Mechanics that you want

[Dark Sage]

I like how in the Akaneia games, you could essentially make Marth a dick by having him:

1. Kill Gordin when he's tied up.

2. Deliberately get half his army killed.

3. Kill Gra soldiers who don't fight back.

4. Kill Gra soldiers in front of Sheema after recruiting her.

5. Kill Maria and Chainey completely unprovoked.

6. Kill Sheema in front of Samason and vice versa.

7. Kill his sister and Julian's and Sirius's girlfriends.

[eclipse]

Do you think the people posting here are so foolish as to start talking about FE4 and FE9 entirely at random? Everything you see here (or perhaps almost everything) was brought up to prove a point about the implications of such a change to the gameplay mechanics. The relevance is clear in the posts where those parts of the discussion began; feel free to re-read it and see for yourself. It's clear that you haven't been following the discussion well, and certainly not well enough to tell people how to proceed with that discussion. I'm not going to bother explaining these things when you can see them for yourself and should have already done so before jumping into the discussion.

My opinion stands. The best post about it so far was from Cam, who brought up a game with that kind of mechanic. I don't care how the other established FE stories may/may not mesh with this; those games weren't designed with split story mechanics in mind.

So, to make this topic relevant again. . .I like having movable skills, but I think certain skills should be class-innate and non-transferable, like a thief's lockpicking skill.

[Celice]

I like having movable skills, but I think certain skills should be class-innate and non-transferable, like a thief's lockpicking skill.

I dunno, I think perhaps the skill should work like this: on thieves, no lockpick is required, but on other characters, you need a lockpick. I'd like to see the skills be a lot more dynamic on how they operate, not these generic "chunks" of augmentations. Or even just screw it all and have everyone with the skill just pick it freely. We've played with keys and picks long enough, in my opinion.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Celice

[Snike]

So, to make this topic relevant again. . .I like having movable skills, but I think certain skills should be class-innate and non-transferable, like a thief's lockpicking skill.

I'm not too sure about class-innate and class-locked skills myself, because I prefer customization to the max. Maybe just limit certain abilities to a group of classes, and make these skills optional if there's capacity?

Edit:

Well gee, if only the world revolved around you. Too bad in the real world you're the only irrelevant thing here.

This is completely relevant to the topic of game mechanics.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Snike

[Othin]

Too much customization gets rid of characters' abilities to have meaningful individual capabilities, as seen with the reclassing disaster in the DS games.

[Celice]

The player is in complete control of giving units their individuality with "too much" customization. It's only a disaster when the players inaccurately call the engine at fault, when it's the players who make the characters mindless doppelgangers.

[Momo]

Too much customization gets rid of characters' abilities to have meaningful individual capabilities, as seen with the reclassing disaster in the DS games.

It's hard to be individual when you're given like four guys of the same class every chapter.

[CT075]

The player is in complete control of giving units their individuality with "too much" customization. It's only a disaster when the players inaccurately call the engine at fault, when it's the players who make the characters mindless doppelgangers.

Unless there is some space constraint that makes it either a "we have reclassing" or "we have not-cardboard dialogue", it's not all my fault if I really don't see the difference between Palla and Katria.

[Othin]

The player is in complete control of giving units their individuality with "too much" customization. It's only a disaster when the players inaccurately call the engine at fault, when it's the players who make the characters mindless doppelgangers.

If the game gave us the option to freely turn characters into Demon Kings with 50 in every stat, would it be the player's fault for making the game ridiculously easy? No, it would not, and it's the same here. We could ignore the option and stick with what we were given for a more interesting game, but that option would be cheapened by the existence of the alternative.

Or perhaps an example that actually exists: FE8 gives you the option each chapter turn one of your character slots into a Demon King known as Seth. You can ignore that option and have a game that's not nearly as easy, but it's not nearly as meaningful as if Seth hadn't existed or hadn't been so overpowered in the first place.

It's hard to be individual when you're given like four guys of the same class every chapter.

I never said the rest of the series was perfect at it, especially the worst offenders of what you describe. (Which is mostly the games with Reclass anyway.) It mainly depends on skills to give the game more than "this character has more stats than that one"; the games with them typically did better in that area. FE10 not so much, since it ruined the skill system both with the same excessive customization and with making the skills largely irrelevant anyway.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Othin

[General Banzai]

A game developer could make a game with no undefined character or plot and leave it to the player to decide everything, sure. That's laziness. We pay (through our purchases) writers to write, not to slap down an infinite number of options and say "Oh, make it whatever you want."

