FE4 is too outdated to be any fun

[OrangeCrush980]

I want to like FE4, I really do, but its just impossible. I only played the prologue and the first chapter before I started having major emulator problems, but even if I fixed them I don't know if I would've bothered to continue playing.

My main complaints are:

- The combat windows aren't very helpful. They display the attack and defense of both units, but not the differences between the two so you have to do the math each time to figure out how much damage each side will actually do. Also, doubling isn't shown even though a third of your units have the Pursuit skill.

- What's with all the enemies being clumped up? It makes sense storyline wise, but it makes it almost impossible to train Azel, Fin, or anyone without a sword really.

- As a corollary to the above point, I hate how the game basically just begs you to just solo it with Sigurd (well, the first half of it at least). He's basically an Oifaye that doubles as the lord. At least in FE8 and FE9 you still have to protect your lord and other forced units, whereas in this game you can leave them all in the castle while Sigurd solos the entire map.

- The plot really isn't that good so far. The prologue started out with a huge wall of text and once gameplay began all Sigurd does is try to rescue Adean for the first two chapters. Well, that and fall in love with Diadora at first sight, which was incredibly bad storytelling since apparently they're "lovers" after their first meeting.

- Lex's best weapon can only be obtained by standing on an arbitrary tile that's extremely out of the way and isn't hinted at at all.

- Everyone having their own money and refusing to trade is an obnoxious mechanic and not even all that realistic.

Maybe FE4 is the best Fire Emblem in terms of how good it was for its time (i.e. it added a lot to the series while other games didn't), but don't act like its leaps and bounds better than the newer games, because it really isn't.

[Toothache]

When I first played FE4, I had similar concerns and never played past the first chapter either. Having been so used to the convenience of the GBA games, the larger scale, adjustment to understanding skills, the relationship system and how it affects 2nd gen - there's a lot of stuff for a new player to adjust to. At the time, I wasn't ready, and didn't pick the game up for a long time. But I was still curious, and it wasn't until watching Balcerzak's AAAA rank playthrough that gave me a new appreciation for the game, as well as understanding the unique mechanics easier.

Rather than comparing it to games that came later, it is better to try and look at it individually, as well as taking what it improved over the first three games. I like the epic scale of the maps, does give the game the feel of having actual armies fighting instead of small scale skirmishes. If your playstyle is not conducive to training certain units, just remember there is always another way of doing things - Fire Emblem is marvellous in this respect in any game, with the amount of possible approaches, play styles, tactics and strategy you can employ each time you pick up a game.

[Celice]

Maybe it's not outdated, but you're too comfortable with games of a different style, and find disagreement in the difference you've experienced.

Or: bawl

[Florete]

Rather than comparing it to games that came later, it is better to try and look at it individually, as well as taking what it improved over the first three games.

But that's not the point of his post, as his last line suggests. He can agree with it being the best for its time, but not best today, and in order to determine that, it needs to be compared directly to later entries.

I like the epic scale of the maps, does give the game the feel of having actual armies fighting instead of small scale skirmishes.

This is one of the bigger problems I had with FE4: I never felt like I was in one big battle. It always felt like a bunch of small battles strung together. As far as I remember, pretty much every chapter was "Get to the first castle, new enemies appear, get to the next castle," etc. It could have used the common style of smaller maps and more chapters and I think most of it wouldn't have changed at all. Only exceptions are the relatively few times where significant stuff is actually happening at another end of the map.

I do agree with the OP's points in general (although standing on arbitrary tiles for items - and even characters - is still seen today). I enjoyed FE4, but I feel like a lot of the people who love it only really love it because it's old and liking old things is cool (plus it was "good for its time" and never released outside Japan, adding more fuel to the fire). In addition, I can't take a "love at first sight" story seriously, and a lot of FE4, as I recall, had to do with the relationship between Sigurd and Deirdre, which just felt totally convoluted and killed it for me. I don't really remember the story of Gen 2 because it just never caught my interest.

Maybe it's not outdated, but you're too comfortable with games of a different style, and find disagreement in the difference you've experienced.

He's right about some of the mechanics, though, particularly the money and trading. I imagine there's a good reason that never returned.

[Integrity]

I'm with the sentiment to a point. FE4 is different enough and feels clunky enough to me that it was REALLY hard to get into for the first playthrough for me.

