[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

(Hi, sorry to butt in, I'm new to the site...)

Um, well I voted "No" because I don't really see a problem with it. I understand wanting to keep the purely serious Fire Emblem with lighthearted banter at time while still being story-focused, I feel like society has moved on from that.

What does this even mean. Society has moved on from wanting good stories with well-written and consistent characters?

I mean, if you want to say society has moved from wanting that to wanting masturbatory self-insert stories that decides that, no really, it totally wants to be taken seriously while also including a shitload of shameless fanservice, go ahead, but I don't think that's anything to be positive about.

Also, you don't worry about the incest; it's optional.

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

I know, the game could've been much better if they did not focus so much on fanservice, but how is the game less than enjoyable just because of it? I think I am going to be able to play it and enjoy it, despite the fanservice.

Because it creates a jarring and inconsistent tone for the game.

If you're going to enjoy the game because of/despite the fanservice, great! It's good enjoying things, and I sincerely hope no wants to prevent you from enjoying it. But please keep in mind there are legitimate criticisms that hamper others from liking the game as much, and we voice those criticisms because we love(d) the series in the first place.

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

Don't people know the Camilla scene is optional too like have people heard of the start of A button in some cases that out right skip certain sences or if fates have it go to the menu and press don't show cut scenes. But really if people offense by this man people on this forum needs to get some ass or something.

As a matter of fact, the entire story except for parts you like is optional! Just skip/close your eyes during any part of the game you don't like

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

The same way that an "optional" intermission scene of Gustav and Zero fucking would take away from my immersion in The Grand Budapest Hotel.

It's there, and it's meant to be digested along with the rest of the game. Claiming that it's optional as some sort of catch-all defense is ridiculous.

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

Sorry, the "it's optional" trite doesn't fly with me.

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

You're right, I'm not super well-versed in GoT. Thanks for informing me of the other things involved.

My argument on Fates' jarring tonal inconsistency still stands.

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

Um,,,most of Game of Thrones sex scenes are intended to be fanservice.

There is a reason why sex appears in the TV series much more than in the book series.

Was the latest rape of the previously untouched character fanservice?

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

Uh, have you played the game to see if it became less serious because of the fanservice? I know a few people who say the story is not only better than Awakening, but that it is darker and sadder as well.

Fanservice doesn't conflict with the quality of a game's story. It conflicts with mood and immersion to the game. Can't a story be serious even with fanservice? Game of Thrones (the series) has lots of it, while retaining a consistent, dark story.

I can't speak super in depth for Game of Thrones, but from what I gleaned about the show from pure osmosis, claiming that Game of Thrones' sex scenes are fanservice seem to be laughable. Horrific sexual assault and rape scenes are fanservice now? Second, GoT's sex scenes are not there to be purely ogled by the watcher - they serve the story.

When I say fanservice, I'm talking about lingering ass + boob shots, the ability to undress every character down to their underwear, rubbing people's faces and tits, lesbian relationship between male players' favorite female character and the self insert, etc etc.

Fanservice directly affects a story's tone. Ergo, it directly affects the story. You're only furthering my point by claiming that people say the game is meant to be taken seriously. Contrast that with the ample sexual pandering, and you've got ridiculously jarring tonal shifts that utterly destroy immersion.

For example, right after you fight your opposite family, a moment of heavy betrayal, you unlock mycastle and the ability to rub people's faces.

When Camila comes over to your army, the game's camera makes an effort to linger on her ass and boobs. What does this add?

The game's filled to the brim with pandering fanservice. To then expect us to then take the supposedly grimdark story seriously is an insulting joke.

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

You seem to imply that the mere mention of sex is a juvenile thing. On the contrary, the emergence of love in war can be excellently handled, and I will argue that it's perfectly mature and in line with Fe4's story. The specific support you seem to be referring to ends with the implicit understanding that they will never see each other again. This is coming from the most lighthearted character in the game at an emotional climax in the story, so it's perfectly in line with the rest of Fe4's tone.

On the flipside, what does being able to touch Tharja's breasts add to Fates? Do I get a deeper understanding of Tharja by doing this?

I'm not sure why you seem to think the fanservice is strictly tied to "optional" content. Is having to watch this optional? I suppose if I were thick I could argue that it's optional in the sense that you don't have to look at the screen when this comes up, but really. The "its optional" argument requires a ridiculous amount of mental gymnastics to take seriously that it isn't even worth acknowledging.

Please try not to take criticisms of a game personally, it's not intended as such.

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

I've seen other games mix fanservice and serious story successfully before and I'm confident that Fates can do the same. This level of stuff doesn't elicit anything more than an eyeroll from me at this point anyway.

Examples, please.

edit: let's be clear how stark the tonal shifts in this game are. This is a game that contemplates heavy issues. This game is supposed to be more heavy than say, Luminous Arc 2 "if we work together we can triumph over anything!" level of serious.

[Does the amount of fanservice bother you?]

The fanservice in itself is not the troubling aspect - I can understand it existing in games such as Hyperdimension Neptunia, the problem with its inclusion in Fire Emblem in particular is that it vaporizes any semblance of a consistent tone. Games like HN and Disgaea have consistent tones - lighthearted and jokey, and so the fanservice in those games don't feel out of place (though I still personally struggle to play the HN game I bought on a sale whim despite this). The interviews with the Fates guys indicate that they want to make this game's story meaningful. What a joke. The decision to include so much fanservice (which include the likes of a pandering lesbian Tharja), along the other horrible choices IS have made (in particular, the decision to split the game at the store, rather than at the player's choice) butchers any possibility of this game having a quality story. Wasn't that the initial hope when this game was announced?

Enjoy the fanservice if you want, but there's no denying that until IS just up and make the straight hentai game they seem to really want, its a significant detraction. Focus on either a "heavy, meaningful story" (ex Fe 4, 5, 9. 10, etc), or a non serious "rub everyone's tits and strip them to their underwear anime" (ex HN, Senran Kagura, etc). Trying to combine the two, like Fates is doing, is laughable.

