use everyone in every Fire Emblem game I play, only benching someone if the RNG hasn't been kind to them with their growths (which honestly rarely happens. I find the "use-everyone" challenge to be quite enjoyable). The small cast of Echoes is a honestly a reason I love the game, because even if someone hasn't turned out stellar, they still have a use, and most of the strategy and challenge of the game comes from dealing with the erratic growth rates (which in my eyes adds replay value). Then again, I am the guy that uses knights enough that they've often been my top performers, rarely, if ever, use Jeigan units, and doesn't give a damn about growth rates, so my playstyle tends to be different from most people.
2 hours ago, Jotari said:To stop my comment from being completely off topic, I'll throw out a suggestion for new mechanics. What if the Mila's Turnwheel item used a consumable resource (the way I actually thought it worked on my first playthrough). So, like in Shadows of Valentia, you can get up to ten cogs or so but once they're used, they're used. I think this would considerably help it maintain its useful status while also making it something you seriously have to consider the pros and cons of using (well in theory, in practice I imagine most people would always reset and never use it until the final chapter just like every other too good to use resource in existence).
Yeah, no. I can definitely see what you're getting at, but I know that super-resourceful me would never touch the thing if that were the case. Especially since limiting the total amount of uses could achieve the same purpose. As I suggested above, I would have 3 uses for the early game, 5 for the midgame, and 7-10 uses by the endgame, with rare/hard sidequests to increase the number of uses it has.
Something I think most people forget about Shadows of Valentia when discussing the high amount of uses the game gave you is that 1. dungeons are present, and considering how long those can get, it's a way of avoiding frustration of having an hour long grind go to waste on the loss of one unit and 2. the game has a single RNG (something I personally want to return, since I like knowing that a 80% chance to hit is really a 80% chance to hit, rather than the fake statistic that the 2 RNG gives us, but I digress) which means that missing a sometimes vital attack can cause serious havoc on the players strategy, so having a option to redo either the attack or their strategy helps alleviate the vexation, while the limit encourages the player to avoid making reckless decisions in the first place.
-
As others have said, Mila's turnwheel should return. It was a great and practical addition that helped countless times and sped up the pace of the game considerably. The only real difference I would make is to reduce the amount of uses it had, as SoV got away with it due to having dungeons, but even then it was a little excessive. My idea would be to start with three uses, upgrade to 5 at the midway point, and have 7-9 uses by the endgame, with sidequests to add more uses inbetween.
Villages are a great tool for worldbuilding, and they add an additional way for the player to interact and learn more about their troops. I wouldn't mind if shopping and forging could be done here, either.
I would like a combination of arts and skills. The former were situational, and the latter are luck based, but combining them would remove their greatest flaws and allow the strengths of both to shine.
I wouldn't mind summoners returning. Just make their summoning ability more reliable yet predictable and make the ability come with a greater cost so that they don't just spam their ability.
I wouldn't mind if many of your units had their own spell lists, while still having tomes present in the game. The former allows the player to save on the use of their tomes by using a replenishable resource (hp), while the latter could allow for some mages to cover for their weaknesses. I have some ideas on how to balance the two so one doesn't upend the other, but I have no idea how they will work in practice.
I liked the high-avoidance of the terrain, but I also like Battle for Wesnoth, which is more about positioning than Fire Emblem is, and is also much more luck-based. Unless the new game is built around it, I'm fine having this be a one-time gimmick.
I would like an item button for character inventories so that shields and rings could return. They were interesting, helpful, and tended to come with their pros and cons to balance them out.
I didn't mind the dungeons in SoV, since they made grinding interesting and added much to the lore of the world, but I won't complain if they don't reappear.
Also, can we keep the 1 round RNG? I like knowing that a 90% to hit is really a 90% chance to hit, and that 50% is really a coin flip, so I can plan around said hit rates instead of having to go to this site to get what the actual hit rates of the 2 RNG are. I enjoy having to plan around unexpected hits and misses, I find it adds to the strategy.
