FE4 is too outdated to be any fun

[Marthur]

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.

I meant that there were both kind of boosts in FE4. Some that directly added a bonus to the parents stats through conversations and villages (and the children stats are calculated from their parents stats so they still count and cannot be given to other characters) -> They are your "expandable stats boosts".

And you also have the rings in addition.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Marthur

[Blademaster!]

Because I don't care about them.

So just because they don't go on some fantastic adventure together to fall in love, you don't care about the relationship that they have? That seems kind of shallow in my opinion, but there is nothing I can really say about that other than... what I just said. Yeah...

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

I probably could have done a better job to show that I knew what you were saying, but if you want to say I was being difficult you could say that too I guess. It's hard to draw a line with armies in a way since if you hire mercenaries, the army shouldn't pay for the mercenaries weapons, since their own army should be there priority, but yeah... It would be interesting if they incorporated both systems together.

[Florete]

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.

This is a poor excuse. I can't interpret nothing. I need to be given something to interpret in the first place, yet it sounds like you're suggesting I just create the story myself.

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?)

Well, Sigurd and Deirdre is exactly what I was complaining about when I brought this point up. It is not my job to create depth in characters, it's the writer's job.

I meant that they were both kind of boosts in FE4. Some that directly added a bonus to the parents stats through conversations and villages (and the children stats are calculated from their parents stats so they still count and cannot be given to other characters) -> They are your "expandable stats boosts".

And you also have the rings in addition.

I see. Then it still goes back to this: 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.

So just because they don't go on some fantastic adventure together to fall in love, you don't care about the relationship that they have? That seems kind of shallow in my opinion, but there is nothing I can really say about that other than... what I just said. Yeah...

Way to exaggerate. All they need is something to make me believe that they really love each other. Love at first sight is not like that.

I probably could have done a better job to show that I knew what you were saying, but if you want to say I was being difficult you could say that too I guess. It's hard to draw a line with armies in a way since if you hire mercenaries, the army shouldn't pay for the mercenaries weapons, since their own army should be there priority, but yeah... It would be interesting if they incorporated both systems together.

I see, and that makes sense as far as mercenaries goes. It's just that you generally aren't simultaneously controlling an army and a band of mercenaries they hired to help them out.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Red Fox of Fire

[Celice]

This is a poor excuse. I can't interpret nothing. I need to be given something to interpret in the first place, yet it sounds like you're suggesting I just create the story myself.

You can't interpret, then, that somehow, some way, events occurred inbetween the original Heroes and the birth of Vylon? Which, though not explicitly explained out for you, took place which allowed not only the birth of Vylon, and by way, Sigurd, but every other character you see.

Well, Sigurd and Deirdre is exactly what I was complaining about when I brought this point up. It is not my job to create depth in characters, it's the writer's job.

Again, it's an issue that you may not prefer it, but your preference doesn't reflect an actual mistake. If depth wasn't necessitated, it wasn't placed. There is actual discussion as to what's a good idea to concentrate on, and what the rest is on its own.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Celice

[Florete]

You can't interpret, then, that somehow, some way, events occurred inbetween the original Heroes and the birth of Vylon? Which, though not explicitly explained out for you, took place which allowed not only the birth of Vylon, and by way, Sigurd, but every other character you see.

This is pretty much a strawman. Believing and caring for the love two people feel for each other is not comparable to the events that simply transpire over time. Obviously stuff happens, but if the writers force me to just put in whatever I want instead of giving me something in order to have actual character development, it's hard to care about what they have the characters do later.

I can interpret dialogue and I can interpret certain events. I cannot interpret when I am not given anything to interpret in the first place.

Again, it's an issue that you may not prefer it, but your preference doesn't reflect an actual mistake. If depth wasn't necessitated, it wasn't placed. There is actual discussion as to what's a good idea to concentrate on, and what the rest is on its own.

Deep characters are not necessary for a plot, but from what I remember, FE4 would have greatly benefited from it and at times almost acted like it had them, which is actually a mistake. It's also annoying to hear people talk about how great these characters are when I am not even able to find the characters believable.

[Marthur]

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.

That's what the money is there for.

[Celice]

I can interpret dialogue and I can interpret certain events. I cannot interpret when I am not given anything to interpret in the first place.