The writers at Intelligent Systems are better writers than 99% of people. How about they do their job and not try to get us to do it for them?

[Momo]

I never said the rest of the series was perfect at it, especially the worst offenders of what you describe. (Which is mostly the games with Reclass anyway.) It mainly depends on skills to give the game more than "this character has more stats than that one"; the games with them typically did better in that area. FE10 not so much, since it ruined the skill system both with the same excessive customization and with making the skills largely irrelevant anyway.

I was referring to the two games with reclass. They were not individuals to begin with, having them be near interchangeable just made it more fun.

The writers at Intelligent Systems are better writers than 99% of people. How about they do their job and not try to get us to do it for them?

There's not really anything in these games that's better than standard JRPG writing. These days, FE isn't even very unique since there are multiple games in the same setting or the same genre.

[Celice]

Not too many JRPGs have been interested in political motives like Fire Emblem has. It's a pretty unique thing for the series.

If the game gave us the option to freely turn characters into Demon Kings with 50 in every stat, would it be the player's fault for making the game ridiculously easy?

Sounds about right.

Unless there is some space constraint that makes it either a "we have reclassing" or "we have not-cardboard dialogue", it's not all my fault if I really don't see the difference between Palla and Katria.

We were talking about skills :<

[Momo]

Not too many JRPGs have been interested in political motives like Fire Emblem has. It's a pretty unique thing for the series.

I haven't played FE10, so other than 9 I can't think of any other game that tried this at all. Even in 9 it was pretty binary as far as good guys and bad guys go.

edit: Othin, I don't care about two wrongs if the end result is more fun.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Momo

[Othin]

I was referring to the two games with reclass. They were not individuals to begin with, having them be near interchangeable just made it more fun.

Two wrongs make a right now?

In any case, I'm just talking about issues with the system in general, not in its application to two already seriously flawed games.

Sounds about right.

Tell me, how would you define an RPG that's too easy?

[General Banzai]

There's not really anything in these games that's better than standard JRPG writing. These days, FE isn't even very unique since there are multiple games in the same setting or the same genre.

If that's true, then the standard JRPG writer is a better writer than 99% of people.

[Celice]

I haven't played FE10, so other than 9 I can't think of any other game that tried this at all. Even in 9 it was pretty binary as far as good guys and bad guys go.

Almost all the Fire Emblems have a little bit of politics going on. FE4 had a lot, FE5 a little less but it was still under the scope of FE4. FE7 had a bit in the beginning (and arguable with the Bern parents). FE9 and 10 had it a lot.

Sadly they almost always give way to a generic evil force in the end though. FE4 stayed the most out of it though, making almost all the travesties and horrible things which occurred to be caused directly from the hands of real rulers, not evil gods. It's the human element that's most appreciable.

Tell me, how would you define an RPG that's too easy?

It depends on what the RPG is like. A generalized and ambiguous question is going to beget the same of an answer

Most RPGs are generically easy in the first place.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Celice

[General Banzai]

Sadly they almost always give way to a generic evil force in the end though. FE4 stayed the most out of it though, making almost all the travesties and horrible things which occurred to be caused directly from the hands of real rulers, not evil gods. It's the human element that's most appreciable.

I wouldn't say that they give way to the generic evil force in all of the games, by any means. There is no generic evil force at all in the Radiance Saga, and in at least one route of FESS it's implied that Lyon is really controlling the Demon King and not the other way around. There's an effort to paint Nergal as a tragic villain rather than a generic evil force too.

[Celice]

I wouldn't say that they give way to the generic evil force in all of the games, by any means. There is no generic evil force at all in the Radiance Saga, and in at least one route of FESS it's implied that Lyon is really controlling the Demon King and not the other way around. There's an effort to paint Nergal as a tragic villain rather than a generic evil force too.

Ah, but it's always the "evil" force which is the corrupting factor, and which is ultimately to blame. Zephiel and Ashnard are initially prepared to be the real villains, operating entirely out of their own pockets, but then we see afterwards that there's an overarching being working behind them.