[Same-Sex Marriage Confirmed]

I find the problem to go further than IS just being incompetent at writing anything close to resembling good characters and relationships. The support in question halfassedly dwells on the taboo nature of their relationship (Tharja: "I wish I was a man so my attraction wasn't weird!") - doing this shifts the focus on homosexual relationships as opposed to the characters themselves and subsequently, predictably makes a mockery of it. As a result I find its inclusion to be detrimental to Nintendo's approach on equal representation as opposed to just not including it in the first place.

If the notTharjaxKamui support was in line with the typical S support from Awakening, I wouldn't have as much an issue with it. Instead, they make an effort to point out and dwell on the homosexual relationship.

As for the other relationship, this quote from a redditor sums up my thoughts:

"Wow, IS made the sadistic prison rapist the only gay option."

[Same-Sex Marriage Confirmed]

I can only speak on the SharaxKamui relationship, since that's the only one I've read (If the S support translation I've read is inaccurate, the rest of this post is moot, but I honestly doubt it is), but it's saddening that one of Nintendo's first direct forays into such a topic is a hugely insulting one.

The support is horrendous in that reads like it's aimed at the (male) players who say their favorite Fire Emblem character is Tharja (read: the developers at IS), as opposed to being a remotely dignified or nuanced approach to a topic that deserves much better than this. If people like this inclusion solely because their lesbian Tharja fantasies have finally been realized, then more power to you. Let us not pretend its inclusion accomplishes anything more than that.

We should expect better than this; more Arcade Gannons and less of this pandering shit.

[The Reason for the Problems With Awakening]

I'm unsure what you were reading to think what you do. but it's not the game's script. Chrom believes Virion and Cherche at the end of Chapter 11(that Valm is going to invade) but it's not until Chapter 12 when the Valmese is invading their continent and attacks civillians that Chrom decides to involve Ylisse in another war along with his true motivation(peace). This can be seen in the script for the start of Chapter 12:

On that note considering the discussion about negotiations I also think Dalton makes the Valmese intentions/demands pretty clear if they were to come to an agreement with Walhart.

Chrom

I've had time to ponder Ylisse's place in the world, Frederick. ...And my own. We must stand against evil, in all its forms, or there can be no peace!

He says this immediately after seeing Dalton kill the villager (imagine how much better this would have fit if he said this after, say, chapter 15). Regardless of Valm's (single) action right before he says this, it still shows that Chrom easily accepts Virion's words on their surface and heads straight to battle, while ignoring any course of action other than full confrontration. Of course, right after repelling Valm's advance force, he doesn't try any sort of negotiation (it's irrelevant if it would have failed, what's important is him trying), he goes and gets war materials in order to gain an upper hand against Valm. This is after just one battle with Valm, where Chrom generalizes the entire opposing force as savages because of the actions of one commander.

All he knows about Valm at this point are the testimony of one person (something which, if we saw ourselves, might have bettered the story), and the actions of the commander of the vanguard. Better just mark Valm as savages and call it a day, I guess.

[The Reason for the Problems With Awakening]

I find it humorous that having a comic relief character exposit "Trust me guys, this Walhart is a really bad dude" is apparently sufficient motivation to initiate a full-out war with another nation.

I may rag on Sword of Seals for being the worst FE game, but I at least distinctly recall it at least showing Zephiel/Bern doing bad things in order to sufficiently motivate your group (and by extension, you) to fight them.

Good stories aren't accomplished by having mere exposition entirely dictate motivation. This is why the Valm arc fails to be one.

[Ambush spawning]

I like ambush spawning if it's well integrated in a well designed level. Fe12 accomplishes this for the most part, with carefully placed forts and them being triggered by your progress. Ambush spawning 10 mov wyverns in relatively unpredictable places is dumb, though not ridiculous.

What I do not approve of is the seemingly random sprinkling of reinforcement forts on open maps that a certain game likes to do.

[Is the hate on Shadow Dragon justified?]

"Petty little details" are an important part of design within any given map though. The fact is that once again, you've made a grossly misproportionate summary of how the seize objective generally functions on most maps and continue to dismiss specifics in FE6 yet praise them in 7.

Attempting to actually secure all the chests with Matthew in ch17 is stupid because you need at best (assuming you use every single fucking mounted unit in your army bar Marcus and Pris in a rescue chain since he is probaby killing everything and she's probably recruiting Raven or healing somebody else) an extra 3 turns to get Matthew to the top of the map, then another 3 turns to get all the extra loot up there. If you actually want all the loot there, I'm pretty sure that in FE7 thieves who have looted chests drop the item they stole upon death, and that chapter spawns thieves on turn 4 and 5 who can basically do Matthew's job for him if you kill them, so rescuepassing Matthew to the top of the map is basically obsolete even in casual play.

The shaman's is pretty pathetically easy to ORKO for any remotely decent unit, there is no archer in the chest room at the bottom left in hard mode (for some reason) and Matthew has to spend a turn opening the door anyway, so that gives whoever killed the Shaman a free turn to heal before then ORKOing the archer in the room (who is only there on NM anyway so once again is an easy ORKO).

Protecting Pris isn't hard at all.because the corridors are so goddamn narrow all you have to do is block the way adequately with 2 units and the enemies are so weak they won't kill her unless they gang up.

Saving all the soldiers is easy because they only leave their cell on turn 8, by which point nearly all the enemies are dead except for maybe some reinforcements from the back.

You can simply leave Oswin at the rear end of the map and he is pretty much invincible to the reinforcements and will protect Merlinus by himself. Alternatively considering there is ample time between opening the chests at the bottom left and when the reinforcements at the bottom start appearing, you can pretty reasonably just have whoever came to help Matthew kill the Shaman or archer go back around to protect Merlinus themselves.

It's not "nonexistant" because you have two thieves, it is an extra consideration to make about deployment or positioning if you pass up bringing Chad. Frankly the better choice would simply be to have a mounted unit use a door key that you got earlier in the chapter rather than deploy two thieves considering you really don't ever need to deploy more than 1 in FE6.

