Othin

Generals have bows in FE11, and Dancers have swords in FE3, so that all sounds accurate. Generals also have bows and Dancers have swords in FE4 and FE5, but those are less relevant to this.

Innovative is not the word I would use. Rather, I would say that the pattern of features throughout his FE games is more fluid, more active. The evidence shows that his work on FE games results in a change in that area, which is perhaps what you would call this "magic touch".

Indeed, FE has much room for variation while still being FE. FE2, FE4, FE5, TRS, and BS took advantage of that room. FE6-12, not so much. I've played little of the Akaneia games in any form, but from my understanding, FE1 was lacking in many areas compared to later games. When some of those issues were fixed in FE3, it represented another step forward. I haven't used the word "innovation" once in this discussion until this post, but okay.

This is largely my point. The later games didn't add anything to make them feel significantly different. Recruitment was not my main point. The main comparison I had in mind to FE9's BExp was a number of FE5's item and sidequest requirements. This entire dispute was over some explanations I made of why BExp requirements don't add any objectives more notable than ones present in other games. Unless you have examples in mind to the contrary, there's no point in addressing one part of that point. I'm not talking about what is or is not a good game. That's pretty much what growth bracketing is. http://serenesforest.net/wiki/index.php/Berwick_Saga_Average_Stats_Part_1#Reese

Lover bonuses in FE4 served that precise purpose as a bond characters can build with one another to gain a bonus in battle. You mean like how they were able to increase Wrath's critical bonus from 50% to 100%... oh, wait. Allowing the designers more flexibility doesn't mean shit unless they make use of it. Are you willing to consider FE5's Short weapons, Poison weapons, Long weapons, Great weapons, and Master weapons to constitute multiple significant changes? Otherwise, you must accept that the superweapons created by FE9's forging system do not constitute a significant change. Granted, the additions I mention in FE5 could not fairly be considered to total five times the change that forging was, but they should be regarded overall as at least two times the change. More problems with FE6-8 do not change the fact that the exact things BExp added to FE9 were not new to the series. Up to eight squares of potentially flying mobility and protection from attacks vs. up to two squares of ground-based mobility only accessible when you can set up a straight line? Hardly a comparison. Rescue's uses may be a tad limited outside of LTC and ranked playthroughs, but they are certainly more than Shove's, and ranked playthroughs are certainly not niche. Perhaps if FE9/10 had ranks, Shoving might also have a bit more use, but it's less likely that such a small difference would matter, and... they don't. As for your FE4 example, a removal is not an addition. You could reference the greater flexibility FE4 gained in its class setups as a result of their largely static weapon ranks, but I would call that quite notable. I did not complain about the freedom given by forging. I dismissed it as being of little consequence. If you wish to make an argument about stealing or FE5/9/10 Canto being overpowered, feel free, although I can't imagine how it could be relevant even if it were true. As for fatigue, some people may dislike it, but the fact that it encourages use of new strategies can hardly be disputed. Furthermore, I believe you claimed FE9's skill capacity allowed for more powerful skills to be used. While that did not happen, FE5's fatigue limits certainly allowed for characters such as Othin to exist without being so overpowering. Indeed, it's not as if freedom or restriction is necessarily good or bad. It's about whether or not the individual features add something worth much consideration while playing the game. Canto in FE4 was limited to after combat and staff use. (Perhaps dancing as well; I'm not sure.) Granted, other actions were not too common in FE4, but it does not change the fact that the ability to use Canto after trading, talking, opening doors, etc. was new to FE5. I haven't played FE1, but according to Serenes, it has a WLV stat, so I'm not sure how you're saying WExp fits into that. For that matter, Serenes lists Firearm weapons as having range 1-2 in FE1, and this is what I based my statement on. However, I have not verified it myself; do you know otherwise? As for your other statement about ballistae, they were indeed not playable in FE5, but I was referring to siege tomes. Worm was also 1-2 range in FE1, and Worm and Meteor were enemy-only in FE3. I don't know much about FE2. What objectives did it have? FE4's Holy weapons could be considered to not be personal weapons, but merely the highest weapon level. However, the restriction of the weapons to characters with the major blood type and the fact that they could not be sold indicates otherwise, so I retract that statement. +1 Atk/Def from WTA is trivial. +10 Def from a fort or +10 Mag from magic tiles are another story entirely. Accumulating enough of the right supports can enable up to +5 Atk/Def, but that's far more situational. Granted, it was more significant in the games where supports could be built up by chapters, so I will concede that that's a single notable change in all that time that can be attributed to either FE6 or FE9, whichever you prefer.

