What makes Fire Emblem fun for you?

[Nauriam]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. I think what sparked this is hearing a lot of youtubers say the same sentiment over and over again about how good a game is: “I can forgive a bad story but not bad gameplay, because you can skip the story with the start button, but you can’t skip the gameplay”. This statement really irks me, and I think it comes down to the fact that I enjoy fundamentally different aspects of these games than most of the youtubers I have seen. The youtubers I watch do ironman runs, and randomizers, and the majority of the enjoyment of the game comes from the strategy and the randomness that Fire Emblem provides. I, on the other hand, really enjoy the story, and I usually enjoy the game more if the story is integrated well with the gameplay. While someone who plays the game over and over might hate a map like Radiant Dawn’s map One Survives, I would enjoy it a lot more than them because I care more about how the tone and mood is reflected in the gameplay, rather than how interesting the strategy or concept of the map is. I’m not saying that these people don’t enjoy the story, and I’m not saying I don’t enjoy the strategy. But there is definitely a disconnect between what they think is important for a game to be good, and what I think.

 

I don’t think there is any right or wrong in this situation, these are just different preferences. I think it’s beautiful that FIre Emblem games can appeal to different aspects, and I think it alludes to how much the series/this genre has to offer. I came up with a list of reasons that makes Fire Emblem fun, along with an explanation of what I mean by each category, and I’m curious what aspects of the game you all resonate the most with.

 

Aspects that make Fire Emblem fun:

 

Strategy - Treating Fire Emblem like a complicated game of chess, and coming up with solutions to problems. It’s like figuring out a puzzle on the fly, and the stakes are high (if you blunder, a character dies).

 

Optimization - This is for the LTC and routing people. Pushing a game like this to the limit involves a lot of strategy, statistics, and clever thinking. I separated this from the strategy section, because I think responding accordingly to things like FOW and enemy reinforcements is a fun part of the strategy, whereas in optimization you have every piece of information laid out for you already.

 

Story - I don’t think Fire Emblem is particularly known for its gripping stories, but there are genuinely well thought out worlds with interesting political dramas or shady cult conspiracies in these games. Obviously you wouldn’t just play these games to see the story (a playthrough or summary would be much better for that), but this can be a large factor in what people enjoy in these games.

 

Individual character connection - This one is kind of a subcategory of the story, but I thought it was distinct enough to separate. More than any other medium I know of, these games give the player a chance to get a personal connection with a huge cast of characters, which offers all kinds of unique perspectives in the world and conflict at hand. In some cases, it’s just fun to see a large cast of unique characters interact with each other too. This category would also include the story you write for yourself as you play, with certain characters either dying or becoming badass based on your gameplay.

 

Ludonarrative harmony - This one is a big one for me. If you’re unfamiliar: the ludonarrative is the relationship between the story at hand, and what is happening in the gameplay. This category includes how well you personally are connecting with what the story is trying to convey (for example, if the army is in a desperate scramble to escape from a great threat, you should feel like you’re in a desperate scramble to move your army to the escape point). The main point here is that the feelings that the gameplay makes you feel should match the feelings that the characters in the game are feeling. If this is done poorly, it can detach the player emotionally from the characters (this is something that FE Fates is often accused of being poor at).

 

RPG elements - Who doesn’t love leveling Ross into an unstoppable berserker? Or doing a ridiculous amount of theoretical damage with Mareeta? There can be a lot of fun to be had seeing your units level up and get stronger. Whether it’s building a zero to hero unit, or just hitting a doubling threshold, gaining stats is undeniably fun.

 

Self-Insertion - This can apply for the games that have an explicit self-insert character, as well as just inserting yourself on a generic protagonist who is their own character. I don’t really vibe with this one, but it’s obviously popular because Intelligent Systems keeps adding it to their games. This includes inserting yourself to feel powerful, to feel special/chosen in some way, or to fantasize about dating a teenager (gross btw*). *not as gross if you are a teenager still

 

The vibe - There’s a lot that this list doesn’t cover that are still enjoyable in these games. Included in this I am counting art, music, voice acting, cinematography, setting, etc. I am not convinced that Fire Emblem does any of these things better than anything else, but I could see someone valuing these things highly as they play the game.

 

For me personally, my top three things that make FE fun would probably be Ludonarrative harmony, individual character connection, and rpg elements. This means that the things I enjoy in the game are more associated with what a “casual player” would enjoy despite having played almost all games in the series (all but the switch games). Breaking it down like this explains why I have never really enjoyed the sentiment that you can just skip the story if it’s bad, because to me it’s a major part in the enjoyment of the game. I am also going to be a lot more forgiving of poorly designed maps or mechanics compared to others if it makes sense in the world, and helps me connect to the characters’ experiences. I want to be clear, all of the things on the list are enjoyable to me; I just value certain aspects of the games more highly than others.

 

What do you guys think of this way of analyzing the games?  Would you add or remove anything from this list? And of course, what things on the list do you look for in whatever FE game you’re playing?

[Omegaprism]

That's not a bad list of elements you've got. Overall I would say character connection is priority number one for me, to the point that I can trudge through an awful story for the sake of seeing more of my favorite characters in a game doing stuff. Second on the list is the rpg elements. I naturally gravitate towards raising up at least one unit that needs a lot of babying in every game (shout outs to Mozu), because the payoff is usually quite satisfying. The story is usually a really nice bonus for me. If the game has a good story, I'm all in. Inject it into my veins! But in the more likely scenario that the story is mediocre or even really bad I will give the game a pass if every other element is still really good (my example here is Engage, which is among my least favorite FEs storywise, but there are a few characters I really like and the gameplay just really hits the spot for me). The other elements are all great, but some solid rpg elements and fun characters will give a Fire Emblem entry a lot of credit in my eyes.