-
Well, these ARE ideas, so I feel that I'm allowed to be a little ambitious. Besides, I would like to see what they they aspects they can and can't implement in the end, because I'll be a happy camper if they put a more work into
34 minutes ago, Captain Vulgar said:The situational victories would be interesting, but I don't know about continuous fighting. Cause what if, for some reason, all the enemies have a different strategy than you expect? I like the zoom outs for individual units, buuuuuuuuut as a quality of lore kinda thing. I would like a zoom for level bosses/minibosses for whenever you skip the enemy phase. I'm always sad when I miss that bit of dialogue because their leader took a shot I wasn't expecting yet.
What I mean by continuous fighting is that, if a unit is playing turtle and is going to have a crap-ton of enemies attack them during the enemy phase, instead of the annoying transfer between the map and battle screens and back again, or the boring option of skipping off the animations, the battle camera would remain on. The enemies would constantly attack, one after another, without any pause in the combat. Leveling up would be quicker than usual so the flow isn't broken, and the overall experience is meant to be cinematic. Also, the game itself would predetermine when each enemy moves, so it could be programed in that if X amount of opponents attack a unit, put the battle camera into effect.
Two minor things I forgot to add is to have idle animations for map sprites, and when pressing the L button so the battle only commences on the map, have a simple attacking/defending animation for the fight instead of the sprites just ramming into each other. These aren't too complicated, so I don't have much to say about them, other than that they should be pretty easy to implement.
-
1 hour ago, Captain Vulgar said:
If that game is rated T than that gives me some hope, but has there ever been blood in a Fire Emblem game?
It's been brought up in conversations before, and a spoilerly yet dramatic death in Shadows of Valentia is the first time there was blood shown (it was in a still portrait, not in gameplay, but still) in a Fire Emblem game (it was small, but noticeable), so I wouldn't be surprised if blood appeared again, even if its appearance was miniscule.
21 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:I wouldn't mind a return of the accessories in Fates. Goofy as they may be. Or if nothing else, I wouldn't mind an option to tailor different colors for my units armor sets. At least let me choose the lord's cape color.
Even if I haven't played Fates, I do like the idea of accessories. I would like them to be more down to earth than what we had in that game though, and I'm debating on whether or not they should have a minuscule effect on gameplay (as in 1 or 2 stat boost at most) or if they should be purely cosmetic. I my I also would like for them to be unlockable, though on the easier side of things, with the cooler armor requiring you to do something badass, and the goofier costumes requiring you to do something wacky.
Heck, an idea I had that for a New Game+ for Shadows of Valentia is that you could unlock alternative costumes for your units depending on what difficulty you beat the game on. For instance, Celica could unlock both disney-esque princess looking outfit to wear, or her original design, Kamui could unlock both ninja and samurai armor, Jesse could have an cowboy/Indiana Jones-esque costume, and so on and so forth.
-
Earlier today, I started the topic about cosmetic ideas I had for the Fire Emblem Switch. Now I'll give the second half of what I have in mind, the animations.
Without wasting time, here are my ideas:
Each Unit Would Have Different Combat Styles
The idea I have for this is for every unit to have a "combat style" set that would fit their character. For example, a unit set to "stylish" would use more exaggerated, if impractical, movements when attacking, while one set to "experienced" would use subtle, yet effective means at countering, disarming, and attacking their opponent. A "pragmatic" character would fight normally, but would occasionally use underhanded tactics to gain the upper hand (such as throwing dust in their opponents eyes), while a "dirty fighter" use use these methods all the time, and an "honorable" character would never use them. A "brutal" fighter would show no mercy and often beat their opponent past the point of submission, while a "sadistic" would often use tactics that cause the most pain to their enemy (such as twisting the blade during a stab, or intentionally striking in non-vital areas). Outside of bosses, these traits would be randomized for enemy units.