I suggest learning what a phrase really means before not only using it yourself, but attempting to correct someone else on its use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_the_wheel Adding a situational +1 to Atk/Def and making it so that mounted units can rescue a few less units are not "building on" features. They are retaining the same features with tiny tweaks that do little or nothing to affect how you play the game. That is not the implication at all. FE can attract new players, but it now lacks the substance to ever grow and accomplish anything new. It can keep churning out the same formula over and over again, but that is only the noise of a dead horse being beaten, and it is naive to think that players as a whole are satisfied with the continued repetition or will continue to be. The fact that they were satisfied for a while has no bearing on that fact, especially when at first they did not have the earlier games to compare to. How could FE7's repetition possibly be recognized as an issue by anyone who didn't know of any other FE games? It's fine that you think that, but not at all relevant to this particular point. And I would suggest actually playing Berwick Saga before judging the two systems; I have found that the two added much more to the strategic thinking needed to complete Berwick Saga than I expected before playing it. Of course, I would suggest playing Berwick Saga before doing just about anything else, too, but it's a bit more relevant in this case. It is indeed such a sign. All features are not equal; they must be considered from the perspective of their effect on gameplay and strategy. Skill capacity: Limits the number of skills a character can have, generally to 1-2 depending on the skills. Adds absolutely nothing to gameplay. Forging: Allows you to buy expensive and powerful weapons between chapters. Adds nothing more than would be contributed by the addition of a new vanilla weapon type or two above Silver, available in shops for even higher prices. And new weapon types aren't notable. They may appear notable, but that's only because recent FE games are expected to have nearly identical weapon selections, which is another serious concern. BExp: Allows characters to level up faster? It's used as a reward for completing various side objectives and going through chapters quickly, but the games already reward you for that in the form of characters, items, sidequests, and rankings. In fact, BExp only serves to replace those past, more distinct rewards; characters and items are more often simply handed to you in FE9 and FE10, and sidequests and rankings are nonexistent. Overall, BExp adds nothing to gameplay. Shove: Incredibly situational in all but the most niche of strategies. It would be better compared to one of FE5's less notable additions, such as minor leadership bonuses for more playable characters. Laguz: Just plain not as significant as they look. While human, they're useless; while transformed, they play like other characters only with less options due to not having equipment choices. The only strategy is in balancing the two, while they offer little to make it worth it. The laguz that are worth it are the ones who don't have to transform in the first place, removing their little uniqueness anyway. There are a few more FE5 additions that are at least as significant as any of the things you noted for FE9. These include, but are not limited to: -Thieves stealing weapons and items, even out of an enemy's hands, granting them additional purpose -Canto working after non-combat actions, rather than just combat -Sidequests and alternate routes -Fog of war -Bld stat -Substantial terrain bonuses to Def and Mag, making terrain control particularly important -Playable siege weapons -Poison status, easily inflicted and never going away on its own -Weapon Exp -Fatigue, requiring a large and rotating team -Mission objectives other than Seize -Personal weapons for non-Lords Might have listed a few of those already, but whatever.

Looking at FE6-8, gameplay differences are almost nonexistent. Three games, three stories, all played almost exactly the same ways. Differences like branched promotions and weather do next to nothing to change how you play a game. That indeed sounds precisely like they are doing nothing more than reinventing the wheel. A sufficiently more substantial set of changes, such as those between each of the seven games I have been referring to, does not at all entail completely redone mechanics or an entirely new set of rules. Rather, building on past features and strategies (to a reasonable extent) was key to the progress of the series. The sales may go back up, but that will not alone change the series back into a healthy, growing series. I can understand how I may have given off the impression that I want a rehash of Berwick Saga, but I assure you, it is not the case. What I would enjoy is a game that builds on Berwick Saga just as it and its predecessors built on the games before it. To be more specific: I would want the game to simply retain some good additions, as has been typical, such as the hex grid and integrated turns. Less precisely, I would want the game to continue building on the pattern of giving characters more meaningful distinctions through relevant weapons, skills, classes, and events. For this, I cite Berwick Saga features mainly as examples of ways that can happen. But my interest in patterns throughout the FE series is not at all characterized by wanting anything, no matter how much it may build on Berwick Saga. Rather, between Berwick Saga and the games that lead up to it, I would say the FE series has done everything I could ask it to. I used to love coming up with ideas for new FE games, but now, it doesn't seem necessary. All I need to do, personally, is look at and experience the greatness that already exists within the series. And I want other people to have that opportunity. Compiling the Berwick Saga section of this site was the first step to doing that, so that the game became for the first time accessible to people who could not read Japanese. But people will not often feel encouraged to play it unless they can appreciate its place alongside the FE games they know, and it would be a shame if that were obstructed by something as superfluous as the game's title.