[Sidereal Wraith]

Good gameplay alone does not a great RPG make. I’ve always felt that while the FE series isn’t the greatest fantasy ever penned (read the Gormenghast, Lyonesse or Zimiamvian trilogies for that) when compared to other JRPG series the games are refreshingly grounded. Anime relies heavily on hyperbole, and while it makes the genre popular I find it a bit much personally. It’s always nice when a series is able to have both the aesthetic of anime and can tell a more grounded realistic story without over egging the pudding, at least for most of the games. What makes FE fun for me is following a mostly interesting cast of characters as their fellowship is forged under the duress of war and being able to prevent their deaths in this fiery crucible while also aiding their growth or helping them find love through supports.

Edited January 17 by Sidereal Wraith

[Nauriam]

3 minutes ago, Sidereal Wraith said:

Good gameplay alone does not a great RPG make.

If you only watched random Youtube playthroughs, you might be fooled to think so. I'm being a little bit cynical of course, but I was really surprised how often I'd hear the "just skip the story" argument. To be fair to the people saying it, they are in the context of playing the games multiple times over, but that's not productive when talking about whether a game in the series is good or bad.

6 minutes ago, Sidereal Wraith said:

 What makes FE fun for me is following a mostly interesting cast of characters as their fellowship is forged under the duress of war and being able to prevent their deaths in this fiery crucible while also aiding their growth or helping them find love through supports.

I'd be curious to think what you think of the 3DS era games, because I feel like they were really lacking in this. The cast is very interesting, and their interactions are fun, but the weight of the war at hand seems to take a back seat when exploring the relationships and characters. It's one of the main reasons I am not a huge fan of those games.

[Saint Rubenio]

Biggest reason I keep coming back to this series is the replay value derived from using a different team each time, having the team grow differently, turning a bad unit into a badass or challenging myself to forego the better units in favor of my precious scrubs. Maybe this time I'll grow fond of this character and use them no matter what. Maybe this other time I'll try out that one and see how I like them. Maybe one time my go-to dude has grown really poorly and I need to improvise and use someone else. The original FE creator spoke of wanting players to make up their own stories in their runs, and I definitely have felt that in my years of playing this series. No two FE runs are the same and I keep coming back for more thanks to that.

Also, I like how comprehensible the numbers are. In other games it's all you can do to wrap your head around how much damage you're going to do, what the stats mean and what impact increasing them is going to have. FE is super transparent about its numbers to the point where you can do exact damage calculations on the fly. When I get a point of strength or speed in FE, I know what that does. Whether I get doubled or not in FE, I know why that is. And that's something we couldn't possibly value enough. It makes strategizing feel so much more real and satisfying.

Lastly, FE can have excellent map design. Be it terrain, side objectives, units to protect, items to obtain, interesting situations built up with the enemy units, narrative moments... FE's map design can be some of the best, most dynamic, most varied, most fun you'll see in strategy games. With the years I've found that this is not only something that makes FE fun - it's an absolute requirement for me. I don't need every map to be a masterpiece, but games with overly simple and/or easy maps fail to hold my interest in the long run. Not just talking about replay value here - I've dropped a number of FEs on my first run because I just wasn't having a good time, and it was all the fault of lacking map design and difficulty.

[Sidereal Wraith]

26 minutes ago, Nauriam said:

If you only watched random Youtube playthroughs, you might be fooled to think so. I'm being a little bit cynical of course, but I was really surprised how often I'd hear the "just skip the story" argument. To be fair to the people saying it, they are in the context of playing the games multiple times over, but that's not productive when talking about whether a game in the series is good or bad.

The problem with skipping the story is that a player would be missing out on a huge portion of the game. The story of an RPG is the game's soul in a sense, a narrative thrust is what can keep a player's interest to continue playing. If I'm going to play a 30+ hour game I want something to keep me interested beyond gameplay and an interesting story and characters can do that. There's a reason why Persona's 3, 4 and 5 are still fondly remembered even to this day.

34 minutes ago, Nauriam said:

I'd be curious to think what you think of the 3DS era games, because I feel like they were really lacking in this. The cast is very interesting, and their interactions are fun, but the weight of the war at hand seems to take a back seat when exploring the relationships and characters. It's one of the main reasons I am not a huge fan of those games.

I mostly agree with you. I think the 3DS trilogy is okay, but I'd be lying through my teeth if I said the games were superlative. Awakening has the largest war we've seen in the series in terms of the number of soldiers yet it never feels like the story ever properly captures that epic scope.   

[Samz707]

For the FE games I like, I like the mix of a permadeath srpg but with actually developed characters.

Most permadeath strategy games have generics. (X-Com/UFO Afterblank series for instance.) or named characters with personalties but also are pretty static. (Silent Storm and Jagged Alliance.)

I like the gameplay as simple to understand (Mostly, I feel Fates/Heroes stray away from that, hence why I'm not too big fans of those among other reasons.) but still strategic game as JRPG combat is honestly too dull for me to enjoy and sometimes I want something a bit more fair than X-com.

And of course, I think (in the games I've played...aside from Awakening, Heroes and Fates.) the stories aren't bad, FE3H managed to make me feel a bit bad for having to kill your former friends at the start, something that other games attempt (Not exactly but some way of "Feel bad for these people you killed") but often imo fall completely flat.