[Marthur]

He's right about some of the mechanics, though, particularly the money and trading. I imagine there's a good reason that never returned.

No he's wrong, and the reason it was removed wasn't because it was bad, but because it wouldn't work in other games. However, it was absolutely necessary in FE4.

The reason for this is to prevent abusing the arena of course. If you think about it, it would have been more stupid if the player was allowed to freely trade rings and weapons.

[VincentASM]

I didn't really have any problems with getting into FE4, despite playing FE6 before, but then again I did grow up with a NES and Game Boy. I did have this problem with FE1 and to an extent FE3. FE2 didn't seem so bad because there was a lot of different things being used.

EDIT2

I always thought the restricted money and inventory was to make you think harder about the childrens' inheritance. Like if you changed your mind about who should have the Leg Ring, you'll have to sacrifice some money to buy it back from the pawn shop.

Actually, there's a quote in an interview that talks about the money system.

[spoiler=Quote]

- It seems that the money system became quite severe. What do you have to say about it?

Kaga: Indeed. This time around, we thought and decided on a rather strict concept of money. The personal money system derives from that. Actually, repairing and a number of other things cost money. The weak dudes can't win in the arena; therefore, they can't earn money and, as such, they can't buy good weapons - this cruel side is pretty obvious. On the other hand, it becomes easy once one engine gets going.

We've done this because we want the player to advance all units in a balanced manner, not leaving any of them behind. Our aim was to make it so that, if you don't distribute experience equally and make your units equally strong in each chapter, it'll be hopeless later on.

Edited July 31, 2011 by VincentASM

[Florete]

No he's wrong, and the reason it was removed wasn't because it was bad, but because it wouldn't work in other games. However, it was absolutely necessary in FE4.

The reason for this is to prevent abusing the arena of course. If you think about it, it would have been more stupid if the player was allowed to freely trade rings and weapons.

If they really thought it was a good idea they would have made it work in later games, especially FE5 where this definitely could have worked if they so desired.

Arena abuse is easy to prevent: Give it a cap, both the number of times you can go in and on the money the party can hold. It technically already does this, just with each character individually. Trading rings is one thing I can agree with you on (though that's easily fixed by making them expendable items as opposed to equippables, which, you know, happened later), but trading weapons would not be stupid at all, at least not anymore than it is in the other games.

I always thought the restricted money and inventory was to make you think harder about the childrens' inheritance. Like if you changed your mind about who should have the Leg Ring, you'll have to sacrifice some money to buy it back from the pawn shop.

Actually, there's a quote in an interview that talks about the money system.

That does sound good in theory, but in practice I, at least, just found it annoying and needlessly tedious.

Another problem I have with FE4 is replay value. Fire Emblem tends to thrive on being able to go through the game multiple times with almost completely different teams, but in FE4 you can (and are practically encouraged to) use every single unit on your team. The love system does allow some variety in that area for Gen 2, at least, but that's still only half the game.

[pat726]

I can still play FE4 just fine. Subtracting really isn't that hard and neither is checking doubling. I'd rather have good overall gameplay than more convienent menus. Ideally I'd like both, but to me FE4 is still way better than a lot of the more recent FEs with cleaner ui.

[Blademaster!]

- The combat windows aren't very helpful. They display the attack and defense of both units, but not the differences between the two so you have to do the math each time to figure out how much damage each side will actually do.

Oh no! I have to actually think in a SRPG! The horror! It should take you less than a second to realize how much damage you deal and take. The math isn't hard.

Also, doubling isn't shown even though a third of your units have the Pursuit skill.

You generally don't know when enemies are going to double you either when they attack.

- What's with all the enemies being clumped up? It makes sense storyline wise, but it makes it almost impossible to train Azel, Fin, or anyone without a sword really.

Not really...

- As a corollary to the above point, I hate how the game basically just begs you to just solo it with Sigurd (well, the first half of it at least). He's basically an Oifaye that doubles as the lord. At least in FE8 and FE9 you still have to protect your lord and other forced units, whereas in this game you can leave them all in the castle while Sigurd solos the entire map.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, so this is true.

- The plot really isn't that good so far.

It has the best plot of any FE game. Only FE9 really comes close to being as good.

