Mechanics that you want

[Momo]

You can't really have a balanced interactive story.

[Rehab]

No matter what you're only ever going to be able to "develop" your character by answering a series of questions/decisions, and those answers/questions are only ever going to allow you to develop your character along pre-existing and cleanly separated lines. There is no way to truly be "unique" but rather decide to be one of a handful of personality types. In either case the plot will have to progress regardless of what your decisions are and so your decisions most likely will only ever to make a purely superficial or cosmetic change to the game. In doing so that means that what your character's personality truly doesn't matter in the main thrust of the plot meaning that we have returned to the old FE plot style of extrinsic forces motivating the main character from objective to objective... which leads to a lack of compelling drama.

I mean you talk about making "a unique perspective on the world Fire Emblem is presenting us with" but the problem is that that perspective would ultimately mean nothing. Even if IS made, say, three completely different plot lines to follow depending on your decisions, you're still trapped on the rails of those plot lines and the entire "decision making" process could have been shortened into one simple decision of which plot line to take. I couldn't even fathom the amount of bad Path of Radiance would be if at nearly every point in the story the player could make Ike give a "good" response, a "bad" response, or some kind of "neutral" response. It would make Ike himself a nonentity.

FE7 through FERD were consistently praised by critics for their storytelling and plot. Through both the recent Fire Emblem series as well as the Paper Mario series, Intelligent Systems has demonstrated skill in this arena. Why would we want to revert from that? People on here keep asking for cheap little gameplay gimmicks at the cost of the complete story. What's worse is that some of these same people turn back to say "well the characters already suck so who cares?"

I'm not sure I agree with all of your suppositions. There doesn't need to be a sense of morality tied to decisions made in RPGs, for example. What does have to be tied to a decision point is weight- it has to matter in a way that both has consequences within the story, and develops the character. Going by role-playing standards, it wouldn't be good to have the decision be a one-time thing, or, yeah, it could feel trivial, but what's wrong with that? Imagine, though, just being able to pick sides or origin stories, or just what a character thinks of their situation. I think there's something cool to that.

I don't think the term cosmetic applies well, here, either. That would mean that the choice is just for appearances, basically trivial, right? Like swapping color palettes for an Advance Wars C.O.? I'm not into trying to mess with the basic gameplay of Fire Emblem here, but that doesn't make the context of the world the gameplay takes place in simple window dressing, does it?

I don't have anything wrong with watching a well-made scripted character react to situations to drive the plot forward, and I'm really not saying that any of the past games in the series would have easily benefited from a lot of thoughtless decision points thrown in. But if they were made with that in mind? Done right, hell fucking yeah I would play a Fire Emblem game that let me pick more than one route through the plot, giving a chance to interpret its characters in different ways.

I do agree that there are limitations, or at least problems to be addressed, that may prevent a videogame from allowing somebody to roleplay a character that is completely unique. With good writing, however, there can be enough ambiguity to encourage the player to interpret and imagine their character in unique and creative ways. That's the point of playing a role. Sure, there's going to be some illusion of choice in there, and the game will probably at some point have to force a player to pick one of a few definite outcomes, but so long as it's well-written and the choice is made out to be a necessary decision in the context of the game, what's wrong with that?

Have you played a current-gen game called Dragon Age, or any other Bioware RPGs? Any Obsidian games, Deus Ex, or Vampire: The Masquerade-Bloodlines? Games are difficult to get an authentic role-playing experience from, but those games show that elements of it can be done.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Rehab

[Dark Sage]

This. For example, FE4 has so many unbalanced elements, but that's what makes it fun IMO.

I disagree. FE4's imbalances were arguably a detriment to the game. Gen 1 can be trivialized with a sufficiently powerful Sigurd, Holsety Levin, Lex, and Sylvia. Gen 2 can basically be trivialized by using a pimped out Celice, a dancer, Shanan, Aless, and a Holsety wielder. Pursuit was a terrible idea (it didn't balance anything, it just made characters needlessly worse and limited good pairing choices) and the game favored mounts way too much.

It's a shame too. When you get right down to it, the main role of a lot of your units in Gen 2 is to clean up leftovers made by the Broken Squad and some of them are pretty useless (like Patty and Tinny) anyway.