[Shaky Jones]

Don't worry. You'll one day realize that all FE is bad and despise everything, but keep coming back to use that one unit you've given up on 4 times in a row.

 

I would go into detail about what I love about FE, but funny Ruben man literally said what I would say word for word so...

2 hours ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Biggest reason I keep coming back to this series is the replay value derived from using a different team each time, having the team grow differently, turning a bad unit into a badass or challenging myself to forego the better units in favor of my precious scrubs. Maybe this time I'll grow fond of this character and use them no matter what. Maybe this other time I'll try out that one and see how I like them. Maybe one time my go-to dude has grown really poorly and I need to improvise and use someone else. The original FE creator spoke of wanting players to make up their own stories in their runs, and I definitely have felt that in my years of playing this series. No two FE runs are the same and I keep coming back for more thanks to that.

Also, I like how comprehensible the numbers are. In other games it's all you can do to wrap your head around how much damage you're going to do, what the stats mean and what impact increasing them is going to have. FE is super transparent about its numbers to the point where you can do exact damage calculations on the fly. When I get a point of strength or speed in FE, I know what that does. Whether I get doubled or not in FE, I know why that is. And that's something we couldn't possibly value enough. It makes strategizing feel so much more real and satisfying.

Lastly, FE can have excellent map design. Be it terrain, side objectives, units to protect, items to obtain, interesting situations built up with the enemy units, narrative moments... FE's map design can be some of the best, most dynamic, most varied, most fun you'll see in strategy games. With the years I've found that this is not only something that makes FE fun - it's an absolute requirement for me. I don't need every map to be a masterpiece, but games with overly simple and/or easy maps fail to hold my interest in the long run. Not just talking about replay value here - I've dropped a number of FEs on my first run because I just wasn't having a good time, and it was all the fault of lacking map design and difficulty.

+5

[Capt. Fargus]

IMHO a game needs to hook ya and pull you in. “Immersion” I suppose...

For that, at the very least its gotta be an adventure of some kind. It may not be open world, but Blazing Blade did that for me more than any other game has. It does kinda help that the characters address you directly in the dialog, so as they develop and the story goes on you feel like you get to know em personally 

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Nauriam said:

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. I think what sparked this is hearing a lot of youtubers say the same sentiment over and over again about how good a game is: “I can forgive a bad story but not bad gameplay, because you can skip the story with the start button, but you can’t skip the gameplay”. This statement really irks me, and I think it comes down to the fact that I enjoy fundamentally different aspects of these games than most of the youtubers I have seen. The youtubers I watch do ironman runs, and randomizers, and the majority of the enjoyment of the game comes from the strategy and the randomness that Fire Emblem provides. I, on the other hand, really enjoy the story, and I usually enjoy the game more if the story is integrated well with the gameplay. While someone who plays the game over and over might hate a map like Radiant Dawn’s map One Survives, I would enjoy it a lot more than them because I care more about how the tone and mood is reflected in the gameplay, rather than how interesting the strategy or concept of the map is. I’m not saying that these people don’t enjoy the story, and I’m not saying I don’t enjoy the strategy. But there is definitely a disconnect between what they think is important for a game to be good, and what I think.

I love a good story myself, but I can easily see their point. I value Engage far more for its gameplay than its story. The story is milktoast at best. But the gameplay makes it a more appealing overal game to me than, say, Genealogy of the Holy War which has a great story but middling gameplay. I can go into Engage, skip the entire story and have a great time. I can go into Genealogy, really enjoy the story (though having viewed it several times will lessen it's impact) and be moderately entertained, but to a lesser extent than Engage. And Genealogy doesn't have bad gameplay! Just moderate quality. It's very rare you will see a game that has awful gameplay and a fantastic story, since achieving decent gameplay seems to be an easier benchmark than a decent story. The closest I can think of is Lunar Genesis, or Lunar Dragon Song as it's known in the US. It's an rpg with just...bad gameplay. You can't choose which enemy to target in battle for no goddamn reason, running in the overworld drains your health, most characters are very limited in what they can do and there's very little you can do to make unique or interesting builds. It's probably the worst gameplay an RPG can conceivably have without being intentionally obtuse or overly difficult. And yet, it has a good story. Not amazing, but it tells an earnest tale with a central message and a theme. The story makes it worth playing, but my options would have to be very limited if I were ever inclined to replay it, versus something like Engage which I could gladly replay and skip the cutscenes of.

7 hours ago, Nauriam said:

There’s a lot that this list doesn’t cover that are still enjoyable in these games. Included in this I am counting art, music, voice acting, cinematography, setting, etc. I am not convinced that Fire Emblem does any of these things better than anything else, but I could see someone valuing these things highly as they play the game.

Oh no, Fire Emblem definitely does not do cinematography better than anyone else. In fact, I would say it possibly does it the worst of any game in the Triple A industry. Cinematography is my prime complaint against the series at present. I know very little about film theory, but I'm pretty convinced even I could do a better job than the absolute nothing they're giving us now. It's not the most important part of story telling in a video game, but it'd be just so damn easy to fix with even just a bit of effort and they completely refuse to even try. The reason people like Griss and Zephia's death scene in Engage (while criticizing it for being unearned) is because it's the one time since the series went 3D that they've actually used cinematography in engine.