You're the one deciding that there is a difference between the example I gave, and the lover's backgrounds. And it's your decision that's creating your frustration because you're the one creating an arbitrary distinction that one is different from the other, when neither are.

Because of this, there never will be an answer to reconcile anything unless you decide it's a good answer based on your criteria. That's fine. But it doesn't reflect the game at all when you view it that way--it only reflects your feelings about it all.

[Vorena]

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.

1) The combat windows can be calculated in later games as well by usually picking the "detailed combat window" from options. This to me doesn't make it outdated. Rather, it is a different play style option for people in later times who might like to do it by mentally each time.

2) Every FE game has chapters where it is usually pretty heavy in a type of class or unit making it difficult to train units in certain areas or chapters. Again, FE4 is different rather than outdated in this sense. Instead of throwing single enemies at you every turn as reinforcements, they allow you chances to have to deal with a bulk of reinforcements at one time and rush you. This is a pretty unique trait available to only a few chapters in other FE games while it happens fairly often in this one.

3) Most every FE game has given you a Jaigen character to solo with. It just so happens that this unit is your lord.

4) Sadly I agree with this bit. The storytelling parts are not much to my liking. It's an improvement imo from FE11/FE1 where you get very little background info from the rest of the characters that they later ones usually did (supports).

5) I do not see how this is much of a problem in FE4 having to visit locations for good items. It's pretty equivalent to the secret shops in the FE games. This doesn't seem to make it feel outdated to me. If anything it gives the game more chances for exploration as there are a number of conversations between units

6) This is another unique mechanic to the game that makes for a different way to think about how to play the game. Besides, it doesn't really make much sense either for units to sell items at one store, then some other unit the same turn can use those funds to buy weapons. How did they get the funds over there so fast?

I do not really see FE4 being outdated compared to the rest when you look at game play mechanics. Most of the stuff in the game was reused later (probably more efficiently; skills in FE10 for example), but it still is a fairly unique experience from the rest of the FE saga. The love mechanism in this game I believe is probably the best the series has to offer because supports lead to actual transfer of weapons, skills, and stats rather than simply a tiny battle boost.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Nyx

[Florete]

That's what the money is there for.

Now how can I trade freely between my units?

You're the one deciding that there is a difference between the example I gave, and the lover's backgrounds. And it's your decision that's creating your frustration because you're the one creating an arbitrary distinction that one is different from the other, when neither are.

Because of this, there never will be an answer to reconcile anything unless you decide it's a good answer based on your criteria. That's fine. But it doesn't reflect the game at all when you view it that way--it only reflects your feelings about it all.

I hardly even know what you're saying anymore. There is a very clear difference between these two things that have been brought up. Facts are facts, things happen and there's nothing else to be said about it. That is essentially what your example was, you are saying "things happen." Yes, shit happens. Yeah, I'm sure there was a bit more interaction between Sigurd and Deirdre before they actually went and had sex, but as far as I recall (and you're free to prove me wrong on this point), there was no indication of any of this. You can't just sweep it away by saying "Oh well it's obvious stuff happened, just decide for yourself." No. If the story wants me to care about its characters (and as I said before, I felt like it did), it needs to develop them itself, not have me come up with everything as you seem to think is okay, something I don't understand at all. If I want to create characters, I'll write my own story.

[Guy Starwind]

I think people need to remember this is a snes game. Room is limited. If this was on a newer system we would have more. Imo what we have works fine.

I do agree with standing in random areas to find things is annoying. I don't mind secrets but atleast hint at them

[Lews Therin]

Outdated? Hardly

I started to play this game about 2 months ago and found it great, Sure the money system annoyed me a bit but in the end it was a new way to challenge yourself, That also applies with the Holy Blood system, Multple castles and so on.

The story is one of the best I have ever seen its unique not too generic, it's just as good as RD.

The battle window making you think? (something like that) In the beginning you have to asses your units Strengths and weaknesses and later on you don't need to use the window to fight.

In my opinion its the best FE ive ever played.

[Marthur]

Now how can I trade freely between my units?

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're saying anymore.

In any case, you can "freely trade weapons" in FE4 as long as you know how to manage your money.

Sure it's a constraint, but it's not overly constraining (you can still trade stuff but have to think carefully about what you give, and who you give it to.) and it prevents abuse quite well.