Cath appears on turn 10 and takes 4 full moves before she can make it to the door so that is pretty much bogus. Even if Roy simply walked by himself with his crappy 5 mov to that point on the map it would take 12 turns, so unless you are actually turtling or just suck there is no way Cath can open the door before you make it there.

How is using the argument that the enemies aren't interesting to fight/easy to deal with only applicable if there aren't a ton of them? In ch17, most of the enemy units are easily ORKO'd and the density of them doesn't make it more interesting, you can just throw Marcus with a javelin up the corridor and he kills them all himself. The amount of units being used or enemies being fought only matters if the consideration into your positioning is accurately reflected, which FE6 actually does a better job of here because it is highly unlikely you can easily bottleneck most of the enemies or ORKO anything but the soldiers consistently.

I will concede that the very bottom of the map needed some more enemies before the throne room and that the secondary chests past the boss are kind of a waste of time.

I'm not dismissing Fe6 specifics at all. There's definitely some interesting ones that should be taken note of (Klein/Tate, Douglas, 14's treasures), but you're going clearly ragging on 7 about unit usage while letting 6 slide in this regard. That narrow pass under the ch8 chests? Throw Marcus and/or Zealot with a javelin/hand axe and it's all basically cleared out. You have THIRTEEN unit slots, which is more than enough for any units and strong fillers you're using, and then Chad on top of it. Why is it that just saying "oh Oswin/Marcus can handle any challenges" is acceptable for 7, but then you try to claim that the intricacies of Fe6 can't be done the same way with Fe6, which it totally can. Marcus and Zealout can basically fly through the entire first half of the map, maybe taking a small detour the manage the horseslayer knight (which, along with the other knight in the way, can be dealt with by the hammer), which basically trivializes half the map (as the rest of your units can't do anything but lag behind, unlike 7's 17). The unit surge between the chest rooms is likely where they'd have to slow down (though I don't doubt for a second the two can easily solo the entire group), but at that point you've basically cleared most of the map with a whopping two units while missing absolutely nothing. If you do the same in Fe7 with Marcus, you still have to deal with getting the chests, holding off the cav reinforcements, and recruit Raven/Lucius.

Er, not really. The game allows you to deploy excess units a lot of the time but the fact is there is not reasonably enough EXP to go around in raising 10+ units unless you decide to rout every map and arena abuse.

Roy, a dancer, two staff users, one or two paladins/cavaliers, one or two fliers, one or two bow users, and the odd foot unit here or there totals to about 10 or so. Raising more is difficult unless you are taking your time, in which case you can take your time on later chapters too. Also, are we talking NM or HM? Because untrained units or units behind statistically are not going to be able to really chew through high forties to fifties hp enemies who have 18 to 20 AS, or the brave weapon hero guarding the switch, or 44 atk Druids. Actually I think the druids on the left have 18 to 19 AS as well and nosferatu so good fucking luck killing them with "one good unit" without rigging crits.

I said it was entirely possible; not strictly mandated. I would also somewhat disagree with your comp there. Something like having Dieck + Rutger alone, which is not a terrible idea, alongside the rest of the comp, would push the number up. Similarly, it's not unreasonable to raise up 2 cavs alongside Percival to make 3 mounted units. There is absolutely enough experience throughout the game to train your units, and you're given a ridiculous number of enemies on the chapter just 2 before it (the ones you gave to Niime for the sake of speeding the chapter) if you still need some. Niime/Yodel can easily help chip down the enemies on the way, while whatever other filler units that have gotten exp (due to the high deployment limit) can do the same. Again, the two druids together or the only huge problem, while someone like Percival+Maltet/Durandal can easily deal with the rest of the units with some chip. It's how I beat the chapter, at least.

You have just admitted that you think that the game is at fault because it didn't accomodate for somebody not deploying any mounts and intentionally using the lowest movement units in the game. :\

The game's at fault for a particular reason. It's fine to expect the game to punish you if you don't use a full deployment slot. The game gave you that option and the player actively denied using it. It's not fine to (excessively) punish the game for using some of the tools it has given you (knights/generals in this case). I've never done this myself, but I could fathom a guess that a playthrough with only knights/generals and Roy would be very difficult; not primarily because it would take forever to get there, but because 3-4 combat units are not enough to get through 6's chapters.

The alternative is not neccessarily using warp, I gave reccomendations on various things that can help to make FE6 faster. Making effective use of the rescue mechanic, utilising more mounted units, using the free strong unis the game gives you to deal with difficult enemies. None of these are things that are alien to any decent player. If you explictly choose to follow a strategy that you think is "un fun", and stick to it and insist it is the game's fault for not allowing that strategy to be subjectively fun to you, then you have completely lost me. I've already said, I actually DID THINK that a lot of FE6's maps were frustrating when I was playing through it on HM, and it made me reconsider what I was doing, and how I could effectively create better strategies. Thus, I had more fun with the game after coming to the conclusion that I could be doing something different, or that I had to reconsider my strategies or playstyle. You seem to be insistent on the point that because you felt FE6's maps were more punishing and less interesting to play from a specific perspective that the game's design is faulty. Now whilst I do think that positive reinforcement is a better approach to take, I don't believe that negatively reinforcing the ineffectiveness or tedium of player behaviour is by default "bad design".

My first playthrough of 6 was excruciatingly boring, since I did it the filthy casual method of not hauling Roy's ass to the throne through whatever means necessary. The second time I did move Roy faster through rescue/occasional warp use, and played generally smart, but it still wasn't nearly as fun as any other Fe game and it still doesn't excuse the gluttonous level design. Why is it excusable that you practically need a ferry filler just to move Roy everywhere? SD handled this by giving Marth a generous amount of mov compared to the size of the levels. Roy's stuck with 5 movement until the very end, which, combined with 6's maps, necessitates having to carry his ass. Let me again point to Fe5, which has a lot of warpskippable maps, but does not expect you trudge through huge maps and ferrying your lord everywhere if you don't decide to utilize warp/rescue. And, even though it doesn't hold a candle to the size of 6's maps, in the later maps it also heavily promotes strategic unit placement due to the ballistae everywhere.