 

 

As for my personal opinion on why I enjoy Fire Emblem. I think the prime thing is that it makes me think. Even when Fire Emblem is easy, it's not mindless. Unless you're grind skipping through maps in Awakening or something. You always have to put some kind of thought into what you're doing, and I find that quite novel. Even difficult games outside that genre can sometimes struggle to get out of a realm where you're mindlessly doing the same thing. And the large rosters and inherent randomness also means no two playthroughs will be exactly the same.

Edited January 17 by Jotari

[Alastor15243]

So I'm in a curious predicament here. Playing through the entire series for the posterity of this forum made me realize something about my opinions on the games: When it comes to Fire Emblem, I have absolutely no overlap between games I love for their story and games I love for their gameplay. No game in the series ever exceeds "okay" in both categories for me. The only exceptions are Birthright and Conquest, and only if you include "so bad it's good" as "loving a game for its story".

And if I have to choose (which I do, see above), I'll pick gameplay over story every time. Of the three games in the series that have my favorite stories, 7 is the only one I have any desire to play again any time soon, because the gameplay, while deeply flawed in many ways, has a lot of appeal to me, especially when I'm in a more casual but not quite mood. 4 is just too much of a slog and 9 just gets too simple and is too long. It'll be ages before the story will be enough of a draw to bring me back to either on their own.

Meanwhile games like Engage and Fates bring me back despite their terrible stories, because when I'm not in the mood for them, I don't have to deal with them.

Is it weird that I can have that attitude about a franchise I claim to be my favorite of all time? Yes. Can I justify it in any intellectual or emotional way? No, not at this moment. It's been eating away at me ever since I finished marathoning the series. But Fire Emblem is the sort of series I love in spite of its flaws, and in one case because of them.

[ciphertul]

For me it’s the Characters and the ability to make them as good as they can be. It’s the reason I mostly prefer the more sandbox like games. 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I believe it was John Romero that said plot in video games is like plot in a porno. It's expected, but by no means expected to be good. Of course, I am interested in having a good story to read here or there. I hear some folks say FE7 doesn't have a great story, but man has it stuck with me. The smaller scale dramas between characters with clashing motivation throughout the Bern arc, Hector's character development, Nino's sad story. And none of FE7 would be possible if they, like with FE6, stuck to the conventions of Fire Emblem Story telling. Of Plucky Prince vs Evil Empire. Armies clashing with Armies. Big dragon boss at the end...scratch that. The Dragon IS something that failed to stick with me as much as Nergal does.

Ultimately what I want from Fire Emblem story telling is something more complex than what we've been getting. Less black and white morality plays, more sensible motivations from good guys and bad guys. Characters that reflect the sort of world they live in, rather than feeling like everything just sort of appeared here the moment the Player pressed Start and became the Center of the Universe. 

Edited January 18 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Samz707]

16 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

So I'm in a curious predicament here. Playing through the entire series for the posterity of this forum made me realize something about my opinions on the games: When it comes to Fire Emblem, I have absolutely no overlap between games I love for their story and games I love for their gameplay. No game in the series ever exceeds "okay" in both categories for me. The only exceptions are Birthright and Conquest, and only if you include "so bad it's good" as "loving a game for its story".

And if I have to choose (which I do, see above), I'll pick gameplay over story every time. Of the three games in the series that have my favorite stories, 7 is the only one I have any desire to play again any time soon, because the gameplay, while deeply flawed in many ways, has a lot of appeal to me, especially when I'm in a more casual but not quite mood. 4 is just too much of a slog and 9 just gets too simple and is too long. It'll be ages before the story will be enough of a draw to bring me back to either on their own.

Meanwhile games like Engage and Fates bring me back despite their terrible stories, because when I'm not in the mood for them, I don't have to deal with them.

Is it weird that I can have that attitude about a franchise I claim to be my favorite of all time? Yes. Can I justify it in any intellectual or emotional way? No, not at this moment. It's been eating away at me ever since I finished marathoning the series. But Fire Emblem is the sort of series I love in spite of its flaws, and in one case because of them.

Nah, it's understandable.

I'm a Tomb Raider fan and that series has never had a "Perfect" game, there's always a big issue with my favourite games in that series.

[Nauriam]

29 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Ultimately what I want from Fire Emblem story telling is something more complex than what we've been getting. Less black and white morality plays, more sensible motivations from good guys and bad guys. Characters that reflect the sort of world they live in, rather than feeling like everything just sort of appeared here the moment the Player pressed Start and became the Center of the Universe. 

None of the FE games do this well for their overarching story, but there are constantly snippets of this happening in a lot of the games. I feel like Genealogy generation 1 had a lot. Eldigan is just following the Camus trope, but no one is evil in that battle. Arvis is a huge jerk, but he's not possessed by Loptus or anything and his rule until Julian takes over is actually very good for the people; He was just making a power play. Sacred Stones had a lot of generals that you had to fight that were morally gray. The bandits in Thracia are portrayed to be in a situation of "pillage or starve" which I think deserves at least a little empathy. I found Radiant dawn's conflict between Crimea and Daein pretty compelling. However, at the end of all these games it does come down to fighting a big bad evil which is pretty black and white. It would be sweet to have a game that has a more compelling conflict on both sides all the way though.

41 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I believe it was John Romero that said plot in video games is like plot in a porno. It's expected, but by no means expected to be good.

Alluding back to the OP, for some people this is true. For others, the story incorporation is a major part their enjoyment of the game. For instance, Fates was an absolute slog for me to get through because I could not connect with the story or characters. I get that a lot of people enjoy the story in a point-and-laugh sort of way, but no matter what way I spun it, I just didn't enjoy the game very much. However, for the people that like fates, I understand that they just like other aspects that the game has to offer.

