Alternatives to bad growth level-ups

[Anouleth]

And indeed I would say that TRS and BS are more legitimate continuations of the FE series than FE6-12 so far, as while TRS and BS kept the wild rotation and innovation of features that made FE games a fresh, new experience and kept the series healthy, FE6-12 immediately degenerated into a constant rehashing of the same, stripped-down formula, the gasps of a dying series collapsing onto itself. Personally, I was surprised to see that the series was still holding on long enough for FE13 to even be made.

This is probably because you think that every single Fire Emblem game has to reinvent the wheel. Fire Emblem is not just constantly doing the same thing over and over again, IS probably just don't feel like they have to completely tear up the mechanics every time they make a new game. Which is fine. Who wants to learn an entire new set of rules for every Fire Emblem? It was bad enough just doing it once!

Personally, I expect the sales of Fire Emblem to go up significantly when they stop pussyfooting about and give the English speakers a game with Casual Mode.

Besides, the way you talk about how Berwick Saga mechanics are the /best/ /ever/, it sounds like you would like nothing more than a rehash of BS.

[Renall]

I don't like the unnecessary limit on variability across multiple playthroughs. (Despite it being made up for in other ways.)

Why is variability a good thing in a strategy game? There's no real strategy in random growths if they're entirely out of the hands of the player. Sure, the decision to use a character is the player's decision, but it's essentially like being given a random assortment of units each game (that happen to have the same name) and then the "strategy" is choosing the ones that don't suck. But you can already choose the units that don't suck for whatever strategy you need to implement, whether they have random growths or not.

I don't consider it a good thing that FE has random growths and I've never much cared for them. Part of it is a lack of transparency. We only know the growths because people datamined it and threw them up on the internet. There's no in-game way of knowing a character's growths and most of what you'd assume to tell you these sorts of things actually don't, so you're basically lost without a growth guide. Especially true when characters have deceptive bases (oh this guy has high SKL, he probably has high SKL growth, oh wait it's 20%). The game design seems inclined to encourage the player to experiment with new characters, level them up, and see where their strengths lie. Pure RNG-controlled growths don't actually allow this to happen though, as a character who gets unexpectedly blessed/screwed gives the player a false impression of the character that may lead to dropping them in current and subsequent playthroughs. Imagine if Dieck never gained any STR, or if Micaiah were SPD-blessed; you'd wrongly assume Dieck's not strong and Mickey's fast, neither of which is usually true. But how the hell would you know otherwise?

It extends to high-control gameplay as well. Quite often I see strategies for challenge gimmick runs of this or that (a speedrun or LTC run or whatever) that mention things like "soandso needs to have gained 2 points of speed to do <necessary strategy execution>." That's barely a strategy. For all their high-level play, the only thing the person can do to actually make this strategy effective is reset until the character is properly RNG-anointed. It amounts to "if soandso is able to do <x> because a RNG has graciously allowed him to do <x>, this strategy actually works, otherwise you're boned." I'd rather it just be "soandso is able to do <x>, so we must use him to do that in order to clear faster." What impresses me about the high-level play is the clever positioning and knowing just how much is needed to win, not the growths their units happened to get (this is part of the appeal of a 0% run, you work with what you're given, almost like it's asking you to be strategic!). It's not like any of the people doing these runs ever accept the failure scenario anyway, as then they'd be losing turns or time or whatever. So it's an inconvenience masquerading as a strategic nuance.

Now I grant it's an inconvenience that's somewhat tied to the series now, but it doesn't mean I don't think things wouldn't probably be better without.

As far as "fixing" it? I don't much like scrolls and other growth adjusters because they just bias the RNG, which doesn't fix the problem. Stat boosters help, but I rarely use a stat booster to "fix" a unit's RNG screwage so much as I use it to enhance their strengths. Still, a stat booster is a strategic resource and the player at least controls its application, which I like. Bracketed growths are interesting but at that point why not just have fixed growths (which I'm all in favor of, honestly, but maybe not in FE)? Point allocation is a bit micromanagey and I don't think it belongs in SRPGs where you control as large a force as you do in FE. But it is an interesting way to make a character's strengths and weaknesses more visibly clear, if the allocation is "growth"-weighted so their good areas cost fewer points or provide better returns for the points spent.

So I guess stat boosters or fixed growths are my preferences. I'd be kind of interested to see a FE clone where characters don't grow, but instead clearing a map hands you a parcel of stat boosters to use. Would probably lead to uber-stacking one character or something but that's punishable with good map design. That's a bit too much like point allocation though, now that I think of it.

[Anouleth]

Why is variability a good thing in a strategy game? There's no real strategy in random growths if they're entirely out of the hands of the player. Sure, the decision to use a character is the player's decision, but it's essentially like being given a random assortment of units each game (that happen to have the same name) and then the "strategy" is choosing the ones that don't suck. But you can already choose the units that don't suck for whatever strategy you need to implement, whether they have random growths or not.

The point is more that the player will have to come up with new strategies based on how their characters turn out. It would be lame if you could always just use the same strategy, or if the same strategy was always the best one!