On the other hand, FE10 skills' system isn't without fault. It allows you to stack all your skills on a handful of units making them broken. Not quite the best solution in my opinion.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Marthur

[Florete]

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're saying anymore.

Weapons: Trade freely.

Rings: Not trade "freely."

Sorry for not being specific on that one.

In any case, you can "freely trade weapons" in FE4 as long as you know how to manage your money.

Sure it's a constraint, but it's not overly constraining (you can still trade stuff but have to think carefully about what you give, and who you give it to.) and it prevents abuse quite well.

No, it's not overly constraining, but there's nothing "free" about needing both units to go to the shop and losing money in the process. And abuse? What "abuse" does this prevent? Other games in the series haven't seen such problems.

On the other hand, FE10 skills' system isn't without fault. It allows you to stack all your skills on a handful of units making them broken. Not quite the best solution in my opinion.

Except for the part where all units have a cap to how many skills they can use. Even someone like Tibarn with an overkill amount of extra capacity can only equip two more skills because of the four locked to him already. Beorc can generally only equip two useful skills. In HM in particular, it hardly makes anyone broken because enemies are rather tough.

And wait, can't you pretty much do the same with FE4 anyway by stacking a bunch of good weapons/rings on a few characters and watching them wreck? FE10's skill system is pretty similar to FE4's trading system.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

No, it's not overly constraining, but there's nothing "free" about needing both units to go to the shop and losing money in the process. And abuse? What "abuse" does this prevent? Other games in the series haven't seen such problems.

I'm guessing he's talking about the fact that being able to trade say... Rings and weapons like in the other games, you'd get the following:

Elite Ring - Multiple units getting Elite/Paragon effect, thus trivializing the game's EXP rank and the game itself further.

Thief Ring - Multiple units stealing money with their attacks thus more affordable repairs of staves, holy weapons and and whatever the hell costs a lot.

Knight Ring - MORE units with the canto effect. Pretty limited though.

Prayer Ring - X has 1 HP on him/her, let's watch him take a shot at this boss and dodge the counter-attack even though his speed is ass.

Pursuit Ring - Come now, anyone who's played FE4 must know what this could do for 1st gen and then 2nd gen requiring less pairings to get Pursuit as a natural skill.

Stat Rings - Oh look, X has just the ring Y needed in order to put Ishtar to sleep, double this speedy fuck, survive a holy weapon, move farther, evade status staves and so on.

Weapons - Can you say, multiple people acquiring the Critical skill due to clever use of a few weapons? 50 Kill Hero Lance, Sword, Magic tomes and more shit I'm too lazy to look up and add here.

Even if "free trade" is limited to just weapons, it's still possible to make the game so much easier.

As for other games (and assuming you meant "abuse" through the trade system not used in FE4)... well there's FE5 where you could toss around an assload of scrolls to units before a level up to turn them into monsters, FE9, FE10, FE11 and FE12 where you could trade around forged weapons to toss power around more folks, this being worse in the case of FE11 and FE12 where forged effective weapons allow for 1HKOs even in Lunatic mode of FE12 and trivialize FE11's H5 which now several members here probably scoff at.

Except for the part where all units have a cap to how many skills they can use. Even someone like Tibarn with an overkill amount of extra capacity can only equip two more skills because of the four locked to him already. Beorc can generally only equip two useful skills. In HM in particular, it hardly makes anyone broken because enemies are rather tough.

And wait, can't you pretty much do the same with FE4 anyway by stacking a bunch of good weapons/rings on a few characters and watching them wreck? FE10's skill system is pretty similar to FE4's trading system.

Said caps don't stop you from freely tossing Paragon around to 1 character per chapter when available so you can build up a small over-leveled group of units to trivialize the game without having to worry about money though.

The rings in question are limited to just +5 stat boosting rings that do not stack with another of the same type and the rings mentioned above which when compared to FE10, are limited to just Paragon (2x EXP) and Celerity (boosted movement). FE10 has the caps to contend with but the need for money for each character to get these rings is more restrictive seeing as some of the characters suck so you have to put some effort into it and the 50k money cap is itself a restriction since it only allows money for 2 stat rings that cost 20k each or 1 of the skill rings that cost 40k so only the best characters see much freedom when it comes to getting these rings traded to them so it's less abusable than the FE10 skills.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Sirius

[Florete]

I'm guessing he's talking about the fact that being able to trade say... Rings and weapons like in the other games, you'd get the following:

Even if "free trade" is limited to just weapons, it's still possible to make the game so much easier.