[lenticular]

As I have mentioned in the past on these forums, I don't think that Fire Emblem's gameplay is particularly great when viewed in a vacuum. At it's best, it's pretty fun! But I can't think of any cases where it's truly compelling enough that it would be enough to carry the game on its own. And at its worst, it can become a tedious slog. If Fire Emblem were an abstract strategy game without any story, characters, music, setting, etc. then I would not play it.

On the other hand, I also don't think that Fire Emblem's stories are particularly great when viewed in a vacuum either. They also range from "pretty fun but not compelling enough to carry a game on its own" to unqualifiedly dreadful.

And yet, when you combine "bad chess" with "bad anime", you end up with a series which I like enough that I choose to spend my free time talking about it with strangers on the Internet. So what gives? I think that what it ultimately boils down to for me is this: moving my pieces around the board is more fun when I am emotionally invested in them.

This is a combination of plot, characterisation, character design and art, voice acting, dialogue, and everything else. And is different from game to game and from character to character. But Fire Emblem is consistently good at making me care. And once I care, then it's fun to make a terrible unit great, or a good unit unstoppable. It's fun to build my own mini-narative about what's going on in individual maps.

As an example: I remember one time when I was playing Path of Radiance and doing the bridge map with all the pit traps. And for some reason, I ended up having Boyd fall into the pits over and over. If I didn't have any sort of emotional connection with the characters, this would just have been a horribly frustrating experience. But because I did, I couldn't help but imagine Boyd as the hothead that he is just rushing ahead  into each and every trap while all the other characters around him were facepalming, so the whole thing just became funny.

And it can work the other way around too. Using a character in gameplay can make me care more about what happens to them in story. Especially when the ludonarative harmony is there and the gameplay and the story are working together to reinforce the same message.

[Jotari]

19 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Is it weird that I can have that attitude about a franchise I claim to be my favorite of all time? Yes. Can I justify it in any intellectual or emotional way? No, not at this moment. It's been eating away at me ever since I finished marathoning the series. But Fire Emblem is the sort of series I love in spite of its flaws, and in one case because of them.

I don't think it's something that really needs to be justified. I think, when it comes down to it, games are just plain more replayable than stories are re-readable. Doubly so for Fire Emblem which has a wide variety of moment to moment choices shaping a playthrough.

[samthedigital]

The fun for me is primarily in learning the mechanics and using them to my advantage to beat the games in a variety of ways. I find that Fire Emblem games tend to hit a nice sweet spot where it takes some effort to have a good grasp on everything without feeling like it's impossible to get to that point. Tic-Tac-Toe and Chess would be examples of the two opposite ends of this spectrum. The art style, music, and pacing add something too. I don't like the DS games simply because I don't like their look, and I don't like Three Houses because optimizing units means spending a lot of time doing shit that I don't like or watching a loading screen. The story/characters could potentially add to the experience, but for the most part I don't really care about that aspect of Fire Emblem. The Tellius games have been the only exceptions, and even then I'm not sure how much I value it when it comes to my enjoyment of those games.

[Dark Holy Elf]

To me, Fire Emblem really excels at a combination of two things:

-having a rich cast of memorable characters I care about
-having great gameplay featuring fun moment-to-moment decisions and easy-to-follow mechanics (which can inform those decisions)

The second is overall more important to me, in that I've played and enjoyed Fire Emblems (as well as other FE-like games) even when I didn't connect with the characters much, but the characters are still a huge help, and something FE is good at. I definitely agree that connecting emotionally with the characters makes things more fun.

I think games can excel at different things. Earlier today I saw on social media the sentiment of "it's a GAME what matters is the GAMEplay" and here in this thread I've seen "the story is the soul of an RPG". I don't think either sentiment is wrong and in particular I think people are often weirdly insistent that others should share their priorities in this regard. I can see both, and in fact sometimes feel both! For me personally, there are absolutely games I love for writing where I dislike the gameplay and games I love for gameplay and dislike the writing, so I can't view either as essential.

I'll also mention that I quite like the RPG elements of Fire Emblem, though interestingly the cited example (growth units like Ross) don't really do it for me. Instead, I like things like the 3H class/skill system, which is the main reason I've replayed the game more than any other in the series. Letting me feel like I've built characters in ways besides just "I fed them experience" enhances the game for me, and also increases replayability.
 

5 hours ago, Nauriam said:

For instance, Fates was an absolute slog for me to get through because I could not connect with the story or characters. I get that a lot of people enjoy the story in a point-and-laugh sort of way, but no matter what way I spun it, I just didn't enjoy the game very much. However, for the people that like fates, I understand that they just like other aspects that the game has to offer.

I think the biggest thing honestly is that a lot of people do like Fates's characters. Like to compare it with SoV, more people will say SoV has a better story (I don't personally agree but SoV pissed me off in some pretty specific ways; I acknowledge it's the majority opinion though), but it's obvious more people liked Fates's characters (see: any CYL, or volume of fan works) and that's why the game was a bigger success, moreso than the gameplay differences. I actually think that outside the hardcore communities like this one, gameplay differences between the games aren't seen as that important.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

To me, Fire Emblem really excels at a combination of two things:

-having a rich cast of memorable characters I care about
-having great gameplay featuring fun moment-to-moment decisions and easy-to-follow mechanics (which can inform those decisions)

The second is overall more important to me, in that I've played and enjoyed Fire Emblems (as well as other FE-like games) even when I didn't connect with the characters much, but the characters are still a huge help, and something FE is good at. I definitely agree that connecting emotionally with the characters makes things more fun.