Same problem happens in basically every FE game where you try to train armors...

I've already explain how several of the other Fe games mitigate this issue to some effect. Whether it's by including defense levels, route missions, or in general having smaller maps with more enemy density (CoD), there's generally enough to make generals not feel entirely useless in most other games. There are no doubt a bunch of levels where they do fall behind, but it's not nearly as bad as 6 in this regard.

Well maybe we've made progress here because you've admitted that in your opinion, that it was not fun. But you can't detract from the fact that a lot of people did find the chapter interesting and enjoyable because of its gimmick, and you can't dismiss the points I've made about how you can beat the map without warp in a decent pace if you think a little.

It's also a fact that other people find it unfun because of its gimmick. Both those things don't mean anything under a constructive criticism approach. People can find a bunch of bad things to be fun; doesn't make them well designed.

And while I don't doubt your method to beating the chapter quickly enough, a lot of it requires forehand knowledge of where the enemies will pop up, which I doubt most non-efficient playthroughs will bother to look up. It's all too easy to slowed down if you don't know the right places to put Niime, the right places to squeeze through reinforcement areas, etc.

Sending Roy to the right is not just a turn saver, it is more convenient because it allows you to recruit Hugh much easier, and he holds the prized member card. The vast majority of the enemies on the map are aggressive and move towards you constantly. The left side of the map allows you to bait and kill units through the wall, and you may also attack enemy knights through the central passageway. The enemy purge bishop is going to be firing down on you from near the group of Paladins repeatedly unless you use Fae to burn his charges, and there are items to steal from enemies along the way on the center path.

I forgot if Hugh moves or not (iirc he doesn't?), but if he doesn't, then taking the right side doesn't really mean anything. He's not going anywhere, so how would it be easier?

Also, you're really stretching your case if you consider one red gem to be "items to steal from enemies along the way"

Getting Klein over the wall at the top of the map is the only certified way to get Tate to be recruited right after she appears, and that requires the use of Thany. Of course this isn't a hard leap of faith to make either since the chapter gives you Lalum and places you directly next to a shortcut that you can rescue, dance, then drop a unit over to the right of your starting area in order to thing the enemy lines out, or to make initial progress on it at the least so by the time you walk around, they are mostly dead. The map is quite reasonable to complete in 9 turns even in casual play which exactly coincides with Echidna appearing.

As I've said, there's absolutely no reason to recruit Tate right when she appears unless you want to be 100% certain the peg knights won't get themselves killed, but it's extraneous all the more.

Also, I'm starting to doubt your turncounts since a quick glance at a few fe6 drafts note that 9 turns is around the average for that level when recruiting Tate (And while they are deliberately handicapping themselves, they are still going as fast as they can. I'd rather consider something like this to be a better indicator of a casual pace.

A lot of FE6 maps are ridiculously easy to 2 turn too, yet you refuse to accept that as a reasonable defence.

I played FE9 when I was still a casual and benched Gatrie because his stats upon returning were pretty iffy, his movement sucked and most of my mounted units were about as tanky as he was. Gatrie is not reasonably getting any real combat in any of those maps aside from the very start, which is the same thing that happens to most armor units in most FE games. Unless a player is specifically choosing to hold back his army full of high mov units in order for a slow unit to get into position and get some action, which is counterintuitive to the BEXP turncount bonuses. Even many casual players I know of like extra BEXP. What's Gatrie doing in chapter 16, any of the parts of 17, 20, or 21? Fuck all.

None of 6's maps are nearly as easy to finish as literally moving a flier like 6 tiles up.

Gatrie can easily see combat in 20 and 17. 16/21 are harder for him to do so, I agree. But while there are some chapters that he can't really be used, there are also other ones where he doesn't need high movement to be decently utilized. Ones like 13, 14, 22, and 24. The only ones I can think of where Fe6 general can do the same are some of the Sacae maps, but you won't even see those in half your playthroughs.

I consider that a detriment to the game but the enemy phases are far more reasonable in FE9 due to just the lower amount of rout maps and the smaller amount of enemies.

You don't have that on your first playthrough. In terms of replay value, I won't hold that against the game, but I would say that removing enemy range indicators in HM is the definition of artificial difficulty and a large part of why I won't replay the game anytime soon, even if I can turn animations off. Playing the game again on NM is not particulary enticing to me either.

This is probably the first time I've seen someone think that 10's EPs are worse than 9's.

Also, you're now changing the primary reason for your disliking of Fe10. First it was long ass enemy phases (which isn't true); now it's lack of enemy range marking. I agree on the second being a bad decision, but don't change your main complaint because the first didn't hold up.

Wouldn't have helped all that much since you only need 2 or 3 tier 3s, Ike, and then in p4 the Laguz royals placed in the right spots to wallop the maps.

I disagree. The master crowns are pretty sparse, your team is split up into three (further dividing your t3's), and the laguz being strong in p4 doesn't negate the fact that yours team are still overall toned down from mid-part 3 and onward. It's painfully easy to promote potential filler units like Titania. Not so much in the japanese version when you have to consider the scarcity of the crowns.

Wait 19 is Manakete and 21 is Dracospam isn't it?

19 in FE1 is so laughable since you can have Marth Vacuum every non thief which for slow players basically means insta win since they won't attack Bantu. I think its MUCH better(tolerable) in FE11 thanks to how shitty FE11 item system is for a chapter where you need to take items

21 is basically Awakening Map design lol

Yeah. While Fe1 had the general problem of Marth-magnetism, there were at least ranged units that slightly posed a threat if you wanted the chests. In SD, they're hidden, so they don't pose a threat at all unless you open their doors.

Incidentally 21 is one of my least favorite maps. Probably a smart decision to make that one of the ones they cut in Fe3.

[Is the hate on Shadow Dragon justified?]

Huh, I forgot that shooters were 1-2 range in Fe1. Haven't played that shit in forever.

Imo it's just a boring map with nothing really interesting about it. I can forgive it in Fe1 because Fe1, but it doesn't really translate too well to a more modern game. They at least covered all the rooms with chests/hunters, but I feel it doesn't do enough to save the chapter as a whole. Actually, this also kinda hurts it, because if you know which rooms hold enemies and which don't (it's pretty easy to figure out), the level's even easier.