And FE is as much an RPG as it is a strategy game.

It extends to high-control gameplay as well. Quite often I see strategies for challenge gimmick runs of this or that (a speedrun or LTC run or whatever) that mention things like "soandso needs to have gained 2 points of speed to do <necessary strategy execution>." That's barely a strategy. For all their high-level play, the only thing the person can do to actually make this strategy effective is reset until the character is properly RNG-anointed. It amounts to "if soandso is able to do <x> because a RNG has graciously allowed him to do <x>, this strategy actually works, otherwise you're boned." I'd rather it just be "soandso is able to do <x>, so we must use him to do that in order to clear faster." What impresses me about the high-level play is the clever positioning and knowing just how much is needed to win, not the growths their units happened to get (this is part of the appeal of a 0% run, you work with what you're given, almost like it's asking you to be strategic!). It's not like any of the people doing these runs ever accept the failure scenario anyway, as then they'd be losing turns or time or whatever. So it's an inconvenience masquerading as a strategic nuance.

Well, I typically don't reset for good growths. If a character is screwed, they're screwed. The only thing I RNG abuse for is typically hit rates, since I hate it when characters miss. And sometimes dodging Stone!Gorgons. And making sure Vigarde doesn't get a critical.

However, RNG abusing for growths can be interesting as part of a speedrun, since RN burning takes up time and thus has a cost (gaining stats on a level also takes up frames and thus has a cost). So it's something that has to be balanced against the need to have good stats.

As far as "fixing" it? I don't much like scrolls and other growth adjusters because they just bias the RNG, which doesn't fix the problem. Stat boosters help, but I rarely use a stat booster to "fix" a unit's RNG screwage so much as I use it to enhance their strengths. Still, a stat booster is a strategic resource and the player at least controls its application, which I like. Bracketed growths are interesting but at that point why not just have fixed growths (which I'm all in favor of, honestly, but maybe not in FE)? Point allocation is a bit micromanagey and I don't think it belongs in SRPGs where you control as large a force as you do in FE. But it is an interesting way to make a character's strengths and weaknesses more visibly clear, if the allocation is "growth"-weighted so their good areas cost fewer points or provide better returns for the points spent.

So I guess stat boosters or fixed growths are my preferences. I'd be kind of interested to see a FE clone where characters don't grow, but instead clearing a map hands you a parcel of stat boosters to use. Would probably lead to uber-stacking one character or something but that's punishable with good map design. That's a bit too much like point allocation though, now that I think of it.

I personally think that FE11 Dynamic Growths were the best response.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Anouleth

[Renall]

The point is more that the player will have to come up with new strategies based on how their characters turn out. It would be lame if you could always just use the same strategy, or if the same strategy was always the best one!

There's other factors in there though, like map design, how enemies are programmed to behave, whether there is any randomization to the enemy battle plan, and so forth. For the most part the "new strategy" if a character is RNG screwed is "instead of using that character to double and ORKO this enemy, use another character who can also double and ORKO." The "strategy" for an RNG screw is basically to drop the character, but the game mechanics are rarely so variable that dropping one character means you'd have to change the entire way you play the game.

Or, in contrast, a character is either RNG-proof, super-specialized, or good enough anyway that it affects nothing. I don't even look at Sigurd or Haar-FE10's averages, really; RNG screws would not stop me from using either character (Sigurd because I have to, Haar because he has an effectively unique role). I would use Karin in FE5 even if she utterly sucks, if only as a taxi. But the difference between Kent or Sain depending on which gets RNG screwed is effectively meaningless; strike out one name, substitute the other, execute identical strategy. So the RNG is really not altering my strategy much at all, it's just slightly changing the performance of units I would use anyway or forcing me to substitute one unit for another that effectively performs the same.

I'd much rather have random enemy reinforcement locations or something to spice up replays of the game than "is this character going to be any good this run?"

[Othin]

This is probably because you think that every single Fire Emblem game has to reinvent the wheel. Fire Emblem is not just constantly doing the same thing over and over again, IS probably just don't feel like they have to completely tear up the mechanics every time they make a new game. Which is fine. Who wants to learn an entire new set of rules for every Fire Emblem? It was bad enough just doing it once!

Personally, I expect the sales of Fire Emblem to go up significantly when they stop pussyfooting about and give the English speakers a game with Casual Mode.

Besides, the way you talk about how Berwick Saga mechanics are the /best/ /ever/, it sounds like you would like nothing more than a rehash of BS.

Looking at FE6-8, gameplay differences are almost nonexistent. Three games, three stories, all played almost exactly the same ways. Differences like branched promotions and weather do next to nothing to change how you play a game. That indeed sounds precisely like they are doing nothing more than reinventing the wheel. A sufficiently more substantial set of changes, such as those between each of the seven games I have been referring to, does not at all entail completely redone mechanics or an entirely new set of rules. Rather, building on past features and strategies (to a reasonable extent) was key to the progress of the series.