If they add more female enemies, I also think that some characters should fight differently when facing them. For some characters, its obvious that they're holding back and not attacking with their full strength. For others, they would switch to using blunt weaponry or hand-to-hand combat and try to disarm or knock out their opponents (with mixed results, depending on which class they are fighting). For some, they simply don't care that their enemy is a women and would attack normally.
Using the Environment
This is one I would like to see the most. I want to see a unit throw their enemy into a wall or tree, throw them over a cliff, try to drown them in a river, smash them into a table, pick up a chair, tree branch, or bucket and use it as a temporary weapon, use decorative armor as a temporary shield, ambush them from a tree, chop down a tree so it lands on their enemy, rip a tree from its socket to use as a weapon, and/or pull down a flag or throw a cloth/blanket to distract their opponent. The possibilities are endless! (
I had too much writing these down.Needless to say I really, really want this to be a thing in the next game.)Permanent Effects on the Map
As in, if an arrow misses, it will stick to the ground or the wall, and stay their for the rest of the battle. Similarly, corpses won't suddenly disappear when they are killed; They will be present in the area that they were killed (maybe even have rag doll animations for defeated opponents) until the end of the map. Magic that misses (or maybe even hits) their opponent might could also cause a tree to fall down, or burn a hole in a wall. It might also be cool if sometimes the horses/pegasi/wyverns from the defeated classes would run around if their rider was killed but they weren't. Not a whole lot to say here, but the idea is in the category of "sounds fine on paper, works wonders in practice."
Different Victory Animations and Transitions
I much as I love SoV's combat animations (as in, they were half of the reason I wanted the game after seeing the reveal trailer), I did find it a little strange that both sides unsheathed their weapons every time combat initiated, as if they put their weapon away after every fight, nevermind that they're in the attack range of every enemy in sight. I know that some people find both Ike and Chrom's victory animations of planting their swords into the ground more annoying than cool for this reason. My solution for this would to have multiple victory animations. The two (possibly three) factors that determine which animation would be played is whether or not they will be attacked again after the immediate fight is over and how much health they have left (they might also have a different animation for if they level-up, I personally don't believe it would be necessary). For example, a myrmidon at full health who won't be attacked for the rest of the enemy phase would clean their sword and then dramatically sheath it. If they are at full health, but are going to be attacked again, the myrmidon would instead do a short trick with their blade. If they were at half health but there involvement in the enemy phrase was done, they would sheathe their sword, and sit (or fall) to the ground to rest. If at half health and were going to be attacked again, they would bend over and give a heavy sigh, the jump right back into the fray.
Building off of the above, if a unit is going to be attacked several times during the enemy phrase, the battle view would just continue, instead of constantly switching between the map and combat screens. This way, the fights could continue on more quickly, along with being more cinematic. Some unique animations could be made here as well, such as a unit grabbing the lance of his/her now dead foe and chucking it at the upcoming enemy, or downing one opponent and then swinging off a doorframe to get the drop on their next advisory. It could seem at times as if they were trying to continue an imaginary combo, and/or were emulating Batman from the Arkham series.
(Runner-up: More detailed death animations. For example unit who dies with a slit throat would drop to the ground and garble as they choke to death, and wouldn't be able to give their death quote. It didn't take me long to realize how morbid and needlessly horrific these would be, and could get, no matter how effectively they gave a "war is hell" message.)
So what are your thoughts and ideas on the matter?
-
2 hours ago, Captain Vulgar said:
Blood would be pretty intense. Give the battles depth and reality. Maybe add sparks to that equation for when blocking with shields or weapons. As much as I'd like it, would it boost the rating to M?
SpoilerA teen rated game, everybody.
