Least favorite FE?

[Rapier]

FE8, because (imo):

1) It has a dull story and a dull cast of characters

2) It is easy even in Hard Mode

3) Random encounters are more repetitive than inovative.

I also dislike FE11 because there is no story at all, only an excuse to beat up more red dressed mooks.

[CrashGordon94]

I'll admit to saying that I indeed haven't played the Japan-only FEs outside of FE6. I have other reasons for not liking the games I mentioned.

Could we perhaps hear them?

[Aizenberg]

fe10. wot a mess of a game

[Dark Sage]

FE1 because it sucks.

[Refa]

FE1. No Contest. It's too outdated, even compared to Gaiden >_>

FE1 was incredibly advanced for the time, while FE Gaiden is incredibly dated when compared to Shining Force, which was released a week earlier.

Not to mention some stuff in FE1 was inexcusably bad game design, even if it was the first game in the series *coughhealersneedtogetattackedtogetexphack*.

I'll say FE1, with dishonorable mention to FE4.

I'll admit to saying that I indeed haven't played the Japan-only FEs outside of FE6. I have other reasons for not liking the games I mentioned.

Way to look like a tool. Don't even mention the games that you haven't played.

[Othin]

FE6 and FE7; they both have really boring gameplay and terrible story/characters, leaving virtually no appeal whatsoever, at least compared to the rest of the series (out of what I've played, which is everything except FE1 and FE2). Voted FE6 since it gets particularly annoying at times.

[Schlafo Zobeni]

How dare you to indicate Fire Emblem 1 as bad ?

It was the very first game of the Fire Emblem Series !

Of course it made many flaws in terms of gameplay , because it was the very first Game think about it :

As more Fire Emblem games were released IS straightened out the flaws FE1 made and thus we have the in my opinion best FE game so far :

FE12 .

Anyway on Topic:

I would say Fire Emblem 11 because it basicly is FE1 (read : bland Characters/Story)

But in terms of Gameplay its unequaled .

Edited November 30, 2011 by Stachlingo

[Shadow Mir]

Could we perhaps hear them?

Okay. Like I said against FE1, healers needing to get attacked just to get any exp... There's just no excuse for that whatsoever. In addition, I just think it can't have aged well. As for FE4, it's more to do with the fact that I just think there's too much that I consider out of place as far as FE in general goes (it doesn't really help that I don't exactly have a high opinion of Jugdral, IMO).

Way to look like a tool. Don't even mention the games that you haven't played.

That was completely uncalled for.

EDIT:

How dare you to indicate Fire Emblem 1 as bad ?

It was the very first game of the Fire Emblem Series !

Of course it made many flaws in terms of gameplay , because it was the very first Game think about it :

As more Fire Emblem games were released IS straightened out the flaws FE1 made and thus we have the in my opinion best FE game so far :

FE12 .

Anyway on Topic:

I would say Fire Emblem 11 because it basicly is FE1 (read : bland Characters/Story)

But in terms of Gameplay its unequaled .

First game in the series or not, there are some things that are just plain inexcusable.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Metal King Slime

[Loki Laufeyson]

>:|

--

I've already said this, but... FE11. I was so, so unbelievably disappointed when I fired up the game and spent my first few days with it. D: The graphics were dark and muddy, the battle sprites were a terrible eyesore, and worst of all, there was little to no story carrying the game. No support conversations, no character interaction, no reason for me to want to get behind Marth and actually see him to victory. Honestly, the lack of proper story really felt like a joke to me and I still can't look past it. I also wasn't a fan of the wonky save system, or the lack of rescuing. D: I was expecting a game on-par with or better than the GBA games, and that was not the case at all.

THIS THIS THIS THIS! I hated FE11. The only FE i ever played i was just like "wow what a pile of ass!" I didnt even finish it. I got kinda far in though. Plus i didnt like the reclassing thing. It felt like a gimmick. I dunno, i just found that game to be really D:

[Rapier]

How dare you to indicate Fire Emblem 1 as bad ?

It was the very first game of the Fire Emblem Series !

Of course it made many flaws in terms of gameplay , because it was the very first Game think about it :

As more Fire Emblem games were released IS straightened out the flaws FE1 made and thus we have the in my opinion best FE game so far :

FE12 .

Anyway on Topic:

I would say Fire Emblem 11 because it basicly is FE1 (read : bland Characters/Story)

But in terms of Gameplay its unequaled .

I still think that the gameplay sucks. Also, if they are going to remake a shitty game, they are forced to polish it some more. It's their fault for picking an old-as-hell game and remake it without adding anything else.

Besides, being old doesn't mean it automatically sucks. I like FE4's story, chars, music and gameplay far more than any other FE up to date.