The sales may go back up, but that will not alone change the series back into a healthy, growing series.

I can understand how I may have given off the impression that I want a rehash of Berwick Saga, but I assure you, it is not the case. What I would enjoy is a game that builds on Berwick Saga just as it and its predecessors built on the games before it. To be more specific: I would want the game to simply retain some good additions, as has been typical, such as the hex grid and integrated turns. Less precisely, I would want the game to continue building on the pattern of giving characters more meaningful distinctions through relevant weapons, skills, classes, and events. For this, I cite Berwick Saga features mainly as examples of ways that can happen.

But my interest in patterns throughout the FE series is not at all characterized by wanting anything, no matter how much it may build on Berwick Saga. Rather, between Berwick Saga and the games that lead up to it, I would say the FE series has done everything I could ask it to. I used to love coming up with ideas for new FE games, but now, it doesn't seem necessary. All I need to do, personally, is look at and experience the greatness that already exists within the series. And I want other people to have that opportunity. Compiling the Berwick Saga section of this site was the first step to doing that, so that the game became for the first time accessible to people who could not read Japanese. But people will not often feel encouraged to play it unless they can appreciate its place alongside the FE games they know, and it would be a shame if that were obstructed by something as superfluous as the game's title.

[Anouleth]

Looking at FE6-8, gameplay differences are almost nonexistent. Three games, three stories, all played almost exactly the same ways. Differences like branched promotions and weather do next to nothing to change how you play a game. That indeed sounds precisely like they are doing nothing more than reinventing the wheel.

You seem to misunderstand what the phrase "reinventing the wheel" means. It means tearing down the basics and starting from scratch. In fact, it is precisely the opposite of what the GBA FEs do, which is retain the same basic mechanics (mechanics that were themselves established in FE5 in the first place).

A sufficiently more substantial set of changes, such as those between each of the seven games I have been referring to, does not at all entail completely redone mechanics or an entirely new set of rules. Rather, building on past features and strategies (to a reasonable extent) was key to the progress of the series.

So for example, the way that FE6 built on the Weapon Triangle, on Supports, on Rescue?

It's hard to tell exactly what you want, to be honest, when you give such contradictory answers.

The sales may go back up, but that will not alone change the series back into a healthy, growing series.

If the implication is that Fire Emblem cannot attract new players, then how did FE7 sell at all in English speaking countries that had never encountered it before? I can accept that some people might have been led to it by Super Smash Bros, but why did it then continue to sell and establish a niche?

I can understand how I may have given off the impression that I want a rehash of Berwick Saga, but I assure you, it is not the case. What I would enjoy is a game that builds on Berwick Saga just as it and its predecessors built on the games before it. To be more specific: I would want the game to simply retain some good additions, as has been typical, such as the hex grid and integrated turns. Less precisely, I would want the game to continue building on the pattern of giving characters more meaningful distinctions through relevant weapons, skills, classes, and events. For this, I cite Berwick Saga features mainly as examples of ways that can happen.

I don't really agree that the hex grid and integrated turns are a good addition to the game.

But my interest in patterns throughout the FE series is not at all characterized by wanting anything, no matter how much it may build on Berwick Saga. Rather, between Berwick Saga and the games that lead up to it, I would say the FE series has done everything I could ask it to.

So when FE5 comes up with Capture, PCC, Movement Stars, Skill Manuals, Rescue, that's neato burrito, but when FE9 comes up with Laguz, Shove, BEXP, Skill capacity, and Forging, that's the sign of a series in decay? Really, I think this just comes down to you liking the mechanics in FE5 better than the mechanics in FE9, rather than any genuine desire for something new. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, there's just no need to pretend, that's all.

[Othin]

You seem to misunderstand what the phrase "reinventing the wheel" means. It means tearing down the basics and starting from scratch. In fact, it is precisely the opposite of what the GBA FEs do, which is retain the same basic mechanics (mechanics that were themselves established in FE5 in the first place).

I suggest learning what a phrase really means before not only using it yourself, but attempting to correct someone else on its use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_the_wheel

So for example, the way that FE6 built on the Weapon Triangle, on Supports, on Rescue?

It's hard to tell exactly what you want, to be honest, when you give such contradictory answers.

Adding a situational +1 to Atk/Def and making it so that mounted units can rescue a few less units are not "building on" features. They are retaining the same features with tiny tweaks that do little or nothing to affect how you play the game.

If the implication is that Fire Emblem cannot attract new players, then how did FE7 sell at all in English speaking countries that had never encountered it before? I can accept that some people might have been led to it by Super Smash Bros, but why did it then continue to sell and establish a niche?

That is not the implication at all. FE can attract new players, but it now lacks the substance to ever grow and accomplish anything new. It can keep churning out the same formula over and over again, but that is only the noise of a dead horse being beaten, and it is naive to think that players as a whole are satisfied with the continued repetition or will continue to be. The fact that they were satisfied for a while has no bearing on that fact, especially when at first they did not have the earlier games to compare to. How could FE7's repetition possibly be recognized as an issue by anyone who didn't know of any other FE games?