The prologue started out with a huge wall of text

Just like the start of almost every JRPG ever!

and once gameplay began all Sigurd does is try to rescue Adean for the first two chapters.

Similar to the plot of tons of video games and fairy tales! Rescue a princess! And even this is only the plot for the first chapter and a half.

Well, that and fall in love with Diadora at first sight, which was incredibly bad storytelling since apparently they're "lovers" after their first meeting.

This happens in both real life and stories all the time. And they become lovers after their second meeting.

- Lex's best weapon can only be obtained by standing on an arbitrary tile that's extremely out of the way and isn't hinted at at all.

Well, it wouldn't be a very good secret/hidden element if they told us where it is!

- Everyone having their own money and refusing to trade is an obnoxious mechanic and not even all that realistic.

Not realistic? It makes sense for characters to have their own money. Look at Rennac, Volke, and Farina. You pay them money to join you, and it just disappears. You pay Beowulf to join you, the funds get added on to his own money, and you can still use it how you see fit. If anything, the newer system of money storage is even more obnoxious.

don't act like its leaps and bounds better than the newer games, because it really isn't.

Because the newer games are really all that similar to FE4? FE2 and FE4 are the two most unique entries in the FE series. All the other FE games are fairly similar to each other, barring some differences in game play mechanics found in FE5.

If we are going to argue about why FE4 is better/worse than FEX, we might as well argue about why OoT is better/worse than ALTTP.

[Florete]

It has the best plot of any FE game. Only FE9 really comes close to being as good.

Pretty subjective. I've already posted my problems with this game's story and FE9 was decent, but fairly generic at times.

Similar to the plot of tons of video games and fairy tales! Rescue a princess! And even this is only the plot for the first chapter and a half.

Because being just like everything else is a good thing. The extremely generic intro to White Knight Chronicles (princess is kidnapped and only you can rescue her) is a big part of the reason I can barely continue.

This happens in both real life and stories all the time. And they become lovers after their second meeting.

That doesn't make it a good story-telling mechanic. Love at first sight gives me no time to get attached to the pairing and support them.

Not realistic? It makes sense for characters to have their own money. Look at Rennac, Volke, and Farina. You pay them money to join you, and it just disappears. You pay Beowulf to join you, the funds get added on to his own money, and you can still use it how you see fit. If anything, the newer system of money storage is even more obnoxious.

It makes sense as far as behind-the-scenes goes for characters to have a personal stash of money, but not for use in the battle where they are part of an army, said army of which should have its own funds with which to supply its soldiers. Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn end up doing this the best since they don't have just random characters doing the shopping.

Because the newer games are really all that similar to FE4? FE2 and FE4 are the two most unique entries in the FE series. All the other FE games are fairly similar to each other, barring some differences in game play mechanics found in FE5.

If we are going to argue about why FE4 is better/worse than FEX, we might as well argue about why OoT is better/worse than ALTTP.

Just because they are more different within their own series doesn't mean we can't compare the merits to other games in the series.

[Roxas]

Wha--

My main complaints are:

- The combat windows aren't very helpful. They display the attack and defense of both units, but not the differences between the two so you have to do the math each time to figure out how much damage each side will actually do. Also, doubling isn't shown even though a third of your units have the Pursuit skill.

Do some math, boo hoo.

- What's with all the enemies being clumped up? It makes sense storyline wise, but it makes it almost impossible to train Azel, Fin, or anyone without a sword really.

There's this little thing called strategy. It helps in these kinds of games.

- As a corollary to the above point, I hate how the game basically just begs you to just solo it with Sigurd (well, the first half of it at least). He's basically an Oifaye that doubles as the lord. At least in FE8 and FE9 you still have to protect your lord and other forced units, whereas in this game you can leave them all in the castle while Sigurd solos the entire map.

You can try soloing the entire First Gen with Sigurd. Good luck in Chapter 4/5 and the rest of the Second Gen.

Rationing experience is a basic part of Fire Emblem. It's just a bit harder to do in Fe4. Don't cry.

- The plot really isn't that good so far. The prologue started out with a huge wall of text and once gameplay began all Sigurd does is try to rescue Adean for the first two chapters. Well, that and fall in love with Diadora at first sight, which was incredibly bad storytelling since apparently they're "lovers" after their first meeting.