That's why I said I'd like the blood to be in the vein of Mount and Blade. Partially because it's optional (I always think that blood, as well as language, should be optional if it's not the selling point of the game. I know that many people can stomach that sort of thing, but I always end up turning it off because I have younger family members around), but also because it doesn't go overboard. If you slash at an enemy, a small blood splatter will appear and your weapon will get blood on it, the enemies armor will have blood where it was slashed, and if you're close enough, blood will get on your hands and clothing. It helps to show how intense and brutal medieval fighting can be. Despite this, the effect is reasonable. No one has blood spraying out of them, nor are there pools of blood. There's no gore or amputations (although decapitations exist in Viking Conquest), and it never seems as if a simple fight will turn into a needless bloodbath, only in grand battles (or multiplayer) will everyone look like they took a dive into a crimson pool.
-
Over the past few months, we've been discussing gameplay mechanics, story ideas, and whatever else we want to see in the the upcoming Fire Emblem game for the Nintendo Switch. Rarely, however have I seen any ideas presented on how the game should visually look, which can be just as an important a factor as the gameplay itself. So, I believe its about time that I presented my ideas on the topic.
The ideas I have on the matter are as follows:
Each Nation or Faction Should Have a Different Style for Each Class
What I mean by this is that that the knight design of Nation A should be different than the knight design of Nation B, and the style for bandits should be different from both. One nation would have their archers be heavily armored, while another would have them wearing little more than leather armor. Each factions could go more in depth with being stylized after real world cultures than the previous games have, which helps prevent every nation from looking like they bought their armor from the same store (
I now have a new headcannon about every villainous nation in Fire Emblem buying their equipment from Walhart). Some classes could even be different from each other while still serving the same purpose. For example, one nation would use the previous designs of myrmidons, while another would be stylized more like a fencer, without changing the function of the unit. Overall, differentiating each nation through a more obvious visual style helps them to be more memorable, which is something the Fire Emblem tends to lack in.Randomize the Faces, Hairstyles, Builds, Race, and Gender of Enemy Units
After playing through both Awakening and Echoes, I soon grew tired of facing the same enemy with the same face and hairstyle as the rest of the army. Regardless of whether or not an avatar is returning, the customizability aspect of it could be applied to enemy units. Each enemy would have a randomized face that's different every time you play, which prevents the aforementioned problem of the enemy designs getting stale. I also think that some more female enemies should be thrown into the mix, with the game randomly determining whether an enemy unit on a given map will be male or female. If you can have female units for nearly every class, why can't the enemy? Plus, a ratio could be present so that for a certain amount of male units, there would be a female one, and it would be different depending on which enemy nation you are currently facing. This could help enforce whether a nation's culture is egalitarian (for every male enemy, there is a female one), has nothing against women fighting (2 or 3 males for every female), is reluctant for women to fight but still allows it (for every 7 through 10 enemies, there is a female one), or prohibits it altogether (the only female enemies are clerics and pegasus riders). I also think that armor designs should differ slightly between each unit as well. Some would have plain armor, others would have it be scratched up a little, and some of them would be personalized (such as having skulls or sayings or what have you painted on their shields and armor). Similarly, for example, a female archer/mercenary could wear armor that has a skirt or is otherwise more feminine, be wearing the standardized armor for the class, or they could be more uniquely/oddly armored (one-sleeved shirts, anyone?). Overall, this would prevent the enemy units from growing stale to look at, while also ensuring that each playthrough you would be facing different enemy combinations.
Have Stats Affect the Appearance of Armor
As in, a mercenary with high defense could have a shield, shoulder guards, chainmail armor, and a helmet, while a mercenary with comparatively lower defense may only have leather armor and maybe a shield or helmet. This helps the effects of character growths make sense, prevents the designs from growing stale, and helps show visually how a unit has grown more powerful throughout the game.
Logical Armor Damage
I haven't played Fates, but from what I've seen, the clothing damage was a bit excessive, and didn't make much sense. When playing SoV, I enjoyed seeing seeing both my own units and the enemy lose their headgear and have their capes torn after a devastating attack. It was simultaneously funny and painful, and helped enforce the power behind the attack. It did happen too rarely for my liking, however. For the switch game, I would like both for the damage done to make logical sense (as in, a unit could put a tear in the opponents clothing or scratch their armor depending on which direction it was struck. Enough damage to a shield would cause it to break. A critical hit would puncture and crack an area of the armor, but said armor wouldn't just fly off) and be more apparent without going overboard (i.e. no attack should strip an opponent to their underwear).