I don't really agree that the hex grid and integrated turns are a good addition to the game.

It's fine that you think that, but not at all relevant to this particular point.

And I would suggest actually playing Berwick Saga before judging the two systems; I have found that the two added much more to the strategic thinking needed to complete Berwick Saga than I expected before playing it. Of course, I would suggest playing Berwick Saga before doing just about anything else, too, but it's a bit more relevant in this case.

So when FE5 comes up with Capture, PCC, Movement Stars, Skill Manuals, Rescue, that's neato burrito, but when FE9 comes up with Laguz, Shove, BEXP, Skill capacity, and Forging, that's the sign of a series in decay? Really, I think this just comes down to you liking the mechanics in FE5 better than the mechanics in FE9, rather than any genuine desire for something new. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, there's just no need to pretend, that's all.

It is indeed such a sign. All features are not equal; they must be considered from the perspective of their effect on gameplay and strategy.

Skill capacity: Limits the number of skills a character can have, generally to 1-2 depending on the skills. Adds absolutely nothing to gameplay.

Forging: Allows you to buy expensive and powerful weapons between chapters. Adds nothing more than would be contributed by the addition of a new vanilla weapon type or two above Silver, available in shops for even higher prices. And new weapon types aren't notable. They may appear notable, but that's only because recent FE games are expected to have nearly identical weapon selections, which is another serious concern.

BExp: Allows characters to level up faster? It's used as a reward for completing various side objectives and going through chapters quickly, but the games already reward you for that in the form of characters, items, sidequests, and rankings. In fact, BExp only serves to replace those past, more distinct rewards; characters and items are more often simply handed to you in FE9 and FE10, and sidequests and rankings are nonexistent. Overall, BExp adds nothing to gameplay.

Shove: Incredibly situational in all but the most niche of strategies. It would be better compared to one of FE5's less notable additions, such as minor leadership bonuses for more playable characters.

Laguz: Just plain not as significant as they look. While human, they're useless; while transformed, they play like other characters only with less options due to not having equipment choices. The only strategy is in balancing the two, while they offer little to make it worth it. The laguz that are worth it are the ones who don't have to transform in the first place, removing their little uniqueness anyway.

There are a few more FE5 additions that are at least as significant as any of the things you noted for FE9. These include, but are not limited to:

-Thieves stealing weapons and items, even out of an enemy's hands, granting them additional purpose

-Canto working after non-combat actions, rather than just combat

-Sidequests and alternate routes

-Fog of war

-Bld stat

-Substantial terrain bonuses to Def and Mag, making terrain control particularly important

-Playable siege weapons

-Poison status, easily inflicted and never going away on its own

-Weapon Exp

-Fatigue, requiring a large and rotating team

-Mission objectives other than Seize

-Personal weapons for non-Lords

Might have listed a few of those already, but whatever.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Othin

[eclipse]

The game would have to be made such that using someone who isn't a growth unit is penalized. Otherwise, I don't see the point in using a growth unit. I'm not sure I'd want to play that.

[Paperblade]

FE6 was actually the first game to have multiple levels of support by having C/B/A. In previous games, it was always a static bonus that never changed. One could also argue it was the first game with support conversations depending on whether you count the Talks with a prereq of lovers in FE4 as Supports. However, it's generally accepted FE6 was kind of dumbed down compared to FE5, so let's move on...

Skill capacity: Limits the number of skills a character can have, generally to 1-2 depending on the skills. Adds absolutely nothing to gameplay.

That's like saying that changing from having infinite repairing in FE4 to just the Hammerne in every other game add "absolutely nothing to gameplay." It allows IS more flexibility with the skills they design since they can now create skills that are individually more powerful but can't be stacked on one character to trivialize the game. Restriction breeds creativity.

Forging: Allows you to buy expensive and powerful weapons between chapters. Adds nothing more than would be contributed by the addition of a new vanilla weapon type or two above Silver, available in shops for even higher prices. And new weapon types aren't notable. They may appear notable, but that's only because recent FE games are expected to have nearly identical weapon selections, which is another serious concern.

Having Growths: Allows you to have powerful units. Adds nothing more than would be contributed by the addition of more stat boosters available in game. And new stats aren't notable. They may appear notable, but that's only becau-look your argument is just stupid.

BExp: Allows characters to level up faster? It's used as a reward for completing various side objectives and going through chapters quickly, but the games already reward you for that in the form of characters, items, sidequests, and rankings. In fact, BExp only serves to replace those past, more distinct rewards; characters and items are more often simply handed to you in FE9 and FE10, and sidequests and rankings are nonexistent. Overall, BExp adds nothing to gameplay.

Yeah I felt very proud of myself when I recruited Fiora, it took me a lot of effort to field Florina and talk to Fiora when she appeared. Gaiden requirements have been easy in every game except FE5 so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

There are still rare/unique items in the game located in chests and deserts and as steals, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

BEXP obviously didn't replace rankings since FE8 and 11 both had neither (and 12's rankings are very easy).