Or you could actually try reading it, and realize that Fire Emblem 4 and 5 follow the most mature is arguably the most complex storyline out of all of the games.

- Lex's best weapon can only be obtained by standing on an arbitrary tile that's extremely out of the way and isn't hinted at at all.

So? The game is riddled with little events like that. Arden needs to stand on some weird beach tile (and not have a lover) in order to get his Pursuit Ring, Dew waits at Blaggi Tower to obtain a Wind Sword, and Celice must wait next to a random water tile in Chapter 10 to get his Life Ring. It's these little quirks that just make the game special; secret events just add to the charm.

By the way, I noticed that Blazing Sword is your "favorite game." Are the location (or even the existence) of Secret Shops ever mentioned in text outside of the Member Card's description? No? Exactly.

- Everyone having their own money and refusing to trade is an obnoxious mechanic and not even all that realistic.

I'll concede this point. I actually hate this mechanic too.

[Marthur]

If they really thought it was a good idea they would have made it work in later games, especially FE5 where this definitely could have worked if they so desired.

I disagree. I feel that the reason it works well in FE4, is precisely because you can use all your characters and you're also limited to ~20 of them per generation. Managing money with 40 units would be too complicated.

Arena abuse is easy to prevent: Give it a cap, both the number of times you can go in and on the money the party can hold.

When I said "abusing the arena", I meant owning all the opponents without any trouble, and not using it an unlimited number of times.

Trading rings is one thing I can agree with you on (though that's easily fixed by making them expendable items as opposed to equippables which, you know, happened later),

You mean earlier (FE3 had them). They didn't go for this because they wanted them to be inheritable which isn't a bad thing.

but trading weapons would not be stupid at all, at least not anymore than it is in the other games.

Hero Weapons make the arena a complete joke you know?

[Blademaster!]

That doesn't make it a good story-telling mechanic.

That doesn't make it bad story telling either.

said army of which should have its own funds with which to supply its soldiers.

...Which is why units have their own stocks of cash?

[Celice]

It should be remembered that certain elements of gameplay are introduced and not repeated not because they're bad ideas necessarily but because they were created for a specific purpose and scenario. It's part of a package deal, rather than an engine deal.

[Florete]

I disagree. I feel that the reason it works well in FE4, is precisely because you can use all your characters and you're also limited to ~20 of them per generation. Managing money with 40 units would be too complicated.

Then clearly it wasn't good enough in the first place that they felt it was worth keeping in over something else. Later games didn't have to have 40 units in your army at once.

When I said "abusing the arena", I meant owning all the opponents without any trouble, and not using it an unlimited number of times.

Hero Weapons make the arena a complete joke you know?

Hey, there's a fix for this, too: don't have units use their own weapons in the arena. I don't know about pre-FE4, but this was fixed immediately afterwards.

You mean earlier (FE3 had them). They didn't go for this because they wanted them to be inheritable which isn't a bad thing.

Point stands (and is stronger, if anything). I haven't played 1-3. Inheritance could have still easily been done; pass the boost itself down.

That doesn't make it bad story telling either.

It is, though. Love at first sight is pretty cliche and borders on writer cop-out to just get things moving. The lack of development is the problem; it just happens. Again: Love at first sight gives me no time to get attached to the pairing and support them.

...Which is why units have their own stocks of cash?

What? Did you even read what I said on that point at all? There should be army funds with which the units are supplied with weaponry, not each unit having their own money that they buy weapons with. If you work at a retail store, your employer doesn't have you bring your own cash register.

It should be remembered that certain elements of gameplay are introduced and not repeated not because they're bad ideas necessarily but because they were created for a specific purpose and scenario. It's part of a package deal, rather than an engine deal.

This is a good point. The money system in FE4 is not necessarily bad, but it's far from perfect.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Red Fox of Fire

[Celice]

It is, though. Love at first sight is pretty cliche and borders on writer cop-out to just get things moving. The lack of development is the problem; it just happens. Again: Love at first sight gives me no time to get attached to the pairing and support them.

Simply because it's not more fully explained directly to the player doesn't mean the love system is base and shallow. There is naturally a lot that goes into love--if the player can't figure that part out where it's left open to interpretation... well, it's the player that's created a shallow love between two people.