[Is the hate on Shadow Dragon justified?]

I actually had a post almost all ready that went into details on yours and explained why they were pretty pointless, at least compared to Irysa's, but I doubt changing the discussion from "why so-and-so game is unfavourable" to "this one guy's posts are insubstantial and crap, let me go into painful detail as to why" would be acceptable. So I leave you with the apology you so wanted from the previous post. edit: looks like you brought up a few more things

i didn't ask for your opinion on my posts in the first place, so you'd do well to keep that to yourself next time. in particular, if you're going to make a controversial claim

Sure, but you sure as hell took your sweet time to jab at me with an out-of-nowhere condescending hand-wave and then form a huge, entirely irrelevant post attempting to defend yourself when no one but yourself cared in the first place.

don't do it without the evidence to back it up.

I won't forget to bring my cherry-picked, out of context quotes next time.

Assuming we're not cranking the difficulty to its highest, the amount of damage becomes more tolerable, and it's pretty easy to bait out the top portion (and semi-trivialize the bottom one). Highest I've played was H3, and the boss wasn't OHKOing everyone (though getting Marth there was. . .fun). Knowing how the ballistas target actually makes it a lot less painful, and if you're shooting for gaidens, this is the perfect place to reclass people to Something Squishy and use them to influence the ballista's aim. You should have two Physic staves (chests in Chapter 6 and 10, one of which isn't too much sidetracking, and the other is on the way to the throne), and Astram's stats don't change between difficulties, so the challenge I have is keeping him alive long enough for Midia to recruit. I don't use him, but I do appreciate the extra Wyrmslayer.

Oh, and the extra Horseslayer is nice, but the location of the armory sucks.

What are the ballistas' targeting patterns?

I personally never really enjoyed this level too much. It's a fun little gimmick map, but it doesn't leave much open to interpretation. One of those Fe1 levels that I didn't feel translate too well, up there with ch19 and 21.

[Is the hate on Shadow Dragon justified?]

Damn, I can't read through all this pretentious apprehension.

That, and the fact that you spent a wall of text on the topic of my opinion of your posts with ridiculous cherry picking of quotes lol

normally i'd ask for an apology, but i have the sneaking suspicion that you're not going to give me one. and enjoy the wall of text.

Sure, I'll give you an apology.

I'm so sorry your feelings got hurt

[Is the hate on Shadow Dragon justified?]

I am still baffled as to how you can give FE7 a free pass on the whole WRT this kind of stuff. Why is it "good design" that there is a room along the way that has chests and NOTHING ELSE within it is on the map in an easy to access area, when it is "bad design" to have a room along the way that also functions as a safe option to avoid enemy range attackers? What about the implications of some units being capable of safely moving through the lower passage due to a higher resistance stat or use of the barrier staff you recieved from the previous chapter? What about the fact you have to consider the whether to rescuedrop Astol to open the next door next turn, or use up a door key? Because one is blitheringly obvious it is quantifiably better?

That level DOES have more considerations than you are giving it credit for, in no small part some the positioning of some of the enemies and the way the center of the map is designed. And this is a level even I do not particularly want to defend, yet can think up things for that you are handwaving away without giving it any due thought. Immediate obviousness of a trait of a map, especially via visuals is not the way to judge a map's intricacies.

Actually on that note, the vast majority of chest rooms in FE6 actually contain an enemy or two after chapter 2, and often those enemies can attack through their rooms, or stand right next to the door. That in itself is more strategically interesting than a lot of FE7's chest areas which are simply dumped into some parts of the map, walls or not.. Even a relatively bland chapter like ch8 has more thought put into the function of the chest rooms than most of FE7's, think about that.

Jesus dude I've already explained why. 6's levels are generally designed so that the best way to handle it is to take your ball of units (or two if it's split up) and move them all towards one area. You can argue petty little details of the levels all you want. I can do the same with 7's maps. The distance between the first and second set of chests and the fact that you only have one thief implies that to get the chests as quickly as possible is to rescue chain Matthew from the first set of chests to the second. The shaman protecting the first set is strong enough to 2hko any one of your units, which, combined with the archer in the room, means you have to bring 2 combat units, waste time healing, or bring a healer. The game sends Raven towards your way, but the myriad of archers makes it more difficult to protect Priscilla, the person who is probably healing your frontline, when approaching Raven. Past that, it's (optionally) crucial to save the soldiers before they get themselves killed on the archers in the stairs room, so you divert some units to deal with that on the way up. Meanwhile, while all this is going on, a constant flood of cavalier reinforcements are coming from the back, either requiring you to split your team even further to deal with this or risk getting pincered.

The rescue drop crap with Astohl is nonexistant because you're given 2 thieves at that point. And if you're not even going at a super brisk pace, it's likely Cath will open the door anyway. The enemy placement is so damn spread out and sparse that THIRTEEN units will have no real issue with, the only exception being the random horseslayer knight. After you reach the Ostia trio, the enemy density has suddenly skyrocketed and you're bombarded with mages and lancemen from every angle. The only overarching strategy at this point is still to keep moving forward with every single one of your units. At this point, you go past the chest room, probably sending some mounted units to take care of the 1-tile corridor below it, and suddenly the enemy density drops to crap again. You then beat the boss, and waste more time sending the thieves, who have constantly been with the rest of your party, to get the rest of the chests.

I am not so much reccomending that all casual players do it so much as that any player who thinks "oh god that looks like a pain" utilises the option. Because you have to split your units up on ch22, along with the fact that the left group has to go a VERY LONG WAY AROUND to reach the throne, the logical solution is to put all the units that will be attacking the throne room on the right side, and limit the left side to filler units that only have to secure the switch top the top left of the map. Because of this, you may not have the same statistical benchmarks required in order to cleanly mow down enemies on the left side of the map. Rather than weaken your main force on the right, you should think about how to make it easier for your other units on the left to manage. What's the most easy solution? Warp over the short gap. Like I said, one of the chests on the left even has a sleep staff in it, so what you can quite feasibly do even without anything but some keys left over, is warp anyone who can deal with a general quickly and use a killer weapon rescuing a staff user, who is then dropped, and opens a chest to sleep the general and the hero, allowing your weaker unit to safely kill those enemies by themself.