Shove: Incredibly situational in all but the most niche of strategies. It would be better compared to one of FE5's less notable additions, such as minor leadership bonuses for more playable characters.

Rescue: Incredibly situational in all but the most niche of strategies. It would be better compared to one of FE4's less notable additions, such as weapon rank being removed as a stat that increases when you level up.

Laguz: Just plain not as significant as they look. While human, they're useless; while transformed, they play like other characters only with less options due to not having equipment choices. The only strategy is in balancing the two, while they offer little to make it worth it. The laguz that are worth it are the ones who don't have to transform in the first place, removing their little uniqueness anyway.

I like how you complained about mechanics that give almost entirely freedom (forging) and then complain about elements that are restricting (such as skill capacity and Laguz Gauge), as well as complaining about balance issues (Laguz often weak compared to Beorc, which isn't even true), while showing no such thing to perceived imbalances in FE5 (such as stealing equipped weapons), things that could be seen as overly restrictive (Fatigue), or things that give too much freedom (infinite canto).

You also attribute game mechanics to FE5 that were in the series prior, such as canto (FE4), playable siege weapons (ballisticians in FE1... actually I'm pretty sure Ballistician was still a class in FE5 and didn't become something an Archer just walked up and used until FE6), Weapon EXP (FE1), mission objectives other than seize (FE2), and personal weapons for non-lords (FE4).

Also you aren't allowed to complain about "tiny tweaks" if you're going to list shit like "Terrain now increases Def/Mag" when supports/WTA didn't influence Atk/Def prior to FE6.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Paperblade

[Thor Odinson]

I liked support conversations as a means to gain insight into each character's background. Although, I don't like the GBA method of having them wait for turns. Personally, I think FE12 did a good job of implementing it as a chapters-together basis, while still giving us the conversations. (for the most part, there are support pairs that I like, a two-way support, even, that don't even get convos >|). And the bonuses are nice. I think one of those max-support SMs in FE12 Lunatic can get around to facing about ~30 hit, in a mode where getting hit really sucks but is kinda unavoidable for the most part.

[Paperblade]

FE12's method of building supports is actually from FE9, which could be considered a new mechanic

and yes, support stacking can get hit very low

Edited December 2, 2011 by Paperblade

[Othin]

FE6 was actually the first game to have multiple levels of support by having C/B/A. In previous games, it was always a static bonus that never changed. One could also argue it was the first game with support conversations depending on whether you count the Talks with a prereq of lovers in FE4 as Supports. However, it's generally accepted FE6 was kind of dumbed down compared to FE5, so let's move on...

Lover bonuses in FE4 served that precise purpose as a bond characters can build with one another to gain a bonus in battle.

That's like saying that changing from having infinite repairing in FE4 to just the Hammerne in every other game add "absolutely nothing to gameplay." It allows IS more flexibility with the skills they design since they can now create skills that are individually more powerful but can't be stacked on one character to trivialize the game. Restriction breeds creativity.

You mean like how they were able to increase Wrath's critical bonus from 50% to 100%... oh, wait.

Allowing the designers more flexibility doesn't mean shit unless they make use of it.

Having Growths: Allows you to have powerful units. Adds nothing more than would be contributed by the addition of more stat boosters available in game. And new stats aren't notable. They may appear notable, but that's only becau-look your argument is just stupid.

Are you willing to consider FE5's Short weapons, Poison weapons, Long weapons, Great weapons, and Master weapons to constitute multiple significant changes? Otherwise, you must accept that the superweapons created by FE9's forging system do not constitute a significant change. Granted, the additions I mention in FE5 could not fairly be considered to total five times the change that forging was, but they should be regarded overall as at least two times the change.

Yeah I felt very proud of myself when I recruited Fiora, it took me a lot of effort to field Florina and talk to Fiora when she appeared. Gaiden requirements have been easy in every game except FE5 so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

There are still rare/unique items in the game located in chests and deserts and as steals, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

BEXP obviously didn't replace rankings since FE8 and 11 both had neither (and 12's rankings are very easy).

More problems with FE6-8 do not change the fact that the exact things BExp added to FE9 were not new to the series.

Rescue: Incredibly situational in all but the most niche of strategies. It would be better compared to one of FE4's less notable additions, such as weapon rank being removed as a stat that increases when you level up.

Up to eight squares of potentially flying mobility and protection from attacks vs. up to two squares of ground-based mobility only accessible when you can set up a straight line? Hardly a comparison. Rescue's uses may be a tad limited outside of LTC and ranked playthroughs, but they are certainly more than Shove's, and ranked playthroughs are certainly not niche. Perhaps if FE9/10 had ranks, Shoving might also have a bit more use, but it's less likely that such a small difference would matter, and... they don't.

As for your FE4 example, a removal is not an addition. You could reference the greater flexibility FE4 gained in its class setups as a result of their largely static weapon ranks, but I would call that quite notable.