Many time something isn't expressed not because it's not meant to, but because, it's seen as something not necessary to develop. It's something that can freely be explored and understood by the player. When you play to literally, you relinquish this aspect of played and instead embrace an emptiness where your imagination was supposed to lay.

Then clearly it wasn't good enough in the first place that they felt it was worth keeping in over something else. Later games didn't have to have 40 units in your army at once.

Well, it's not 40. It's more around 15, which actually is a bit above average for an end-game roster count.

Again, if you're pulled threads out and comparing them when there really is no comparison, the only unequality one can find is one that the viewer creates. They are separate and not meant to be compared against one another because they serve different purposes.

Comparisons of this sort don't really show and objective difference. It only shows a viewer's preference, and usually, an inability in the viewer to separate what the game does and what the player prefers it to do.

[Blademaster!]

Love at first sight gives me no time to get attached to the pairing and support them.

But if there is no competition involved for said characters affection, what reason would you have not to support them?

What? Did you even read what I said on that point at all? There should be army funds with which the units are supplied with weaponry, not each unit having their own money that they buy weapons with.

So it's like pimping then. Prostitutes can't buy what they want because they can't be trusted with money, so they have to ask the pimp to buy it for them. Fantastic.

If you work at a retail store, your employer doesn't have you bring your own cash register.

If I work as a cab driver, I have to pay for my own gas.

[Integrity]

In most standing armies for a long time, troops haven't been expected to supply their own equipment. It hasn't always been that way, granted, but.

Also:

But if there is no competition involved for said characters affection, what reason would you have not to support them?

What? Define your logic here.

[Florete]

Simply because it's not more fully explained directly to the player doesn't mean the love system is base and shallow. There is naturally a lot that goes into love--if the player can't figure that part out where it's left open to interpretation... well, it's the player that's created a shallow love between two people.

Except there's a difference between "open to interpretation" and "They met. Then they got married."

Many time something isn't expressed not because it's not meant to, but because, it's seen as something not necessary to develop. It's something that can freely be explored and understood by the player. When you play to literally, you relinquish this aspect of played and instead embrace an emptiness where your imagination was supposed to lay.

I agree with the above quote when applied generally, but I don't think it quite worked for FE4.

Well, it's not 40. It's more around 15, which actually is a bit above average for an end-game roster count.

The point is that every unit you can select would have their own stash of money.

Again, if you're pulled threads out and comparing them when there really is no comparison, the only unequality one can find is one that the viewer creates. They are separate and not meant to be compared against one another because they serve different purposes.

Comparisons of this sort don't really show and objective difference. It only shows a viewer's preference, and usually, an inability in the viewer to separate what the game does and what the player prefers it to do.

So just because it's largely preference-based means we can't compare them? No. There's a reason people use the word "best:" they find it superior in quality to the alternatives (or are misusing the word and actually means favorite). In this case, other FE games. It's not like we're comparing apples to oranges here. Despite being largely subjective, there are still objective qualities to be found and compared.

But if there is no competition involved for said characters affection, what reason would you have not to support them?

Because I don't care about them. Competition doesn't need to enter into it for me to care and want to support them.

So it's like pimping then. Prostitutes can't buy what they want because they can't be trusted with money, so they have to ask the pimp to buy it for them. Fantastic.

You are totally not grasping the point here. Either that or you are deliberately being difficult.

If I work as a cab driver, I have to pay for my own gas.

From what I know, at least some cab drivers also use the cab as their personal transportation, so this is more akin to having to bring your own clothes to work rather than bringing your own supplies.

I really don't understand why this is such a tough concept to grasp. US government money is not Obama's pocket change. Embezzlement isn't stealing your employer's wallet, it's stealing company money. Organizations have money with which the organization is supplied and fueled, just as an army supplies its soldiers with weapons to fight. That's what an armory is all about.

[Marthur]

Then clearly it wasn't good enough in the first place that they felt it was worth keeping in over something else. Later games didn't have to have 40 units in your army at once.

If you want to use late units, but have to use early units first, I imagine you would have to use around ~30 units throughout the game. If money is a scarce ressource, this becomes a problem, because you wasted ressource on units you didn't want to bring. Besides how would you get money in the first place? You'd have to either include villages à la FE4, either take it from ennemies, which would be a problem for your healers who need it the most.