For the most part, I feel little motivation to play FE4 now. It's just so not fun for me now that I can barely play it for more than a short while. I think the problem might also be burnout (I played a LOT of FE4) but the balancing issues definitely contributed.

Note that I'm not saying perfect balance needs to be achieved. It's fine for a game to have balancing issues, like SSBM (a very unbalanced fighting game). It's just I feel that games shouldn't be so unbalanced in the way that FE4 is.

[Othin]

Severe unbalance with weight only in one direction is boring. However, when both sides of the scale contain something substantially notable and unique, then it's okay for it to tip considerably in one direction as long as it's not too far. Too much balance, especially in a single player game is bad, and too little balance is bad in any game. It is between those two extremes where games can find situations where gameplay is at its most interesting.

For an example: Right now, I'm playing Pokemon Rumble Blast. Being real-time and with free movement, combat has many differences, and the moves reflect that. For example, while Hyper Beam and Giga Impact are a bit slow to use, they don't require any recharge time afterwards and wind up as, for the most part, just ridiculously powerful moves. But those moves cannot simply be taught easily or at times when they may be needed, so when finding a Pokemon with one of those moves, that Pokemon becomes especially valuable while in use. Pokemon with those or other especially powerful abilities cannot dominate the game on their own. A boss battle will typically require use of 10-20 Pokemon or more at different points, and at a given time, you're not going to have 10 Pokemon available that have traits like that to make them ideal for the given situation. So you make use of the powerful Pokemon when you can, but not exclusively.

That last bit is something FE games have trouble with, but it is not insurmountable. A main issue is that gameplay is utterly dominated by the incredibly easy access to such ridiculous capabilities as one-rounding enemies and fighting effectively at range 1-2. These are good things to have, but the ability to use what should be limited and valued capabilities with such ease allows decently powered characters to become one-man armies. With this, easy healing, and little reason not to use them from one battle to another, there is often a lack of incentive to rely on characters other than the strongest.

Notable ways of dealing with it within the series include: The Exp rank in FE4/6/7 requiring use of weaker characters and a the maintaining of a larger team, the Fatigue system in FE5 requiring characters to be rotated out every few battle and yielding a similar result, and the Happiness rank in Berwick Saga, functioning much like the Exp rank in encouraging a larger team, in combination with individual characters being far less dominating, for reasons such as the restriction of the capabilities noted above.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Othin

[Dark Sage]

I utterly hate FE4's Exp rank though. It requires me to go way out of my way to use awful units like Arden and since you have 47 characters and need 1000 levels gained to A rank, it means that each unit needs to gain roughly 21 levels, and this is maddening to do since Sylvia has trouble getting to high levels, Dew fails at combat, and Arden and Azel have ass move.

[Othin]

I utterly hate FE4's Exp rank though. It requires me to go way out of my way to use awful units like Arden and since you have 47 characters and need 1000 levels gained to A rank, it means that each unit needs to gain roughly 21 levels, and this is maddening to do since Sylvia has trouble getting to high levels, Dew fails at combat, and Arden and Azel have ass move.

I do agree that FE4's system has some issues, although I had some different ones in mind. FE4's ranks being such a hassle doesn't help the incentive to actually go for them, either.

FE5's Fatigue system is particularly notable, I'd say, in more directly limiting the use of the best characters and not so much forcing use of every character. However, I think Berwick Saga works out at least as well even outside of ranked runs simply due to the limits on what characters can accomplish on their own. The mercenary system also contributes, having many of the best characters charge a hefty fee for each chapter they're hired until permanently recruited later in the game. Sherpa, for example, can shred enemies, particularly with his personal weapon Brimranger, but costs 2800 to recruit for an entire chapter (which only goes up as he gains levels). Brimranger furthermore eliminates his innate Avoid while in use, limiting his durability, and can only be used so many times in the first place.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Othin

[Paperblade]

I actually liked FE4's rank system. It felt more like an actual strategy game rather than attack moving with Sigurd.

[General Banzai]

I'm not sure I agree with all of your suppositions. There doesn't need to be a sense of morality tied to decisions made in RPGs, for example. What does have to be tied to a decision point is weight- it has to matter in a way that both has consequences within the story, and develops the character. Going by role-playing standards, it wouldn't be good to have the decision be a one-time thing, or, yeah, it could feel trivial, but what's wrong with that? Imagine, though, just being able to pick sides or origin stories, or just what a character thinks of their situation. I think there's something cool to that.