(Runner-Up: Adding blood. I would put this as its own topic, but I'm admittedly a little too scared to do so. On the one hand, I'd like it to be similar in style to how Mount & Blade handled it, which I thought did Teen-rated blood right, but on the other hand, I do wonder if it would fit the style of fire emblem, or if its a step to far.)
Later today, I'll try create a thread to give my thoughts and ideas about the animation I want the game to have (I'm a slow typer, and this took me over an hour and a half to write! I need a break before I do another version of this).
So what are your thoughts on how you what the game to look visually?
Edit: The thread on animation has been out for over a week now, so if you want to see my ideas on the matter and/or add your own, go check that out. I'm glad to see that so many people like these ideas, and it's always nice to see your own.
-
Dismounting was always an idea that I though sounded okay on paper, and worked just fine in practice, so its not at the top of my list of mechanics I like to see return.
That being said, I wouldn't mind if it came back, I just want the map design to take advantage of it more. I found having to choose between taking an infantry unit or a cavalier without their signature mobility made indoor maps more interesting to me when playing fe3. I also thought that being able to use pegasus knights in the range of archers at the cost of their signature flying ability was a solid trade-off and it made them much more versatile.
Just make sure that units that use this mechanic available to them can utilize all their weapons. Mystery of the Emblem got away with making said units sword locked because it didn't have a weapon triangle or individual weapon ranks. If this aspect was used today, it would add more annoyance than strategy to the mix.
-
I would go for having an option to choose between the two. I honestly didn't mind the battle themes when playing SoV or Mystery of the Emblem (I would also say that the GBA games didn't bother me in this area, but my emulator for them taught me the definition of ear rape, so I have to play those with the volume off) as they were very well done, and some of the map themes wouldn't have translated well into a battle theme. On the other hand, the I noticed that dynamic music did flow better between when moving between the map and battle and back again when playing Awakening (Haven't played fates
"yet", so I can't comment on how well it was done), and FTL: Faster Than Light used the same method for its music, and its one of my favorite video game soundtracks as a result.I like both methods, so I'd like the option to choose between the two whenever I want.
-
Characters I Like That Tend to be Disliked:
Laurent: A stoic, intelligent character that selfishly tries to use his intellect to help others, rather than do things just "for science?" If Stahl didn't exist, he would have earned the spot for my favorite character in the Awakening. I love his manner of speech, and could read it all day. I can partially understand why people don't enjoy him, as this is a game that gives you five magic users, and he does seem very similar to his mother. However, I notice, and enjoy, the subtle differences between them. Speaking of which, I find Miriel almost ridiculously easy to pair up correctly, so he almost always ends up being the strongest magic user on my team. The fact that he's among the earliest and easiest child to get, and that he supports very quickly with Lucina, only helps his case. Overall, he tops my list of favorite characters in Fire Emblem for his personality, availability, and utility.
Panne/Yarne: I really just enjoy shapeshifers in general. The fact that this class is beginner friendly also helped during my first few playthroughts of Awakening, as they where fast enough to dodge most attacks and didn't have to worry about the weapon triangle, with overall solid stats backing them up. And they are much easier to reclass when they fall behind. Indeed, there has not been a game where a wyvern rider Panne has not snapped the game in half and maxed out all her stats, and Yarne excels in as a powerhouse in almost any class he's put in. I also like how many of Panne's supports could be read either as her distrusting humans as a whole, or as just being slow to warm up to someone. Besides, I tend to like the defrosting ice queen trope in general, and I also like how much of her humor comes from her ignorance of human customs (such as )
Kamui: Growth rates in Echoes are infamous for being unreliable. You are almost as likely to level up all stat as much as you are to level up one (even if, in an odd way, this actually adds replayablitiy to the game for me), So having the most balanced growth rates in the game does Kamui a lot of favors. Going to the Dragon shrine was hands down the funniest part of the game for me, which combined with the fact that he was the one to take down the necrodragon on my first playthrough only solidified my love of his character. I also like that he is among the few mercenary characters in Fire Emblem to actually act like a mercenary, and I like that among all the badass quoes at the end of the game, his is basically "I have no idea how I got myself into this situation, but I guess I'll see it to the end."