I like how you complained about mechanics that give almost entirely freedom (forging) and then complain about elements that are restricting (such as skill capacity and Laguz Gauge), as well as complaining about balance issues (Laguz often weak compared to Beorc, which isn't even true), while showing no such thing to perceived imbalances in FE5 (such as stealing equipped weapons), things that could be seen as overly restrictive (Fatigue), or things that give too much freedom (infinite canto).

I did not complain about the freedom given by forging. I dismissed it as being of little consequence.

If you wish to make an argument about stealing or FE5/9/10 Canto being overpowered, feel free, although I can't imagine how it could be relevant even if it were true. As for fatigue, some people may dislike it, but the fact that it encourages use of new strategies can hardly be disputed. Furthermore, I believe you claimed FE9's skill capacity allowed for more powerful skills to be used. While that did not happen, FE5's fatigue limits certainly allowed for characters such as Othin to exist without being so overpowering.

Indeed, it's not as if freedom or restriction is necessarily good or bad. It's about whether or not the individual features add something worth much consideration while playing the game.

You also attribute game mechanics to FE5 that were in the series prior, such as canto (FE4), playable siege weapons (ballisticians in FE1... actually I'm pretty sure Ballistician was still a class in FE5 and didn't become something an Archer just walked up and used until FE6), Weapon EXP (FE1), mission objectives other than seize (FE2), and personal weapons for non-lords (FE4).

Canto in FE4 was limited to after combat and staff use. (Perhaps dancing as well; I'm not sure.) Granted, other actions were not too common in FE4, but it does not change the fact that the ability to use Canto after trading, talking, opening doors, etc. was new to FE5.

I haven't played FE1, but according to Serenes, it has a WLV stat, so I'm not sure how you're saying WExp fits into that. For that matter, Serenes lists Firearm weapons as having range 1-2 in FE1, and this is what I based my statement on. However, I have not verified it myself; do you know otherwise?

As for your other statement about ballistae, they were indeed not playable in FE5, but I was referring to siege tomes. Worm was also 1-2 range in FE1, and Worm and Meteor were enemy-only in FE3.

I don't know much about FE2. What objectives did it have?

FE4's Holy weapons could be considered to not be personal weapons, but merely the highest weapon level. However, the restriction of the weapons to characters with the major blood type and the fact that they could not be sold indicates otherwise, so I retract that statement.

Also you aren't allowed to complain about "tiny tweaks" if you're going to list shit like "Terrain now increases Def/Mag" when supports/WTA didn't influence Atk/Def prior to FE6.

+1 Atk/Def from WTA is trivial. +10 Def from a fort or +10 Mag from magic tiles are another story entirely.

Accumulating enough of the right supports can enable up to +5 Atk/Def, but that's far more situational. Granted, it was more significant in the games where supports could be built up by chapters, so I will concede that that's a single notable change in all that time that can be attributed to either FE6 or FE9, whichever you prefer.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Othin

[Snowy_One]

I'm personally fine with the 'guaranteed 1-stat' they did in FE10. At most I would make it a 'guaranteed two stat' thing, but that alone should be enough to ensure much less RNG screwage.

[Thor Odinson]

Yeah, well, I haven't played FE9, so I wouldn't have known---but I like that.

[Renall]

I'm personally fine with the 'guaranteed 1-stat' they did in FE10. At most I would make it a 'guaranteed two stat' thing, but that alone should be enough to ensure much less RNG screwage.

Guaranteed two-stat might have unforseen consequences, particularly if caps are hit and BExp exists. One-Stat Guaranteed essentially sets the minimum total growth average to 100% (as, unless all stats are capped, the character will always gain at least one stat). Two-Stat Guaranteed would set it to 200%. I just worry that might be super-exploitable once the growth average dips to a certain point.

I like BExp too by the way, although it doesn't really do much to fix bad level-ups other than letting you reset. I suppose it can sorta help it by allowing volume of levels to try to make up for crappy individual levels.

[Baldrick]

It is indeed such a sign. All features are not equal; they must be considered from the perspective of their effect on gameplay and strategy.

Skill capacity: Limits the number of skills a character can have, generally to 1-2 depending on the skills. Adds absolutely nothing to gameplay.

You can't stack too many skills on one character. I'm not sure about FE9, but FE10 made skills removable, so more than one character could make use of it.

Forging: Allows you to buy expensive and powerful weapons between chapters. Adds nothing more than would be contributed by the addition of a new vanilla weapon type or two above Silver, available in shops for even higher prices. And new weapon types aren't notable. They may appear notable, but that's only because recent FE games are expected to have nearly identical weapon selections, which is another serious concern.

You can also remove weight, helping low build units, and boost hit and crit, to make some weapons unique. The earlier FE games didn't really have a large variety of weapons either (except arguably FE5)

BExp: Allows characters to level up faster? It's used as a reward for completing various side objectives and going through chapters quickly, but the games already reward you for that in the form of characters, items, sidequests, and rankings. In fact, BExp only serves to replace those past, more distinct rewards; characters and items are more often simply handed to you in FE9 and FE10, and sidequests and rankings are nonexistent. Overall, BExp adds nothing to gameplay.