This point was specifically for the weapons, though I did forget about the whole 50 kill thing.

As for other games (and assuming you meant "abuse" through the trade system not used in FE4)... well there's FE5 where you could toss around an assload of scrolls to units before a level up to turn them into monsters, FE9, FE10, FE11 and FE12 where you could trade around forged weapons to toss power around more folks, this being worse in the case of FE11 and FE12 where forged effective weapons allow for 1HKOs even in Lunatic mode of FE12 and trivialize FE11's H5 which now several members here probably scoff at.

11 I agree with and 12 I just don't know, but in 9 and 10 it is generally not the best idea to have to be constantly trading around a good weapon to kill enemies with. It makes things easier that you can, but it's far from broken.

Said caps don't stop you from freely tossing Paragon around to 1 character per chapter when available so you can build up a small over-leveled group of units to trivialize the game without having to worry about money though.

Sounds awesome in theory (and in NM or EM), but in HM it's not that easy. You go too long with only one Paragon scroll, especially considering the fact that only one team can have it, and almost no one can make use of it for just one map to become a kill machine. Most units need something else, like how Haar needs a Speedwing, and sometimes Paragon can actually be bad if the unit already has a few stats capped because the BEXP would be better than natural levels.

Taking Paragon also necessarily means not taking a skill like Celerity or Adept, of course. In many cases it's trading current performance for later performance.

The rings in question are limited to just +5 stat boosting rings that do not stack with another of the same type and the rings mentioned above which when compared to FE10, are limited to just Paragon (2x EXP) and Celerity (boosted movement). FE10 has the caps to contend with but the need for money for each character to get these rings is more restrictive seeing as some of the characters suck so you have to put some effort into it and the 50k money cap is itself a restriction since it only allows money for 2 stat rings that cost 20k each or 1 of the skill rings that cost 40k so only the best characters see much freedom when it comes to getting these rings traded to them so it's less abusable than the FE10 skills.

I see. Okay, so FE4's system does at least work well for itself, all things considered. For the record, I didn't have much trouble with it when playing, and I got used to it, though it's definitely not my preference, nor is it an objectively better or worse system. And that's all there is left to say on that matter.

[Marthur]

And abuse? What "abuse" does this prevent? Other games in the series haven't seen such problems.

I'm talking about the arena again. Freely trading weapons would already allow all sword users to pass all levels of the arena without any issue thanks to the sleep sword. Your dancer could pass it all without any trouble whatsoever and since it can be traded freely according to this scenario, she wouldn't even have to pay the high repair price. Then, there are also the Hero Weapons and weapons such as Armorslayer/WingClipper/KnightKiller.

It would just trivialize the arena completely.

Other games don't have this issue because they don't even try to tackle the problem. They symply don't allow the player to use their own weapons. And the result is that the arena in the other games aren't even worth visiting, unless you enjoy wasting turns with a high risk of casualty/want to build a competitive team for multiplayer in the DS games.

[Florete]

The point of visiting the Arena in the other games is...essentially the exact same thing. Free experience and money. You just can't trivialize it because you don't use your own weapons (though there are other ways, such as Ninis's Grace in FE7). That's better (aside from the fact that you can abuse it infinitely, as already mentioned).

[dondon151]

As for other games (and assuming you meant "abuse" through the trade system not used in FE4)... well there's FE5 where you could toss around an assload of scrolls to units before a level up to turn them into monsters, FE9, FE10, FE11 and FE12 where you could trade around forged weapons to toss power around more folks, this being worse in the case of FE11 and FE12 where forged effective weapons allow for 1HKOs even in Lunatic mode of FE12 and trivialize FE11's H5 which now several members here probably scoff at.

I don't think this is a bad thing; I'd venture to say that it increases strategic depth. There's so many crazy things that you can do with smart trading of weapons, especially if the weapon is in short supply (try doing FE5 chapters 4-6 with only 1 Steel Sword to share between 3-4 units). You can change equipped weapons for units who have already acted; you can transport items between units for simultaneous use; you can chain a weapon between 4 units so that all of them get to use it, etc.