I think games can excel at different things. Earlier today I saw on social media the sentiment of "it's a GAME what matters is the GAMEplay" and here in this thread I've seen "the story is the soul of an RPG". I don't think either sentiment is wrong and in particular I think people are often weirdly insistent that others should share their priorities in this regard. I can see both, and in fact sometimes feel both! For me personally, there are absolutely games I love for writing where I dislike the gameplay and games I love for gameplay and dislike the writing, so I can't view either as essential.

I'll also mention that I quite like the RPG elements of Fire Emblem, though interestingly the cited example (growth units like Ross) don't really do it for me. Instead, I like things like the 3H class/skill system, which is the main reason I've replayed the game more than any other in the series. Letting me feel like I've built characters in ways besides just "I fed them experience" enhances the game for me, and also increases replayability.
 

I think the biggest thing honestly is that a lot of people do like Fates's characters. Like to compare it with SoV, more people will say SoV has a better story (I don't personally agree but SoV pissed me off in some pretty specific ways; I acknowledge it's the majority opinion though), but it's obvious more people liked Fates's characters (see: any CYL, or volume of fan works) and that's why the game was a bigger success, moreso than the gameplay differences. I actually think that outside the hardcore communities like this one, gameplay differences between the games aren't seen as that important.

A lot of people would say Fates has better gameplay than Shadows of Valentia too though.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

On 1/17/2024 at 5:42 PM, Nauriam said:

This statement really irks me, and I think it comes down to the fact that I enjoy fundamentally different aspects of these games than most of the youtubers I have seen. The youtubers I watch do ironman runs, and randomizers, and the majority of the enjoyment of the game comes from the strategy and the randomness that Fire Emblem provides. I, on the other hand, really enjoy the story, and I usually enjoy the game more if the story is integrated well with the gameplay.

There is only so much content you can make of a games story, both before the story is at its end and your channel just fucken dies (presumably, the hell do I know about YT). Sure enough, I do think FE games have the potential, or some at least, for a channel like VaatiVidya for the Souls series, but frankly, I don´t think Fire Emblem sets a tone as much as a Souls game for example, because it is simply much harder to do that for the strategist behind the screen than the Hoontah in a Dream or the Ashen Juan or the Maidenless MF, actively going about their business in the world.

I´ve gotten much more invested in the story of my girl Sirris of the Sunless Realm, my boy Greirat the Thief, my other girl Millicent and even the Firekeeper than anything Fire Emblem has done. Like, ever, the only times I have involved myself with story is when I read people opinions on this forum and that one time I made an Engage ring for Naga.

On 1/17/2024 at 5:42 PM, Nauriam said:

Ludonarrative harmony - This one is a big one for me. If you’re unfamiliar: the ludonarrative is the relationship between the story at hand, and what is happening in the gameplay. This category includes how well you personally are connecting with what the story is trying to convey (for example, if the army is in a desperate scramble to escape from a great threat, you should feel like you’re in a desperate scramble to move your army to the escape point). The main point here is that the feelings that the gameplay makes you feel should match the feelings that the characters in the game are feeling. If this is done poorly, it can detach the player emotionally from the characters (this is something that FE Fates is often accused of being poor at).

My suspension of disbelief stops a bad stats.

[lenticular]

9 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I think the biggest thing honestly is that a lot of people do like Fates's characters. Like to compare it with SoV, more people will say SoV has a better story (I don't personally agree but SoV pissed me off in some pretty specific ways; I acknowledge it's the majority opinion though), but it's obvious more people liked Fates's characters (see: any CYL, or volume of fan works) and that's why the game was a bigger success, moreso than the gameplay differences. I actually think that outside the hardcore communities like this one, gameplay differences between the games aren't seen as that important.

I'm not sure you can really draw that strong a conclusion. Sure, it may be that people didn't buy SoV because they didn't like the characters, but it could just as easily be the case that SoV characters aren't popular because far fewer people bought the game and got the chance to know them. It also doesn't help that the ways we have to measure popularity are subject to feedback loops. In CYL, a lot of people vote for the characters they think might win. In fandom, a lot of people want to create for the active fandoms where they'll have an audience. So the "true" popularity gets quite distorted and we don't really have any tools sensitive enough to properly distinguish between "people didn't buy this because they didn't like the characters" and "people don't like the characters because they didn't buy this".

9 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I think games can excel at different things. Earlier today I saw on social media the sentiment of "it's a GAME what matters is the GAMEplay" and here in this thread I've seen "the story is the soul of an RPG". I don't think either sentiment is wrong and in particular I think people are often weirdly insistent that others should share their priorities in this regard. I can see both, and in fact sometimes feel both! For me personally, there are absolutely games I love for writing where I dislike the gameplay and games I love for gameplay and dislike the writing, so I can't view either as essential.

I do agree with this though, entirely. And will add that there are games that lean extremely heavily in one direction or another. On the one hand you have stuff like visual novels and walking simulators which are all story and no gameplay, and on the other hand you have abstract strategy and puzzle games that are all game and no story. And then between the two extremes, you have a full spectrum of games that lean further in one direction than the other, and games that go pretty much straight down the middle.  And of the games that do focus on both, some do a better job with one than the other. And sometimes it's not even that they do a better job so much as it comes down to being a better match for an individual's tastes and preferences.