[I.M. Gei]

WRT to the whole balance issue in FE10, here's a good read for many people:

I wish more people would think about the balance in this game before constantly talking about how horrible it is, but I guess I need to do this again. RD's balance, dare I say it, is fairly good when you think of what IS probably wanted to do with balance and variety. The Laguz royals are available only for a small portion of the game, a lot of which is when you need to split your team into 3 anyway, and lack 1-2 range. Sothe starts great but gradually gets worse. Black Knight only really has 1-9 as his shining moment; he's still a powerhouse in 1-E but has bad mobility and he doesn't show up in time on 3-6 to be significant most of the time. Haar is the only one the list who really is broken, but I never said the balance was perfect.

Other than that, the game still has a decent variety of good characters, average characters, and bad characters, and in general they can be good by the end if you put the right effort into them. Who wants to have the same experience every time? A perfectly balanced FE game would have no replay value.

I, too, think balance in FE10 is fairly good compared to the rest of the FE games. No one unit trivializes the entire game for obvious reasons. Part 4 requires a large amount of good units; relying only on royals plus Haar yields generally suboptimal clears (see my 0% videos). The only outstanding negative is the existence of extremely bad units, which I think could be improved, but compared to most other FE games where 1 unit is leagues better than the rest or where one strategy can skip half of the game, FE10 isn't that bad.

I agree FE10 is actually very balanced by FE standards. TBH, each of the characters I listed, and some others have, only dominate a few chapters of the game. That was the point of what I was saying. Not that the entire game is poorly balanced, but that, for instance, Haar in 2-E, 3-4, Nailah in part 1, when she's there, and the royals in part 4, make some maps that could very well be really difficult, jokes. This happens in every FE game, at least to some degree, and that's one part of the game series I don't think is balanced. If even for a short amount of time, one or a handful of characters being head and shoulders better than every one else is really unbalanced. However, as a couple of people have said, almost every character is usable, which is a huge jump up from characters like Wendy, and you don't have singular units dominating everything, like Sigurd, whatever Gen 2 Holsety user you choose, Seth, and whoever else. Those are big steps forward on the balance front. I didn't mean it to sound like I hated FE10, or FE10's balance, just that there are some points that were much worse than the rest of the game.

[Shadow Mir]

FE10: Not really my least favorite but it still had many flaws. characters from Path of Radiance were nerfed, Personatity wise, and had little to no development, route maps compared to other FE games were GOD AWFUL, Unbalanced as S**t, plot sucks, and MOST of the new characters that they add are don't get much character devlopment anyway

I know people will DEFINITELY disagree with me, but I'm stating my own oppion

RD... unbalanced? I'm not really seeing it. If you want to criticize a FE game for being unbalanced, I'd look at FE9 or (especially) FE4.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I like FE9, I just think it's rather poorly balanced.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Metal King Slime

[Refa]

That was completely uncalled for.

EDIT:

First game in the series or not, there are some things that are just plain inexcusable.

I say that because honestly, who are you to say that these games are the worst games in the series, having not played them? "As for FE4, it's more to do with the fact that I just think there's too much that I consider out of place as far as FE in general goes (it doesn't really help that I don't exactly have a high opinion of Jugdral, IMO)". It doesn't feel like an FE game? How the hell would you possibly know that?

How can you say that staff users not gaining EXP is completely inexcusable, when the game was basically the first of its genre (eh, the most influential and many of its conventions were wholly original at any rate), and is there ANY reason we should believe IS would know any better at that time? It's like me saying that LoZ having no maps is completely inexusable, when in reality, it was commonly accepted and dealt with. I'm not saying that this is good game design by any means, but obviously when you're creating the SRPG genre as people know it, something as incredibly petty as "oh, the staff users don't get EXP" is more than reasonable enough. I don't have a problem with people not liking the game for silly things like that (or FE4 for that matter, provided they actually played the game), but the design decisions were born out of creating a new genre where they didn't know any better; not "inexcusable" by any definition of the word. In fact, I created a rather elaborate excuse for why that was acceptable.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Refa

[Shadow Mir]

I say that because honestly, who are you to say that these games are the worst games in the series, having not played them? "As for FE4, it's more to do with the fact that I just think there's too much that I consider out of place as far as FE in general goes (it doesn't really help that I don't exactly have a high opinion of Jugdral, IMO)". It doesn't feel like an FE game? How the hell would you possibly know that?