I don't think the term cosmetic applies well, here, either. That would mean that the choice is just for appearances, basically trivial, right? Like swapping color palettes for an Advance Wars C.O.? I'm not into trying to mess with the basic gameplay of Fire Emblem here, but that doesn't make the context of the world the gameplay takes place in simple window dressing, does it?

I don't have anything wrong with watching a well-made scripted character react to situations to drive the plot forward, and I'm really not saying that any of the past games in the series would have easily benefited from a lot of thoughtless decision points thrown in. But if they were made with that in mind? Done right, hell fucking yeah I would play a Fire Emblem game that let me pick more than one route through the plot, giving a chance to interpret its characters in different ways.

I do agree that there are limitations, or at least problems to be addressed, that may prevent a videogame from allowing somebody to roleplay a character that is completely unique. With good writing, however, there can be enough ambiguity to encourage the player to interpret and imagine their character in unique and creative ways. That's the point of playing a role. Sure, there's going to be some illusion of choice in there, and the game will probably at some point have to force a player to pick one of a few definite outcomes, but so long as it's well-written and the choice is made out to be a necessary decision in the context of the game, what's wrong with that?

Have you played a current-gen game called Dragon Age, or any other Bioware RPGs? Any Obsidian games, Deus Ex, or Vampire: The Masquerade-Bloodlines? Games are difficult to get an authentic role-playing experience from, but those games show that elements of it can be done.

I was particularly thinking of Dragon Age and Mass Effect when thinking of how a character's decisions would impact the game.

Meaning, of course, not that much at all. The things that change are superficial and don't have a real strong bearing on the plot. Let's say in Path of Radiance when Ike first meets Sanaki and gets offended by her you get the option to say three different things. One is a calm, polite response. One is a snarky, joking response. And one is an angry, confrontational response. No matter what you say, though, what happens next other than perhaps a few lines from Sanaki is unchanged. She's still going to enlist you to do her dirty work in sniffing out Oliver. She's not going to behead you for being rude and she's not going to give you any extra rewards for being polite. The next chapter will be the same objective and you will do it the exact same way. Nothing has ACTUALLY changed. It's pointless, superficial, and it doesn't allow for a whole lot of complexity. Ike can choose between three clearly defined responses. There is no room for intricacies or any ACTUAL character because he's become enslaved to basic "nice guy, jokester, or mean guy" cliches.

[Dark Sage]

The FE4 Ranking system is arguably better than FE7's and FE6's (mostly due to lack of a Funds Rank) but the EXP requirements for an A rank are still extremely gay.

FE5's ranking system is probably the best. It requires going out of your way to get everyone while aiming for low turncounts.

[Rewjeo]

The FE4 Ranking system is arguably better than FE7's and FE6's (mostly due to lack of a Funds Rank) but the EXP requirements for an A rank are still extremely gay.

I am confused by this statement. Does FE4's EXP rank require you to pair characters with another of the same sex?

FE5's ranking system is probably the best. It requires going out of your way to get everyone while aiming for low turncounts.

I don't really see how that's the best. Why does forcing me to go out of my way to do something make it good? I haven't played FE4 or 5 ranked ever, mind you, so this is an actual question. Why is FE5's so great?

[Anouleth]

I am confused by this statement. Does FE4's EXP rank require you to pair characters with another of the same sex?

I don't really see how that's the best. Why does forcing me to go out of my way to do something make it good?

If the ranking system did not force you to do anything, then it would really be indistinguishable from having no ranking system at all. It would merely serve as a mechanism for automatically presenting the player with an "A" at the end of the game.

But his point specifically is that FE5's ranking system does not encourage you to skip content or characters.

[Dark Sage]

I am confused by this statement. Does FE4's EXP rank require you to pair characters with another of the same sex?

I won't hold this against you since I walked into that one.

I don't really see how that's the best. Why does forcing me to go out of my way to do something make it good? I haven't played FE4 or 5 ranked ever, mind you, so this is an actual question. Why is FE5's so great?