9 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I'll also mention that I quite like the RPG elements of Fire Emblem, though interestingly the cited example (growth units like Ross) don't really do it for me. Instead, I like things like the 3H class/skill system, which is the main reason I've replayed the game more than any other in the series. Letting me feel like I've built characters in ways besides just "I fed them experience" enhances the game for me, and also increases replayability.

I largely agree with this, too. The Awakening/Fates class and skill system also has a lot of potential for customisation, but I don't enjoy those systems nearly as much because it feels like I have to jump through so many hoops to get to the builds that I want. And I know that's how a lot of people feel about Three Houses too. Except the Three Houses hoops are out of battle and the Fates ones are in battle, and different people are going to be more put off by one over the other. But I do wish for a Fire Emblem with robust customisation without any hoops to jump through.

[Eltosian Kadath]

One element that really should be added to the list, and whose absence is telling for the dissonance you are expressing, is Replayability. I do think it is an aspect that isn't really covered by the things you discussed, as at its core its about what you can get out of a game on subsequent playthroughs. It certainly is interconnected with other elements you discuss, just as Ludonarrative harmony is, but I do think it is distinct from the things you discuss as well, and an important factor for those whose opinions differ from yours.

 

On 1/17/2024 at 8:42 AM, Nauriam said:

Ludonarrative harmony

On 1/17/2024 at 8:42 AM, Nauriam said:

(this is something that FE Fates is often accused of being poor at).

I feel like this is a bit of a complicated statement, as two sentiments I have seen on this forum immediately come to mind. The first is that Fates sacrificed its story for the sake of gameplay, and the second is that when Fates tells you Camilla is a badass warrior, the gameplay backs it up. The second is a bit specific, I know (I think it came up in a discussion of SoV and Fates about Mathilda and Camilla, and how the two of them are treated by their game's narrative), but it highlights why I am a bit reluctant to simply say Fates has a Ludonarrative dissonance problem, but more of just a story one in general, as I don't think the first statement is wrong either. Fates was simply very willing to have an incredibly stupid story, as long as it backed up its excellent gameplay, which was the star of the game. To be fair Fates was not perfect in regard it to its Ludonarrative harmony, it is more willing to back up what the story says in the gameplay, but wasn't the best with what is shown in the story, sometimes because of player choice; assuming the little sisters that start as healer (and work best mechanically as healers) would remain healers for a cutscene or two, and them pretending most player would put in the effort to make Azura competent at combat instead of keeping her as a far more useful dancer come immediately to mind; and in one notable instance where they used animations obviously based on the dual guard to show Lilith sacrificing herself. In fact Lilith's sacrifice in Conquest is an interesting story beat to look at from a ludonarrative perspective. The moment is often panned for how unsatisfying it is as a story beat, and despite the issue with the animation, the chapter itself did a good job of selling us the danger those Faceless posed on our army, with their infinite number being a key factor in their threat, with dangerous skills, and frustrating support of the stoneborn to force us into retreating. I find it one of the chapters signifying a ramp up in difficulty for the game, and I don't think I am alone in thinking so. The issue with the moment isn't a ludonarrative one, its simply a story one; Lilith dying to literal faceless enemy is unsatisfying in spite of the gameplay supporting the danger of those faceless, for very mundane story reasons. Overall I think Fates has a far more mixed relationship with Ludonarrative harmony than necessarily a bad one, and better than a lot of the post Kaga FE games, but its story being infamously bad has kept people from giving Fates its fair shake in this regard.

 

 

17 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I believe it was John Romero that said plot in video games is like plot in a porno. It's expected, but by no means expected to be good. Of course, I am interested in having a good story to read here or there.

Close, it was actually John Carmack who said that, but the two were the most well known figures of Id software back in its glory days, so I can see why you would confuse them.

 

17 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I hear some folks say FE7 doesn't have a great story, but man has it stuck with me. The smaller scale dramas between characters with clashing motivation throughout the Bern arc, Hector's character development, Nino's sad story. And none of FE7 would be possible if they, like with FE6, stuck to the conventions of Fire Emblem Story telling. Of Plucky Prince vs Evil Empire. Armies clashing with Armies. Big dragon boss at the end...scratch that. The Dragon IS something that failed to stick with me as much as Nergal does.

The complaints about FE7's story are such cinema sins levels of nitpicking, that they end up missing the forest for the trees. FE7's story really deserves more praise than it gets.

[Nauriam]

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

One element that really should be added to the list, and whose absence is telling for the dissonance you are expressing, is Replayability. I do think it is an aspect that isn't really covered by the things you discussed, as at its core its about what you can get out of a game on subsequent playthroughs. It certainly is interconnected with other elements you discuss, just as Ludonarrative harmony is, but I do think it is distinct from the things you discuss as well, and an important factor for those whose opinions differ from yours.

I think this is a really good point. The perspective of my OP was more or less from how you would feel about a game after playing through it once, and what reasons you might say it was good or bad. However, there are some FE games that make you want to go back and play it again to try different armies, train different units, go a different route, etc. And other games have too much fluff and ruin the desire to replay it. I think replayability might actually be the most important thing on that list now that you've pointed it out.