The poll made no request for the votes to be restricted to votes based on educated opinions.

That does not appear to be a method of encouraging you to kill off your characters, but rather a method of compensating you if you happen to lose those characters, replaced by Casual Mode in FE12.

Content defines what a game is. Name is nothing more than an identifier on top of that. And in a discussion like this, the content and substance of a game are what matters, not a handful of words with no impact on the gaming experience. Any spiritual sequels that could be placed into an existing series (or a significant part of it) and feel as natural a part of that series as any other game in the series, should be all rights be considered a part of that series. I'm not recalling any other examples offhand that fit so perfectly as TRS and BS do, but if there are indeed such games, they are not counterexamples; rather, they are indeed part of the series as TRS and BS are. Looking up a specific definition of spiritual successor, it seems to indeed fit TRS and BS perfectly, particularly the second paragraph, noting that spiritual successors are usually created by creative teams lacking the copyright to the original work. What the definition lacks is anything that would exclude a spiritual successor from being considered part of the same series as the original work; indeed, while the creative team may lack the legal rights to define the series, it appears that in such cases (which include TRS and BS), the original creator has at least as many creative rights to define the series as the "official" maker does. And indeed I would say that TRS and BS are more legitimate continuations of the FE series than FE6-12 so far, as while TRS and BS kept the wild rotation and innovation of features that made FE games a fresh, new experience and kept the series healthy, FE6-12 immediately degenerated into a constant rehashing of the same, stripped-down formula, the gasps of a dying series collapsing onto itself. Personally, I was surprised to see that the series was still holding on long enough for FE13 to even be made.

I don't know much about either of the games you referenced for comparison, but looking up a video of 3D Dot Game Heroes, it highlights an important contrast. 3D Dot parodies aspects of Zelda, but can you see it being marketed as a Zelda game with no changes except for the system, title, and names on the credits? I think not. Let's look at the first few FE games. There's FE1, which started the series. Then there's FE2, which heavily changed the class, equipment, and magic systems, while adding aspects such as monsters. Then there's FE3, which brought back most aspects of FE1 (for obvious reasons) while mixing in plenty of new features, such as dismounting and supports. FE4 mixed features around again, setting aside double attacking and trading in the forms they had been known before, while adding a generation system, weapon triangle, individual weapon levels, and skills for the first time, as well as many more things. Some additions paralleled aspects of FE2, but all heavily changed. FE5 again reverted to a more typical system with aspects like double attacking and trading, but kept most of the same skills while expanding into different aspects like rescuing, capturing, sidequests, and widely available personal weapons. In other words, the path of the first five FE games was a wild and erratic one, featuring considerable mixing around of features, always dropping some in exchange for several more. When placed next to these games, TRS fits into the pattern perfectly, perhaps being only strange in that it had the least entirely new aspects to offer of the six. TRS revisited aspects of FE2 while expanding on storytelling by looking at scenes outside the current battlefield, it expanded on character-based events, and it expanded on skills and diverse weapon effects, giving most characters several personal skills to learn over the course of the game and a new set of personal equipment. Meanwhile, it dropped other new features, like weapon ranks, the weapon triangle, and rescuing/capturing, just as the previous games dropped other features. Kaga originally planned TRS to go right alongside the rest of the FE series, and indeed, if it had been released for the N64 as Fire Emblem: Tear Ring Saga, with IS listed in the credits and no other changes, it would have been accepted as the 6th FE game, with nothing appearing strange in the slightest. Berwick Saga is much the same way. It offered many dramatic changes, changing around classes and weapon types, adding a new weapon skill system and offering some changes to core systems like the grid and turn system, while bringing back capturing in an entirely new form and bringing skills into entirely new roles in battle. And yet if we look at FE as a series of seven games, with TRS being FE6 and Berwick Saga being FE7, the wild changes are just about what we would expect. If, instead of the GBA branch of the FE series, TRS and Berwick Saga were released for the N64 and GCN, titled as FE games but with absolutely no changes to the content, it would all seem perfectly natural. We would look at the FE series and see a series where each new game brought with it an entirely new experience while still building on the progress of the games before it, and where each of the seven games would seem like a natural iteration in the widely varying FE series, precisely like they were at the time of the first five.