Deen: He's nowhere near my favorite character, but I actually find the choice between him and Sonia to have more than meets the eye. Sonia tends to be among the best mages in the game and most certainly surpasses Mae and Boey, but she does take a while to get up to speed. Deen, by contrast, is useful from the start and can become a versatile dread fighter, but is yet another mercenary on a route filled with them. I like how outer circumstances determine which one is more practical for the plathrough. Also, he's a fun and surprisingly challenging boss, being at times harder than Grieth! Whereas Sonya can be cheesed with a bow knight or sniper. Even if I wish there was more to his personality, it being "Squidward if he was a badass mercenary who doesn't take anyone's sh*t" is just too funny yet awesome for me not to enjoy.
Characters I Dislike That Tend to be Liked:
Tharja: I personally don't get as much of a use out of the Dark Mage class as others have, which already doesn't help Tharjas case. Not helping is that I found her to be inaccurate, not as powerful as the other mages I had (I greatly enjoy using mages in this game, so they were already my top performers by the time she arrived), slow, and having a merely average base defence stat. Honestly, if it weren't for the fact that she's the mother to Noire, I would have benched her from the start. Not helping is that fanservice only lowers my opinion of a character, and her abusive, yandere habits destroy any liking I could of had for the character. Honestly, I feel guilty for having someone marry her.
Sereva: If I feel bad for having someone marry Tharja, then I feel worse for anyone having Sereva as a kid. Her recruitment chapter is a pain, and her tsuduru and jerkish personality aren't earning her any favors. The only thing I can really say I like about her is her versatility, and even the use I get out of that can range between playthroughs.
Fates Royals: "Hate," or heck even "dislike," is a strong word, as I haven't actually played fates ("yet") and bear no ill towards their character ("yet"). However, I thought Fates was an overambitious fluke, and wish that they would stop putting their characters in nearly everything. It's tiring, and I want to see some of the other characters get the spotlight.
-
No to the idea presented. Unless the game warns you beforehand, and is already short and replayable (such as Punch-Out Wii), deleting a save file for failure is just plain cruel. Also, taking away casual mode would be a step backwards. Sure, some people are used to permadeath being prevalent in tactical games and will probably never touch the mode, but it's optional and a great tool for easing newcomers into the gameplay mechanics. Besides, it still punishes players for their mistakes (those defeated units aren't earning any experience or support points, after all) without permanent consequences.
That being said, I do have my own ideas on the subject. The modes I would implement would be:
Casual: Defeated units return after the battle is done.
Classic: Lost units are gone forever. The player has the option of soft-resetting if they wish to undo their mistakes.
Ironman: The game constantly autosaves, so soft reseting won't undo any deaths. However, if the player has lost too many of their best units, or just plain lost too many units period, the game could determine that continuing would be much more difficult than it should be, and offer them the chance to try the mission again. This will not be a common occurrence; this choice will only appear when the player really needs it.
Ironman+: The game constantly autosaves, so dead units stay dead. Unlike the above, the game will not be merciful, and you cannot to undo of your mistakes, no matter what.
Perfectionist: If any unit dies, game over. End of story. Meant to save time for people who have this sort of playstyle anyhow.
The FE Nonsense Story Thread - Now in Act V!
in Forum Games
Posted
A ninja came out of nowhere and ended Gangrel's miserable life with a Killer Instinct Ultra Combo! Then, slicing a rift into another dimension, the ninja flew off on his jetpack and...