I actually haven't played FE5 ranked either, but it is very similar to an efficiency run. A lot of the later chapters do require the use of Warp, but there's still enough of a turn buffer to use different tactics and getting everyone and seeing all the content is what most players will do anyway. It also doesn't bog you down with ranks that force you to do retarded shit (Funds).

I did do an FE4 Ranked Run though. Only managed a B (I whiffed the Experience rank and took too long on the Final Chapter) though. I did start a second such run where I saw noticeable improvement in Experience(I got Dew to promote and everyone was at a higher level than before) and Tactics IIRC, and I might've gotten an A that time had I actually have continued.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Dark Sage

[Othin]

FE5's ranking system is good in that it pushes the player to do just about whatever they can do in terms of turns, but the requirement of recruiting characters adds an incentive to do more than the bare minimum of completing the game. I know some people here have said they find it hard to justify going beyond that bare minimum, and such ranks help with that. That said, I actually favor the Funds rank and more lenient Exp rank in FE6 and FE7 as they encourage doing even more than that minimum and ensuring that even less content is simply dismissed. This is why I tend to support ranked runs when possible (although the only game I've ever actually completed ranked is FE5).

Edited November 11, 2011 by Othin

[dondon151]

If it's genre dependent, it can't be one of the core tenants of good game design.

Semantics. More importantly, balance is more important in some games than in others, but it's still a goal that all games should strive to achieve.

That last bit is something FE games have trouble with, but it is not insurmountable. A main issue is that gameplay is utterly dominated by the incredibly easy access to such ridiculous capabilities as one-rounding enemies and fighting effectively at range 1-2. These are good things to have, but the ability to use what should be limited and valued capabilities with such ease allows decently powered characters to become one-man armies. With this, easy healing, and little reason not to use them from one battle to another, there is often a lack of incentive to rely on characters other than the strongest.

Consistently having enemies that are extremely durable (i.e. requiring 3 rounds or more to KO) is not fun from my personal experience. The game becomes less of a task of strategic positioning and more of a task of ganging up on enemies whenever possible.

But his point specifically is that FE5's ranking system does not encourage you to skip content or characters.

It does encourage you to skip chapter 14x, but that's the only exception. Other gaidens are required because that's the only way to recruit certain characters.

Also, with only AAA as the maximum rank, I'm fairly sure that the game can be completed Warpless (resulting in no "skipping of content"). A 70 turn difference is a huge buffer.

Edited November 11, 2011 by dondon151

[Dark Sage]

Funds is a terrible rank because all it does is basically punish me for doing things like selling Gems (which are the whole point of them) and using my good weapons (which could aid in improving my Tactics and Combat ranks). In FE7, it can also be mostly trivialized anyway by Matthew simply stealing the Silver Card, so basically you can just simply buy enough weapons to have high liquid funds and not promote Dart and a thief (you might be able to get away with recruiting Farina though).

Edited November 11, 2011 by Dark Sage

[dondon151]

Yeah, I personally think the funds rank would be handled better if it tracked the assets obtained over the course of the game rather than the assets retained over the course of the game. The game provides the player resources; he should use them.

[Othin]

Consistently having enemies that are extremely durable (i.e. requiring 3 rounds or more to KO) is not fun from my personal experience. The game becomes less of a task of strategic positioning and more of a task of ganging up on enemies whenever possible.

I've found that Berwick Saga manages to encourage characters to work as a team without becoming tedious, and it certainly has as much emphasis on strategic positioning as the other games.

Pulverize. I've mentioned it before, and I'm surely going to mention it many more times, because it's such a perfect example. It's a skill used by Axel and Daoud, as well as a number of enemies throughout the game. When initiating combat, it can be used to double the character's Mt (before applying enemy Def) on the first attack in exchange for negating the character's own defenses, but it can only be used when remaining stationary. It can OHKO most enemies, including many bosses, but it's player-phase only and cannot be used entirely freely due to the movement restriction, making it a method for one-rounding enemies that happens based on strategy rather than simply being the result of placing a character near an enemy.