Besides, another reason it wouldn't work in FE5 is because FE4's money system is incompatible with trading. If everyone can trade weapons, then what would be the point of units having their own money?

Also this isn't a point against FE4, because as I already said earlier, all weapons are unique and it prevents abuse.

As Celice said, both are different systems, but it doesn't necessarily mean that one is bad.

Hey, there's a fix for this, too: don't have units use their own weapons in the arena. I don't know about pre-FE4, but this was fixed immediately afterwards.

The problem with the GBA arena are that there are unlimited ennemies. Because going into the arena with a Hero Weapon would be a sure win, they had to do that in the GBA games, so that player can't easily get infinite exp. However it also makes the arena less interesting.

FE4 fixes this by limiting the number of opponents. It also gives you more freedom which is in my opinion a better solution. And if you ask around, I'm pretty sure people will also tell you that FE4 managed to design the best arena in the series.

Point stands (and is stronger, if anything). I haven't played 1-3. Inheritance could have still easily been done; pass the boost itself down.

If the boosts the parent receive isn't necessary for the child, I'd rather be able to give it to another character.

FE4 did both anyway, since you can get such boosts from villages. Having different options is always a good thing.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Marthur

[Florete]

If you want to use late units, but have to use early units first, I imagine you would have to use around ~30 units throughout the game. If money is a scarce ressource, this becomes a problem, because you wasted ressource on units you didn't want to bring. Besides how would you get money in the first place? You'd have to either include villages à la FE4, either take it from ennemies, which would be a problem for your healers who need it the most.

Besides, another reason it wouldn't work in FE5 is because FE4's money system is incompatible with trading. If everyone can trade weapons, then what would be the point of units having their own weapon?

Also this isn't a point against FE4, because as I already said earlier, all weapons are unique and it prevents abuse.

As Celice said, both are different systems, but it doesn't necessarily mean that one is bad.

I think you missed my point. I didn't say that FE4's money system should have been kept in later games and otherwise they'd remain exactly as is. I'm saying they could have made the games with that system in mind from the start, if they so desired.

The problem with the GBA arena are that there are unlimited ennemies. Because going into the arena with a Hero Weapon would be a sure win, they had to do that in the GBA games, so that player can't easily get infinite exp. However it also makes the arena less interesting.

FE4 fixes this by limiting the number of opponents. It also gives you more freedom which is in my opinion a better solution. And if you ask around, I'm pretty sure people will also tell you that FE4 managed to design the best arena in the series.

I do agree that limiting how many times a unit can enter is better than unlimited, but allowing them to use their own weapon in the arena can be problematic either way for the very reason you brought up; it can make things way too easy.

If the boosts the parent receive isn't necessary for the child, I'd rather be able to give it to another character.

Then you'd have to consider that when choosing who to give the boost to. I never said it was a perfect alternative, but I'd take it to be able to trade freely. And either way, it's not like they couldn't still have implemented a way to make it, say, more like the skills in FE10; not freely tradeable but not locked to a unit.

[Marthur]

Then you'd have to consider that when choosing who to give the boost to. I never said it was a perfect alternative, but I'd take it to be able to trade freely. And either way, it's not like they couldn't still have implemented a way to make it, say, more like the skills in FE10; not freely tradeable but not locked to a unit.

I edited my last paragraph. Sorry if you missed it.

[Florete]

I edited my last paragraph. Sorry if you missed it.

I wouldn't know what else to say to that edit anyway. Perhaps you could expand; my memory of FE4 isn't perfect as far as little details go.

[Celice]

Except there's a difference between "open to interpretation" and "They met. Then they got married."

You as a player know that the time span is relative--much time passes between events you initiate. It's not a "sudden" thing. The game even gives you a reminder of the timespan now and then. What events aren't fleshed out, are not because they're not the main focal point. This doesn't mean something so simple happened, or that "nothing at all" occured. It just means that the smaller events weren't covered, which in no way means they do not exist or nothing significant plot-wise may have happened.

The only romantic pairing in FE4 who fits your "They met. Then they got married." would be Sigurd and Deirdre. And even that is properly explained, though maybe not in the depth you'd prefer? (if if not, why not create that depth and entertain yourself?)

Edited July 31, 2011 by Celice