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

I feel like this is a bit of a complicated statement, as two sentiments I have seen on this forum immediately come to mind. The first is that Fates sacrificed its story for the sake of gameplay, and the second is that when Fates tells you Camilla is a badass warrior, the gameplay backs it up. The second is a bit specific, I know (I think it came up in a discussion of SoV and Fates about Mathilda and Camilla, and how the two of them are treated by their game's narrative), but it highlights why I am a bit reluctant to simply say Fates has a Ludonarrative dissonance problem, but more of just a story one in general, as I don't think the first statement is wrong either. Fates was simply very willing to have an incredibly stupid story, as long as it backed up its excellent gameplay, which was the star of the game. To be fair Fates was not perfect in regard it to its Ludonarrative harmony, it is more willing to back up what the story says in the gameplay, but wasn't the best with what is shown in the story, sometimes because of player choice; assuming the little sisters that start as healer (and work best mechanically as healers) would remain healers for a cutscene or two, and them pretending most player would put in the effort to make Azura competent at combat instead of keeping her as a far more useful dancer come immediately to mind; and in one notable instance where they used animations obviously based on the dual guard to show Lilith sacrificing herself. In fact Lilith's sacrifice in Conquest is an interesting story beat to look at from a ludonarrative perspective. The moment is often panned for how unsatisfying it is as a story beat, and despite the issue with the animation, the chapter itself did a good job of selling us the danger those Faceless posed on our army, with their infinite number being a key factor in their threat, with dangerous skills, and frustrating support of the stoneborn to force us into retreating. I find it one of the chapters signifying a ramp up in difficulty for the game, and I don't think I am alone in thinking so. The issue with the moment isn't a ludonarrative one, its simply a story one; Lilith dying to literal faceless enemy is unsatisfying in spite of the gameplay supporting the danger of those faceless, for very mundane story reasons. Overall I think Fates has a far more mixed relationship with Ludonarrative harmony than necessarily a bad one, and better than a lot of the post Kaga FE games, but its story being infamously bad has kept people from giving Fates its fair shake in this regard.

You have a lot of really good points about where Fates succeeds in its ludonarrative. I was referring to how Corrin is trying to be a pacifist, and even in conquest talks about how no one is being killed in some of the battles, where in the gameplay you're slaughtering hundreds of people. Although there's a disconnect in the overarching story with what you are doing in the gameplay, I think you have a great point about how the inter-character narratives match great with how the characters function in the game.

6 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

There is only so much content you can make of a games story, both before the story is at its end and your channel just fucken dies (presumably, the hell do I know about YT). Sure enough, I do think FE games have the potential, or some at least, for a channel like VaatiVidya for the Souls series, but frankly, I don´t think Fire Emblem sets a tone as much as a Souls game for example, because it is simply much harder to do that for the strategist behind the screen than the Hoontah in a Dream or the Ashen Juan or the Maidenless MF, actively going about their business in the world.

This is a really good point I didn't touch on. I don't blame the Youtubers I watch for having the opinion that they do, because I agree with you on this point. I don't think I would even watch Youtube videos talking about lore, or exploring the characters as much as I watch the people doing weird challenges. For the people that decide to make Youtube videos, you almost necessarily have to enjoy the more replayable games more, since you're going to be replaying games a lot. There are some exceptions of course, such as the folks that make rom hacks and talk about game design and theory.

 

I think this whole topic is the main reason a game like Genealogy can be so loved by a portion of the fanbase, and so hated by others. Whenever I listen to people talk about what games they like or not, I have to compare what they enjoy out of the games versus what I enjoy to get an idea of whether or not the game would be fun to me.

[Dark Holy Elf]

16 hours ago, lenticular said:

I'm not sure you can really draw that strong a conclusion. Sure, it may be that people didn't buy SoV because they didn't like the characters, but it could just as easily be the case that SoV characters aren't popular because far fewer people bought the game and got the chance to know them. It also doesn't help that the ways we have to measure popularity are subject to feedback loops. In CYL, a lot of people vote for the characters they think might win. In fandom, a lot of people want to create for the active fandoms where they'll have an audience. So the "true" popularity gets quite distorted and we don't really have any tools sensitive enough to properly distinguish between "people didn't buy this because they didn't like the characters" and "people don't like the characters because they didn't buy this".

These are fair points: I could point out that the popularity metrics ratio exceeds the sales ratio, but you're quite right that those are subject to feedback effects (in addition to what you said, fan works put the characters in the minds of others who then create their own fan works, etc.). That said I do think it's worth observing that Fates does very well in character metrics by any measure (behind 3H, but everything is behind 3H), and I don't think that would have gotten rolling in the first place if people didn't like the characters. And while not Fates-specific, it's interesting to observe that Tellius does quite well on character metrics despite relatively lower sales (e.g. compared to SoV, again), so we at least know sales aren't always destiny.

14 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

The complaints about FE7's story are such cinema sins levels of nitpicking, that they end up missing the forest for the trees. FE7's story really deserves more praise than it gets.

Eh, for what it's worth, I disagree with this. FE7 was my introduction to the series and I fell in love with its gameplay and character designs (and I even agree that its character writing is pretty good!). I have massive nostalgia for it, but honestly its story is terrible, IMO. I don't think it's nitpicking to observe that a thousand-man band of "noble" assassins is both ludicrous and dissonant with the setting, or that Nergal's plot power yo-yos like mad as needed for a given scene. As for the forest, FE7 is a game that always kinda felt devoid of any theme or message. Most other questionable FE stories manage to say something about war, even if they frequently undercut it by apologizing for anything the player does; FE7 really feels like a game about nothing. I don't even fully blame the writers; they were apparently tasked with writing a story where everything that happened (except the Zephiel stuff, which unshockingly is one of the few parts of the story which feels coherent outside Lyn Mode) and everything the characters might learn would be too unimportant to mention twenty years later.