How can you say that staff users not gaining EXP is completely inexcusable, when the game was basically the first of its genre (eh, the most influential and many of its conventions were wholly original at any rate), and is there ANY reason we should believe IS would know any better at that time? It's like me saying that LoZ having no maps is completely inexusable, when in reality, it was commonly accepted and dealt with. I'm not saying that this is good game design by any means, but obviously when you're creating the SRPG genre as people know it, something as incredibly petty as "oh, the staff users don't get EXP" is more than reasonable enough. I don't have a problem with people not liking the game for silly things like that (or FE4 for that matter, provided they actually played the game), but the design decisions were born out of creating a new genre where they didn't know any better; not "inexcusable" by any definition of the word. In fact, I created a rather elaborate excuse for why that was acceptable.

Bold: Really? Because I personally think you're trying too hard. Considering the whole permanent death thing FE's been known for, needing to have your healers attacked to get any exp is horrible game design, since letting them get attacked is counter-intuitive in the first place.

The rest: Some of the problems I have with FE4 are the fact that every unit has their own stash of money, as well as the huge maps.

[Refa]

Bold: Really? Because I personally think you're trying too hard. Considering the whole permanent death thing FE's been known for, needing to have your healers attacked to get any exp is horrible game design, since letting them get attacked is counter-intuitive in the first place.

The rest: Some of the problems I have with FE4 are the fact that every unit has their own stash of money, as well as the huge maps.

I personally think you didn't actually read what I said. I agree that it is a bad mechanic, but again, considering FE1 created the SRPG genre as we know it, it's very easy to excuse. It certainly doesn't hurt the game anywhere near as much as you seem to be implying. Then again, you'd probably know that if you actually played the game.

Your problems with FE4 would be perfectly valid if you had actually played the game. Which you haven't.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Refa

[Biabarr]

FE8 way too easy for my taste.

[Aethereal]

The rest: Some of the problems I have with FE4 are the fact that every unit has their own stash of money, as well as the huge maps.

I don't want to enter the argument/conversation, but I think you should give FE4 a try before being upset with these two points in particular. I'm not as big of a fan of FE4 as I am of some of the other games, but the gold system is very unique, and with the way that weapons/staves/rings in game are traded (through the shop), the gold system is not only necessary, but interesting, and makes you think about gold more than an average FE. The big maps make for very different strategies, particularly just that nothing is indoor and there are very few places that you can use terrain to keep yourself from being attacked on one side. It's different not in a blatantly inferior way, just in a very different way. I had the same thoughts going into FE4, and by the time I'd gotten to the second generation I was pleasantly surprised. This is one of the few times I think don't knock it 'till you've tried it is true.

[Shadow Mir]

I personally think you didn't actually read what I said. I agree that it is a bad mechanic, but again, considering FE1 created the SRPG genre as we know it, it's very easy to excuse. It certainly doesn't hurt the game anywhere near as much as you seem to be implying. Then again, you'd probably know that if you actually played the game.

Your problems with FE4 would be perfectly valid if you had actually played the game. Which you haven't.

Tch... While it was the progenitor of the series (and strategy RPGs as a whole), that doesn't matter to me.

What's the fact that I haven't bothered to play it matter? My reasons are still part of why I don't have any motivation to play it.

[Dark Sage]

I personally think you didn't actually read what I said. I agree that it is a bad mechanic, but again, considering FE1 created the SRPG genre as we know it, it's very easy to excuse. It certainly doesn't hurt the game anywhere near as much as you seem to be implying. Then again, you'd probably know that if you actually played the game.

Just because something created a genre doesn't mean that it's flaws are excusable.

[MacLovin]

Fe11.

So far, it is boring, and I was looking for something that would be breathtaking-like fe10.

But this is a dissapointment.

At least I emulated and played it for free.

fe7 is among my faves for having a great storyline, Hawkeye, and Isadora.

[Anouleth]

Voted for FE11, but dishonourable mention to FE9.

[Refa]

Fe11.

So far, it is boring, and I was looking for something that would be breathtaking-like fe10.

But this is a dissapointment.

At least I emulated and played it for free.

I think your expectations were a little too high there. It's like me expecting the remake of Final Fantasy 1 to be as breathtaking and cinematic as Final Fantasy VII.

[Popo]

I think your expectations were a little too high there. It's like me expecting the remake of Final Fantasy 1 to be as breathtaking and cinematic as Final Fantasy VII.

But considering that FE11 was essentially Nintendo's second attempt at remaking the same game (for a grand total of three iterations), you'd think they would have really gone all out to make sure that it was the best it could be. Given the time they had, current technology, and interest in Marth/his games, it's inexcusable that they dropped the ball so thoroughly, at least in my book.

[The Envoy of the Beginning]

I'm surprised that FE5 didn't get a lot of votes for least favorite.

[Thor Odinson]

I guess it's because most players haven't even touched it?

Capture was so much fun, though~