It's not like the removal of trading completely prevented the abuse of rings and weapons with special properties. Smart pawning and arenaing offsets the costs of having to buy pawned rings, and the only difference here is that a bit of thinking is required to trivialize the system.

I agree with the topic title strictly in the sense that FE4 runs too damn slow to be enjoyable. There are other numerous gameplay and design factors as well, but I wouldn't attribute those to outdatedness - more like FE4 just simply not being a very good game.

Edited August 2, 2011 by dondon151

[Momo]

I agree with what dondon just posted for the most part. It was kind of fun thinking about how to get each unit the supplies they needed, but I'm glad they didn't do it for any other game. It also helped that the game was pretty easy most of the time, so messing up didn't have that big of a repercussion.

The game itself plays too clunky when compared to say, FE6. Even simple things like the B button not canceling a unit's action, but going to Wait is really annoying and makes the game feel more tedious. It would probably benefit the most from getting remade.

[Paperblade]

The stupid thing about FE4's pawn shop system is that the units that can afford to use it don't need to, which creates a rich-get-richer sort of system. Yeah, I could buy a bunch of rings for Shanan, but I don't need to because he's Shanan. Like, I never had a unit with 40k+ gold where I was like "Man I wish I had MORE gold to spend on all this STUFF" because that STUFF was mostly stupid overkill.

[Integrity]

Like, I never had a unit with 40k+ gold where I was like "Man I wish I had MORE gold to spend on all this STUFF" because that STUFF was mostly stupid overkill.

Sigurd right at the end of Gen 1, trying to set up Ring inheritance for Celice AND repair Tyrfing.

[Celice]

all those fucking hacks with everything awesome that just needs to be purchased NOW

but then again, some of them raise the money cap and give more, soooooooo

[Paperblade]

Sigurd right at the end of Gen 1, trying to set up Ring inheritance for Celice AND repair Tyrfing.

Implying Sigurd doesn't have all the rings anyway from boss killing

[grandjackal]

I don't think this is a bad thing; I'd venture to say that it increases strategic depth. There's so many crazy things that you can do with smart trading of weapons, especially if the weapon is in short supply (try doing FE5 chapters 4-6 with only 1 Steel Sword to share between 3-4 units). You can change equipped weapons for units who have already acted; you can transport items between units for simultaneous use; you can chain a weapon between 4 units so that all of them get to use it, etc.

It's not like the removal of trading completely prevented the abuse of rings and weapons with special properties. Smart pawning and arenaing offsets the costs of having to buy pawned rings, and the only difference here is that a bit of thinking is required to trivialize the system.

Agreeing with the sentiments here, but I think they only attempted to limit trading in FE4 because items in that game had the potential to be ridiculous. While it's true that you can trivialize trading in-base, the fact you can't once you're out on the battlefield was probably the point.

Though really, how often would you actually need to trade in FE4? Items on certain people tend to be more than an obvious choice.

I agree with the topic title strictly in the sense that FE4 runs too damn slow to be enjoyable. There are other numerous gameplay and design factors as well, but I wouldn't attribute those to outdatedness - more like FE4 just simply not being a very good game.

Yeah, I dunno where all this hype for FE4 came form. When I first entered the fandom, there was apparently all this "FE4 was so good" deal going on, so I decided to give it a shot. I was so disappointed that I was stunned people had this opinion. It wasn't even like "FF7's the best gam ever" in which case it's not but still fun, this is like the game gets hyped when it's pure ass in reality, and I'm glad the hype got dropped like an FE6 armor.

The game is expansive and empty which is a horrid combination, all the interesting unique factors of FE4 turn out to either be boring (inheritence, being able to field everyone), pointless (gold on individual units), or abusable (Just about everything else), and units are just absurd in this game. Did I also mention the soundtrack o this game is obscenely dull, which makes the expansive emptiness of the game even more sleep-inducing?

[Celice]

Limiting the item resources tends to bring out more specific uses per character, which comes in tandem with the concentration not on how players use their units, but what their units are good for (in both practice and passing on features to children).

Newer fans tend to dislike FE4. Most of the fans I've known who've been playing the series for a while really enjoy it--not to mention how FE4 just swamps a bunch of Japanese fansites (not to say the other games aren't relative, but FE4 is really of a high proportion).