As for the second one, what is supposed to be the cutoff point then? Should all maps be designed assuming the player is going to gimp themself by only using armor knights and generals so that a map with scale that is traversible relatively quickly with some planning is not allowed? I don't believe map design has to explictly cater to the lowest common denominator, nor do I believe that the maps "demand" you to use those resources so much as "are made easier by" utilising them. Do you really think IS are so incompetant at game design as to not realise that they gave Niime a staff rank that can use warp at base with 15 range? And that Niime automatically joins every single player's run? Do you also think that incentivising the player to utilise resources if they want to avoid difficulty/hassle is explictly bad? This is really important, beacuse it's basically the core point we seem to disagree on. Heck, speaking as someone who doesn't want to go through without utilising those features anymore, there are probably plenty of things I don't remember or haven't realised still about some of the behaviour or positioning of enemies.

What the hell does weakening your main unit mean? You have spots for only 9 units on the right side, and in a game that has encouraged you to generally use at least 10+ units thanks to a very liberal deployment count, it's entirely possible that you won't even have room for your main squad. Even disregarding that, due to the pathetic enemy density on both sides until you reach the throne, how likely is it that the left side (with the inclusion of at least one well trained unit) will have any trouble dealing with enemies? The only possible issue I see are the two druids that are together, but that's it. The rest of the enemies are spaced 4-7 units apart. Tell me, how is this good enemy placement, when you can easily deal with enemies one by one at a decent pace?

The cutoff point should be that every chapter is beatable at a reasonable pace by a well rounded team; a random selection of playable units. This is not arbitrary whatsoever, as, in general, this is what the typical player will be using in their playthroughs. If a player wants to use a team of only the 2-4 knights/generals that are available in the game, they're already gimping themselves by not using the full deployment count. They shouldn't be further punished by level design that overtly punishes these kinds of units. And while demand may not be the right word, the alternative to using warp is having to go through horribly bloated maps with either a)terrible enemy placement, b)terrible enemy density, or c)both. This isn't even considering that every map is seize. Fe5's maps are made much easier with the warp staff, but they're still wholly interesting and unique as levels in their own right if you don't use them. My god is this not the case for Fe6.

Thinking about positioning and effective use of movement is a constant engagement. Waiting for your nigh invincible god units to finish murdering everything is not "exciting", it is the very opposite.

I don't consider moving (and only moving; not positioning) my lagging Bors behind the rest of my team to be considered a "constant engagement".

NM or HM? HM makes it significantly harder for anything but a divine weapon or Magic to oneround most of the enemy wyverns on the map, but I still envision you could do it in about 10 to 15 turns. Let Niime sit on a mountain towards the right of the starting area to kill an initial group of Wyverns, then carrying your other units down to the center of the map to avoid reinforcements, whilst Berserking the enemy Aircalibur Sage to the south who can kill another group of Wyverns by himself. Then you could probably fullmove towards the boss whilst ferrying Niime back across once the initial Wyverns to the North are dead, buy items at the secret shop, then once you trigger the southern reinforcements, use Divine Weapons and magic to kill the enemy Wyverns who are going to keep spawning towards the left side of the entrance to the boss, whilst carrying Roy to down the right side with your bosskiller to avoid getting clogged up in the reinforcements. It might actually be prudent to leave a bunch of enemies alive in order to cap the amount of enemy units that can appear to prevent the reinforcements from becoming a problem at the bottom of the map, but if you wanted to take it slowly you could wait out the 3 turns of reinforcements from the bottom box of reinforcements. I don't remember how Gale's group behaves, but I think he leaves the map if Miledy talks to him so you never have to fight him.

If we assume not even ferrying across the mountain, you can still have Niime kill the most immediately threatening Wyverns to the North via the mountain and Nosferatu, and still let the Berserked Aircalibur Sage kill a few Wyverns for free whilst you leave some Berserker like Garret sitting on a peak to make sure the rest don't go after the rest of your team, who should be hurrying across the top right of the map and straight down. I only envision this being more complicated, not neccessarily taking longer. If this is on NM you don't even have to worry about the immediately aggressive Wyvern groups IIRC so Berserking the Sage and Nosferatanking the group to the right is irrelevant, and probably cut turns too.

With a far less thought out strategy, at absoloute max I give it 25 turns, but that's turning the chapter into a rout map instead of a seize map. I would also remind you again that ch 21 of FE6 is actually oft cited as a memorable and neat experience for it's novelty even from casual players in a FPT, so I don't believe that it takes too long unless you really want to kill EVERY REINFORCEMENT.

Damn, you took up on my rhetorical question.

Just a note, Gale doesn't leave.

Oh yeah, ch21 is definitely a memorable experience. I don't think any game floods you with a ridiculous amount of reinforcements as much as this chapter does. Does this novelty gimmick make this a good chapter though? Not in my opinion. It was memorable; not fun.

Is 11 to 13 turns really too long for that map? There is no one single turn on this map I could cite where all I was doing was moving units forward without any consideration for combat on PP or EP, stealing an item, opening a door, recruiting somebody, or rescuepassing, or trying to manage Douglas. The only thing that comes to mind would be turn 1, where Roy is passed to the right side of the map and Igrene onerounds a bolting mage with a longbow, and Fae tinks some Purge charges whilst you're trying to get into the castle. If you don't use mounts, then I can envision there being a turn here or there without anything going on, but rescuedropping is just so useful for multiobjective maps like this. I don't see why you can list that as a bad thing, when you validate 11A as a great map. That chapter needs you to rescuedrop to get units into position effectively, especially if you want to recruit Tate.