There are many more examples. Leon and Ouro can use Deathmatch to trigger five rounds of combat against an enemy able to counter and dispose of enemies quickly, but you'd better be damn sure your character can kill the enemy first. (Ouro usually can, which is why he's another expensive mercenary.) Indeed, the main thing keeping characters from killing enemies in one round is the rarity of Pursuit to hit an enemy twice, but certain weapons can grant them the extra attacks necessary to do so, being limited enough to make them a valuable commodity not to be wasted, but not so rare as to usually lack relevance as an option. To do it another way, Dean and Arthur can use Desperation to increase their own accuracy and hit twice in exchange for taking a 100% accurate counterattack that, as with Pulverize, ignores their own defenses. And then there's Sherlock and Faye, who can use different skills to gain several hits in one round of combat with no drawbacks other than having to wait a number of turns before using the skill again.

One-rounding in Berwick Saga is not necessarily rare, but it does require thought and strategy that can vary greatly with different characters. It is typically limited to the player phase, and generally requires some notable cost or risk. These, I have found, yield much more in the way of strategy.

Yeah, I personally think the funds rank would be handled better if it tracked the assets obtained over the course of the game rather than the assets retained over the course of the game. The game provides the player resources; he should use them.

I like that idea.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Othin

[General Banzai]

Funds rank is an easy fix, as Dondon pointed out. I feel that a ranking system which combines an assets obtained Funds, a units recruited Survival rank, and a Tactics rank which while fast allows some breathing room (FE7's Tactics, for instance) would be personally preferable. In that way the focus of playing would be more on keeping people alive and getting the valuables than warp skipping.

[Dark Sage]

Othin, I know you are in love with Berwick Saga and want to marry it, but could you please stop fangirling over it every time you make a post? It's very irritating of you.

If the game has ranks, I'd like these to be the following ones:

Tactics: Self explanatory on why. Shouldn't be too lenient like FE6's. Encourages use of prepromotes.

Combat: Might appeal to some people. Encourages the use of better units

Experience: Encourages the use of weaker units and adds an extra layer of challenge to the game. This, combined with Tactics and Combat, means that a balance of promoted and unpromoted unit types in terms of use becomes necessary. Either levels gained or experience total is fine but if it's the former, it shouldn't be a ridiculous amount of levels needed.

Survival: Self explanatory on why.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Dark Sage

[Mirron]

Guess I'll chime in on the WRPG vs. JRPG system of story telling, as that's mostly what it feels like it boils down too. In general agree, Bioware games can be fun, but the main character is immensely dull. FE isn't necessarily doing miles away better, but they're still... individuals. It's kind of funny, since Japan used to do a lot of those blank slate characters, and have stopped with it, but that's what America is mostly doing with the main character in RPG's. Ultimately, I'd rather have an overall story told. One with branching options is fine, since I like going down the many different paths, but in the end, I want each choice to be majorly important.

[Othin]

Othin, I know you are in love with Berwick Saga and want to marry it, but could you please stop fangirling over it every time you make a post? It's very irritating of you.

Most of my views about ideal directions for the FE series are heavily influenced by Berwick Saga, and at times such as this one, such views require explanation and examples. If you consider such explanations and examples to be fangirling, then sorry, but no.

[dondon151]

One-rounding in Berwick Saga is not necessarily rare, but it does require thought and strategy that can vary greatly with different characters. It is typically limited to the player phase, and generally requires some notable cost or risk. These, I have found, yield much more in the way of strategy.

I think that the key point in all of this is that ORKOing is limited to player phases. This is probably a solid idea in general (although definitely annoying for rout objectives). I've always contrasted Fire Emblem with Advance Wars because Fire Emblem greatly encourages counterattacking whereas Advance Wars greatly encourages initiating attacks.

[Othin]

I think that the key point in all of this is that ORKOing is limited to player phases. This is probably a solid idea in general (although definitely annoying for rout objectives). I've always contrasted Fire Emblem with Advance Wars because Fire Emblem greatly encourages counterattacking whereas Advance Wars greatly encourages initiating attacks.

Now that you mention it, I agree. Thinking about it that way, I feel like what could make that work and go a long way to improving the strategy of the series without changing much is simply to limit standard double attacking to the initiator.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Othin

[Rothene]

Heck, why not have units become weaker the lower their percentage of current Hp is in relation to their max Hp while we're at it.

[Anouleth]

Heck, why not have units become weaker the lower their percentage of current Hp is in relation to their max Hp while we're at it.

I don't like that idea as much. Preventing double attacks on counter-attacks makes a certain amount of sense and is a simple, elegant solution to the problem.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Anouleth