I though in FE8, that was just a device for showing how deluded Leon actually was? There's also a bit of fist-pulling regardless, because Leon isn't totally gone, but at the same time, he is. He's tethered and not in control.:/

There is no generic evil force at all in the Radiance Saga

Ultimately it was Yune and her absolutist view that was the enemy. It's probably just a generic "final boss" trend that isn't shook quite loose. Though in FE9, it was pretty well done.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Celice

[General Banzai]

Ah, but it's always the "evil" force which is the corrupting factor, and which is ultimately to blame. Zephiel and Ashnard are initially prepared to be the real villains, operating entirely out of their own pockets, but then we see afterwards that there's an overarching being working behind them.

I though in FE8, that was just a device for showing how deluded Leon actually was? There's also a bit of fist-pulling regardless, because Leon isn't totally gone, but at the same time, he is. He's tethered and not in control.:/

Ultimately it was Yune and her absolutist view that was the enemy. It's probably just a generic "final boss" trend that isn't shook quite loose. Though in FE9, it was pretty well done.

I wouldn't call Yahn or Sephiran generic evil forces either. And as for FESS, it depends on the route. One depicts him as a well-intentioned, albeit deluded and corrupted vessel; one depicts him as jealous and in control.

How the hell is Yune the villain of Radiance Saga? And how is she a generic evil force, even if we DO consider her the villain?

[Momo]

Almost all the Fire Emblems have a little bit of politics going on. FE4 had a lot, FE5 a little less but it was still under the scope of FE4. FE7 had a bit in the beginning (and arguable with the Bern parents). FE9 and 10 had it a lot.

I wouldn't really say a little bit cuts it. Any game with nobles does things on that level. I will say I forgot about Zephiel and his parental troubles, though. In that, there was no clear bad guy and the victim was powerless to change things.

Sadly they almost always give way to a generic evil force in the end though. FE4 stayed the most out of it though, making almost all the travesties and horrible things which occurred to be caused directly from the hands of real rulers, not evil gods. It's the human element that's most appreciable.

Yeah, going "But x was merely a puppet for X!!!" is a real cop out. Like many plot twists, we're at the point where the lack of such a twist is considered a twist.

[Celice]

How the hell is Yune the villain of Radiance Saga? And how is she a generic evil force, even if we DO consider her the villain?

Because she becomes the ultimate villain of the story, the final thing to surpass. It didn't end with stopping a corrupt war or senate or saving someone. It ended by delving back into a finality involving beyond-human enmity. They're not so much generic evil forces, as much as it's these beyond-human mechanics. It's like a deus ex machina.

I wouldn't really say a little bit cuts it. Any game with nobles does things on that level. I will say I forgot about Zephiel and his parental troubles, though. In that, there was no clear bad guy and the victim was powerless to change things.

If the question was how does it have politics in comparison with other JRPGs, a little bit is a significant chunk :o

EDIT: Yeah, Ashera, whatever. The chick at the end who's the obvious thing you fight against.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Celice

[Snike]

Uh, Celice, you mean Ashera, correct? That's probably what got the bee up Banzai's bonnet.

@Momo: It's all about presentation. If the writer is talented, even that 'cop-out' can be made exciting. Though I do have to agree with you that it's getting a bit old in the series.

[Lord Raven]

Ashera wasn't the mastermind behind Radiance FE though, it was Sephiran -_- And they painted him off as a tragic hero too. Ashera's coming is a result of Sephiran's actions, too.

[General Banzai]

If anything Radiance Saga subverts the common trend, with the "ancient evil" not being evil at all. Ashera is the final thing you fight, yeah, but she only appears at all thanks to the actions of a whole continent full of politicians and leaders fighting and manipulating and backstabbing and whatnot. This isn't FE4 where obviously evil Manfloy shows up going "Tee hee hee, twas I the whole time!!" Instead we get Sephiran in that role... and his failure to even play the part correctly comes as yet another subversion to the standard Fire Emblem formula. I said it before, but the Radiance Saga is the anti-Fire Emblem. It takes every common and overused trope in the story and spun it on ear.

[Anouleth]

Fe10 also subverts the 'liberate your country from th evil oppressors' concept. Sure, Begnion get beaten, but the sheltered, caring heir ens up getting turned into a puppet ruler by the senators.