Idk who manages a 11-13 turncount on a casual pace, or who understands the game enough that sending Roy to the right, even though he starts on the left, will save you so-and-so turns, but when combat is so terribly off balance (the only grouped areas are the paladin and MAYBE the right bishop), yeah I would consider it too long. You have a whopping five sparse units to fight until you reach the Paladin, and then after that, you've got single bishops with a random mamkute thrown in. This chapter does have small details that make it better than most other later maps, like the whole Douglas thing, but for what's opposing you, the length of the map is way too long.

Also no, rescuedropping isn't essential. I did just fine with lalum dancing Klein up with some mounts backing him. 11A has the same issue of low enemy density until you get to Echidna, but it definitely makes up for it due to the clusterfuck that is trying to sort all the recruitable character shit out. Managing helping Echidna and getting Klein up to Tate is exciting, mainly because there's so many enemies in that area too.

This is a pretty biased comparison, because PoR has plenty of maps where Gatrie isn't doing jack shit but getting left behind in much the same way too. What is Gatrie doing on ch24 25 and 26? Shoving somebody on turn 1 maybe?

There's enough enemy density, compared to the map size, in 24 that it's entirely likely Gatrie can get some combat in it, unless of course you're going for really fast turncounts.

25 is so ridiculously easy to 1-2 turn, even for a casual playthrough, that most units aren't really doing much.

26 is the only real example of one where Gatrie might lag behind in a casual pace.

Keep in mind that generals fall behind in 6's maps at a casual pace. They won't catch up unless you're intentionally slowing down the rest of your team for them to catch up.

It may not factor into your opinion on level design, but as GAME DESIGN, waiting for ages whilst your nigh unkillable units massacre everything in the second half of the game isn't very stimulating. Watching your units kill enemies isn't what's fun, its the planning that goes into it. 10's only saving grace in its latter half of the game is how you need some good planning to get the best possible EP's, but if you aren't aiming for anything other than the BEXP turn limit then you don't have to consider it very much at all considering how incredibly strong most of your units are in that game, especially in Part 4...

This is no more ridiculous than complaining that Fe9's gameplay/replayability is ruined because its map animations are too long.

You also do know there's a no animation option that heavily cuts down on ep time? It's not "waiting for ages" by a long shot.

But I do agree that the game gets worse as it goes on because of unit inflation. They really should have kept the Master Crown system from the japanese version.

[Is the hate on Shadow Dragon justified?]

To be fair I did consider citing that ballistaman chapter at one point.

I would like to know people's opinions on this chapter. Was it interesting, boring, fun, lame?

[Is the hate on Shadow Dragon justified?]

i'm glad that irysa is coming to my defense because it shows just how willing constable reggie is to move the goalposts when it comes to an acceptable metric of play. i know that anything that i say is bound to be written off, but it's amusing to see that anything irysa says is also written off for the same reason.

If you actually take the time to look at what I particularly respond to, you see I don't quote absolutely everything Irysa says. He's convinced me on some points with some of the reasoning he's brought up (like for ch13). On the other hand, there are things I disagree with, like the parts he brings up about warp/efficiency methods to mitigate 6's maps are pretty much a scaled back version of your "fe6 is GR8 for ltc" posts.

The implication that I'm uncaringof Irysa's posts is also very disingenuous. Take a look at the difference between his posts and your posts (barring the last one). His posts are very detailed and informative and I appreciate them (and him for making them) very much for broadening my perspective. Yours on the other hand, for the lack of a better term, suck.

this is as incomprehensible as saying that the game doesn't expect you to use seth in FE8 or galeforce in FE13 or whatever.

Fe8's levels are not designed around using Seth in the slightest. Neither are Fe13's for galeforce. Pretty easy thing to comprehend if you actually read my post.

Look, the objective of the game in every map is to seize, so you could (incorrectly) broadly sum up most of FE6 with "a straight shot to the throne" because of that.

I've arealdy explained why this is not the case for every seize map. Fe7 does enough to harken around this kind of play. Even if it's just diverting a few of your units away from the main path, that has changed the level enough to warrant more consideration than just "move all units towards the throne, oh and occasionally move Lilina one tile".

Adding chests into an obscure portion of the map on a map like this is only going to make somebody just send a flier with chest keys over to that part of the map by themself if they want any of the loot there, the actual primary objective and way you execute that would not change very much at all.

Again, I did not suggest that adding chests would be the only necessary thing. What if there were walls surrounding the chests? Bows? Magic? etc?

Suddenly you have to divert a good portion of your resources to reach the chests, which significantly affects how you go after the chapter if you want them.

Disregarding even that, sending a flier to the chests means you lose a valuable resource for the main goal. So-and-so unit got stuck in the water? Sorry, your flier's on the other side of the map. It changes how you play.

That is also a very unfair summary of most of the points I made. I proposed the use of warp or mounted units to migitate difficulty from reinforcements, siege tomes, enemy staffers or to avoid taking a long way around, not the size of the maps (which by the way, are not really that big). There are quite a few points in many of the maps in FE6 that are practically begging you to ferry someone over a gap or use the 21 base mag A staff rank preomote the game throws your way to secure a warp, and the use of warp as a convenience is not limited to warpskips.

This is an outright contradiction. If you're recommending that casual players warp someone to that lame ass switch on ch23, you're skipping a good portion of the map by doing so.

I have no problem with including things water areas that allow for advantageous use of fliers. This is why I don't really have a problem with ch24, as the game challenges you to deal with ballistae with either a rare resource or units that are weak to them. Once it starts to get excessive and demand consistent use of warp/fliers/etc, then it gets ridiculous. Several of 6's latter maps demand that you use warp/rescue/boots/8mov units or face the wrath of having to traverse through stupidly huge maps.

I spent more time on most of FE10's excessively long rout maps than I have on FE6's seize maps and it is a huge part of why I dislike the game a lot, so I would have to heartily disagree with that statement.

10 does get kinda excessive in its latter maps, I agree. But I'd still rank it over 6 in that it constantly engages you with combat and, thus, exciting things to do, rather than just moving units through a long corridor.

Most of FE6's longer levels aside from chapter 8 (which IS too long and you can't do much about it) won't take longer than 10 turns when playing at a semi efficient pace, and I don't consider that to be too long or too demanding of the average player.