Est archetypes are now much more useful. Exactly 3 stats means there is a strategic purpose to using BExp; use it earlier for cheapness and short-term gain, or later to get the most benefit from the levels? PEMN, but I didn't recruit Meg, Stefan or Oliver in my first FE10 playthrough.

Shove: Incredibly situational in all but the most niche of strategies. It would be better compared to one of FE5's less notable additions, such as minor leadership bonuses for more playable characters.

Sometimes is it a better choice than rescuedropping, and can be used on enemies.

Laguz: Just plain not as significant as they look. While human, they're useless; while transformed, they play like other characters only with less options due to not having equipment choices. The only strategy is in balancing the two, while they offer little to make it worth it. The laguz that are worth it are the ones who don't have to transform in the first place, removing their little uniqueness anyway.

Less options != less useful. Laguz could carry more items since they only need one weapon, which never runs out. Generally, they should be stronger than beorc, which makes strategic use of them necessary. Laguz who can maintain their form don't show up until the last part of the game.

There are a few more FE5 additions that are at least as significant as any of the things you noted for FE9. These include, but are not limited to:

-Thieves stealing weapons and items, even out of an enemy's hands, granting them additional purpose

-Canto working after non-combat actions, rather than just combat

-Sidequests and alternate routes

-Fog of war

-Bld stat

-Substantial terrain bonuses to Def and Mag, making terrain control particularly important

-Playable siege weapons

-Poison status, easily inflicted and never going away on its own

-Weapon Exp

-Fatigue, requiring a large and rotating team

-Mission objectives other than Seize

-Personal weapons for non-Lords

Might have listed a few of those already, but whatever.

Canto was mostly the same as in FE4, FE1 had playable siege weapons, Non-lord weapons were in FE4 and Weapon Exp and terrain were minor changes. Build is a subset of rescue, Poison only meant you had to watch your HP carefully. The rest were pretty significant, but many innovations are not necessarily better than a few good ones.

[Anouleth]

Guaranteed two-stat might have unforseen consequences, particularly if caps are hit and BExp exists. One-Stat Guaranteed essentially sets the minimum total growth average to 100% (as, unless all stats are capped, the character will always gain at least one stat). Two-Stat Guaranteed would set it to 200%. I just worry that might be super-exploitable once the growth average dips to a certain point.

I don't think that growths should be set so high/caps so low that units frequently hit them. Why remove any opportunity for the player to be blessed?

[grandjackal]

I don't think that growths should be set so high/caps so low that units frequently hit them. Why remove any opportunity for the player to be blessed?

...I just had the most random idea based on this.

Have reverse-caps. Minimums you could say. Could be character specific. It doesn't necessarily have to set anything in stone, but let's say you have a low minimum. It opens up a worse possibility to be screwed, but at the same time could cement certain aspects for certain characters.

...Yes, it is insanely random, but hey...

[Aethereal]

BExp: Allows characters to level up faster? It's used as a reward for completing various side objectives and going through chapters quickly, but the games already reward you for that in the form of characters, items, sidequests, and rankings. In fact, BExp only serves to replace those past, more distinct rewards; characters and items are more often simply handed to you in FE9 and FE10, and sidequests and rankings are nonexistent. Overall, BExp adds nothing to gameplay.

FE4's recruitment requirements are largely easier than FE9, and generally the extent of effort needed to get notable items/weapons (With the exception of something like 6) requires talking with a character that is on YOUR side, and you control, and is very easy to accomplish.

And either way, this conversation doesn't say what is and isn't a good game; it may be for you, but it is not necessarily for others. I really enjoyed playing FE4&5, but there are obvious flaws with the games that aren't present in later ones that don't even necessarily relate to the mechanics of the game. Maybe for you a lot of the changes that aren't mechanic changes aren't a big deal, but they are for me. Seeing more balanced units relative to enemies, and relative to the rest of your units is awesome. Having enemies that I can engage in with strategies that don't involve "Stand back and draw in" or "Stick Holsety User/Shannan in their face" because of the sheer number of them is a plus. Ridiculous differences in move aren't fun if you like to use a slower unit, knowing full well that the mounted equivalent is just much better.

This isn't a rip on FE4, because I honestly loved the game. But this idea that "FE6-12 don't have mechanic changes so they are automatically worse" is subjective, and from my perspective, 6, 7, and 10 are all better games for a lot of reasons outside of just mechanics.

And that's not touching on supports that give each and every character a considerable amount of depth compared to their pre-FE6 counterparts. Or other story related things that I think are better later on. I just genuinely think there is more to "this game is better or worse than another" than the mechanics involved.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Aethereal

[dondon151]

I'm going to agree with Paperblade here that Othin has been vastly overstating the innovations appearing in FE5 while understating the innovations appearing in future FE games.

Not all of the innovations in FE5 were well executed, either. I think that future games polishing mechanics that first appeared in FE5 is just as important as those mechanics appearing in the first place. And, to be perfectly frank, the major differences that exist between FE5 and other FE games are not pronounced enough to make me feel like I'm playing the game in a significantly different way.