In my experience with Berwick Saga, I have found that it is an FE game in all but name, and which series a game belongs to is not determined by matters so superficial as name - so it is an FE game in all notable ways and should be recognized as such. I have much less experience with the other two games you mention, but I have played enough of both to know that that is not the case for them. Their features, and perhaps more importantly, their atmosphere, do not line up with IS's branch of the FE series, while Berwick Saga does. Indeed, features such as the Mt/Def/Hit/Crit battle window and a graphical style based on an updated version of the one used in FE4/5, highlighted by carried-over (but updated) sprite designs such as High Priests and by certain retained character archetypes, those are the things that designate a game as being in the same series as another even when other aspects indicate otherwise. I don't like the unnecessary limit on variability across multiple playthroughs. (Despite it being made up for in other ways.)

It's a system in Berwick Saga that calculates the expected number of stat increases a character would have at a given level (growth rate x levels gained) and constrains their stats to within a certain number of points (1-3, depending on the character and the stat) of that value, rounded down. Promotion gains, stat boosters, and any other bonuses all function outside the bracketing; it only calculates based on stat increases from leveling up and only constrains those same increases. Two characters are exempt from the system. Edit: Rather, that's how Berwick Saga's system fits into the system Anouleth described.

I don't like features because of what game they're used in. I like games because of what features they're comprised of. I've found that Berwick Saga's has a great many features that I regard as brilliant additions to its gameplay, and it quickly became my favorite FE game over this past summer largely as a result of those features. But that does nothing to cloud my judgment from seeing the features that are instead detriments, most notably growth bracketing. If anything, any such flaws I find in Berwick Saga are magnified by the contrast with the quality of the gameplay around them, a contrast far greater than it would be in any other FE game. As for growth boosters, it could be interesting to see ones that are more specific than ones like Afa's Drops, perhaps more like the Star Orb Shards or Crusader scrolls.

I would assume that almost anyone who has video games has internet. Any decent FE player knows that each character has percentage chance of increasing each stat, if that's what you mean by "knows about growths". However, if you think anyone decent at FE these days plays largely according to growths, I can only laugh at you. I personally don't give a shit about what those exact numbers are aside from general trends and rarely remember them, and I would say I'm more than a decent FE player. Worth noting that those general trends are precisely what can be observed from regular gameplay, without needing to actually look at the growth rates.

FE6 and FE7; they both have really boring gameplay and terrible story/characters, leaving virtually no appeal whatsoever, at least compared to the rest of the series (out of what I've played, which is everything except FE1 and FE2). Voted FE6 since it gets particularly annoying at times.

Anything but growth bracketing. Occasional stat boosters are enough, really. They're what the rest of the series has done, adjusted to static equipment in FE2 and FE4 due to the nature of the two games, although I wouldn't say they're necessarily to address this "issue" in particular. I personally prefer an element of uncertainty, in particular to add uniqueness to each playthrough, although I wouldn't complain about separate unlockable modes for fixed growths or growth bracketing or whatever else.

See: Microscope vs. time portal analogy

Yeah, you absolutely need both of those two houses. You should be able to get 6 turns with them.

I don't think I've even gotten that ring on most playthroughs.

There's a reason baseball has more players than Calvinball.

We can predict how things will change based on what we observe and predict based on that, not based on some numbers we magically learn. In the same way, we can predict approximate growth rates based on what we see based on using the characters, and for a casual player, that's all they need.

Those are Rescue Knights. According to the old guy at the bazaar, they're the most experienced knights, but not all of them.

Base stats mean looking at the characters through a microscope. Growth rates mean looking at the characters through a time portal.

Once you've triggered one conversation, you cannot trigger the other, leaving no possible way to get both tomes.