How long does it take to finish ch23 without warp? This is obviously excluding a usable resource, but it's a pretty good indication of a casual playthrough of the game. While most players here are pretty damn experienced FE players that consistently improve upon their efficiency with drafts and the like, we're not indicative of the typical play style of these kinds of games. Level design should incorporate most styles of play to the point of being enjoyable, especially for strategy games. 6's playstyle highly prioritizes a few methods of play (efficiency, ltc) to the horrible detriment of others (casual pace, turtling). This game is poorly designed for a casual pace, and that's why it fails in my eyes.

In FE7's case you can kind of just send 1 or 2 units to each side objective and leave them there whilst you continue trecking to the throne, whilst with something like FE6 16 you seem to be very relucant to admit it has any thought put into it's design, despite the fact that a lot of the objectives are layered within other objectives. What actually happens if you don't plan in FE6 16 is that you'll go "fuck I can't get all this shit done and keep Douglas alive", whilst you kill reinforcements and try to get him stuck on a unit he can't hit and you go around trying to finish everything up, but with even a bit of planning you can get most of it done right about on time for Cath spawning. I won't concede that the game that rewarded more planning over moment to moment gameplay has bad map design. Take 11A (Lalum's route) for another good example, trying to recruit Klein and get him to the top of the other end of the map to recruit Tate immediately is something of a small puzzle in itself that is unlikely to be achieved by someone who didn't plan out a rescue chain.

I agree that the 16 has more going for it than most of 6's other later maps. But the enemy density in comparison to the astounding length of the level is horribly off balance. There's more walking than there is combat, which, for a game like Fe6, is a no-no. Either shorten the map, or increase the number of threats on the way to the throne. Preferably the first.

I wholeheartedly agree that 11A is probably one of 6's best levels.

Are you really trying to imply that mounts aren't OP in every game after FE6 just as much as the ones before it?

Not at all. I'm saying that, for casual play, the difference between mounted and non mounted units in Fe6 is much more severe than most other Fe games due to the staggering size of 6's maps. For regular players, Gatrie can still contribute enough that he feels relevant in chapters like 22, 23, and 27, because the distance between him and the enemies aren't that huge. WTF does Bors do on chapters like 18I, 21x, and 23 except get left behind?

There are actually ways around the problem though, even if you're using foot units. In the case of something like 10 you're actually just SOL because the dev's decided having 5 minute EPs and then a NP was more fun than actually like, doing anything on a map.

Animations being long doesn't factor into my opinion on level design. 10 having much more combat due to enemy density to level ratio than 6 makes it more enjoyable in my eyes, even if it's EP centric.

[Is the hate on Shadow Dragon justified?]

Goddamnit I just lost my entire post to an accidental backspace.

So you're proposing that they instead punish anybody who wants to beat the map efficiently by dumping a chest near the top right that most people are going to skip ANYWAY beacuse it would be so out of the way?

Because it makes the chapter more interesting than being a straight shot to the throne? How dare the player have to chose between max ltc and optional objectives amirite?

And no, just adding chests to the top right alone would not fix the chapter, but it's a small start.

The rest of your post is pretty much summed up with "use warp/rescue to mitigate the maps huge size". This is not an acceptable rationale for the levels in the first place. The game shouldn't expect you to use warp to get around it's ridiculously sized maps. No other game, including Warp Emblem Thracia 776 utilizes this terrible design philosophy.

I will freely admit, I never ever want to do that map again the "normal" way because to me it simply takes too long,

And here's the kicker. Every other Fe game is reasonable in it's level length for a casual pace (Fe4 is an exception to this due to its strong gameplay-story ties). Fe6 is not.

I used warp a few times for some objectives (saving prisoners, getting rid of enemy ballista, etc

Can you spot the difference? Warpskipping means effectively teleporting straight to the throne. For what I consider to be casual-style warp usage, it's for anything else, including your examples.

Most of your complaints about "boring corridors of boring tedium" would be summed up better in a map like FE7 17H than anything in FE6. Rambo Marcus to the throne whilst somebody else carries the Lord and chumps grab the chests

Why yes, that would be the efficiency method of beating the chapter. But disregarding the issue of Marcus being too strong, take a good look at how 7's 17 layout is designed in comparison to something like 6's 8. Most of the optional shit is off the beaten path. The 1st set of chests is a pretty big diversion from the main path. So is Lucius/the soldiers. So is protecting Merlinus from the constant cavalier reinforcements. Fe6, on the other hand, all of that shit is on the main path to the throne. The Ostia fail trio, the 1st set of chests, Lilina, and for some reason the 2nd set of chests is dumbfoudingly PAST the throne linearly (wtf does this accomplish besides wasting time). This is just one comparison as to how 7's design generally seems to have more thought put into it than 6's.

Anyway, I already admitted FE6 is pretty mount friendly, but I also stand by the point that every single FE game is very mount friendly, and this a problem with the series, not specifically FE6.

Nah, the game's non-mount unfriendly, as opposed to the rest of the Fe games. The punishment for using low move units in 6 is the boredom spent moving these units on huge ass maps (lol@moving a general through ch22). Most other games do as much as they can to somewhat mitigate this, either with different mission objectives that don't require full movement, or smaller maps in general.

The game isn't as simple or accomodating to defensive playstyles and it definitely wants to reward faster play over slower ones (consider that nearly all the gaiden requirements are mostly turncount related, and that reinforcements are far more dangerous than most of the games following it)

Even if their intention was for you to move fast, the gaiden requirements are a joke that can easily be reached by turtling (lol 20 turns for 12x at the minimum). And while rewarding for quicker gameplay is generally a good thing (see Fe9 for the right way to do this), this game goes beyond that and punishes you with tedium if you take any pace lower than very quickly. Yes, you can warpskip/bootspam a lot of 6's latter maps. But again, this should not be the expectation taken by the game for you to do.

[Map Saving]

Yeah wasn't a huge fan of 10's battle saves, unlike 11/12's map saves. It's pretty interesting that they took it out on hard mode, though.