But if you really want to get into it, I can think of a lot of different aspects of each game that force me to adapt strategies differently between them.

Edited December 3, 2011 by dondon151

[Colonel M]

I think the best way to solve this is to not have growths at all. Or have them at 0%

But really, I think the game handles it pretty well. Growth bracketing would be okay, but I don't know how it would completely work in this game.

I'm personally fine with the 'guaranteed 1-stat' they did in FE10. At most I would make it a 'guaranteed two stat' thing, but that alone should be enough to ensure much less RNG screwage.

It isn't guaranteed, IIRC. I think I've went through a level up in FE10 and still gained nothing, despite the "re-roll".

Edited December 3, 2011 by Colonel M

[Rothene]

Just have base units have nearly non-existant growths...since it's been proven that the games can be beaten without growth. That way, the very fact Growth units HAVE tangible growths make them unique on their own as they present a chance to make the game 'easier' if they turn out well. It then boils down to the player if they want to spend time babying them or just grab the decent base units and go on.

Alternately, just have all so called 'growth' units be early joiners while late comers have decent enough bases to prove useful on their join chapter as well as act as replacements for those that didn't turn out well...wait wasn't this supposed to be the whole design of growth vs base units?

[Othin]

And, to be perfectly frank, the major differences that exist between FE5 and other FE games are not pronounced enough to make me feel like I'm playing the game in a significantly different way.

This is largely my point. The later games didn't add anything to make them feel significantly different.

FE4's recruitment requirements are largely easier than FE9, and generally the extent of effort needed to get notable items/weapons (With the exception of something like 6) requires talking with a character that is on YOUR side, and you control, and is very easy to accomplish.

Recruitment was not my main point. The main comparison I had in mind to FE9's BExp was a number of FE5's item and sidequest requirements.

This entire dispute was over some explanations I made of why BExp requirements don't add any objectives more notable than ones present in other games. Unless you have examples in mind to the contrary, there's no point in addressing one part of that point.

And either way, this conversation doesn't say what is and isn't a good game; it may be for you, but it is not necessarily for others. I really enjoyed playing FE4&5, but there are obvious flaws with the games that aren't present in later ones that don't even necessarily relate to the mechanics of the game. Maybe for you a lot of the changes that aren't mechanic changes aren't a big deal, but they are for me. Seeing more balanced units relative to enemies, and relative to the rest of your units is awesome. Having enemies that I can engage in with strategies that don't involve "Stand back and draw in" or "Stick Holsety User/Shannan in their face" because of the sheer number of them is a plus. Ridiculous differences in move aren't fun if you like to use a slower unit, knowing full well that the mounted equivalent is just much better.

This isn't a rip on FE4, because I honestly loved the game. But this idea that "FE6-12 don't have mechanic changes so they are automatically worse" is subjective, and from my perspective, 6, 7, and 10 are all better games for a lot of reasons outside of just mechanics.

And that's not touching on supports that give each and every character a considerable amount of depth compared to their pre-FE6 counterparts. Or other story related things that I think are better later on. I just genuinely think there is more to "this game is better or worse than another" than the mechanics involved.

I'm not talking about what is or is not a good game.

...I just had the most random idea based on this.

Have reverse-caps. Minimums you could say. Could be character specific. It doesn't necessarily have to set anything in stone, but let's say you have a low minimum. It opens up a worse possibility to be screwed, but at the same time could cement certain aspects for certain characters.

...Yes, it is insanely random, but hey...

That's pretty much what growth bracketing is.

http://serenesforest.net/wiki/index.php/Berwick_Saga_Average_Stats_Part_1#Reese

Edited December 3, 2011 by Othin

[dondon151]

This is largely my point. The later games didn't add anything to make them feel significantly different.

I was not implying that FE5 had anything to make it feel significantly different from its predecessors. I haven't played any games prior to FE5, but I can imagine that FE1 and FE3 are very similar to their DS remakes (minus reclassing) and FE2 and FE4 are very much different beasts (but from what I have played FE4, it still plays very similarly to the later games).

My point is that FE still plays like FE regardless of how many trinkets, which you refer to as "innovations," that one adds on.

[Othin]

I was not implying that FE5 had anything to make it feel significantly different from its predecessors. I haven't played any games prior to FE5, but I can imagine that FE1 and FE3 are very similar to their DS remakes (minus reclassing) and FE2 and FE4 are very much different beasts (but from what I have played FE4, it still plays very similarly to the later games).

My point is that FE still plays like FE regardless of how many trinkets, which you refer to as "innovations," that one adds on.

Indeed, FE has much room for variation while still being FE. FE2, FE4, FE5, TRS, and BS took advantage of that room. FE6-12, not so much.

I've played little of the Akaneia games in any form, but from my understanding, FE1 was lacking in many areas compared to later games. When some of those issues were fixed in FE3, it represented another step forward.

I haven't used the word "innovation" once in this discussion until this post, but okay.