Isn't GBA Era the best? Post if you agree or disagree

[Florete]

I don't find that very convincing, when you can say the opposite for the GBA games ("Maybe because the GBA games have stupidly short maps.") and still have it be a con rather than a pro. There's no innate positive you're bringing out by comparing map lengths :o

This is true in itself, but FE4 runs the problem of not using its maps to any effectiveness. There are long stretches of just walking and action usually only happens in one area of the map (making it pointless to have one big map vs a bunch of small maps).

So simply saying "it has big maps" isn't a problem in itself, no, but it does lead to problems.

[Westbrick]

This is true in itself, but FE4 runs the problem of not using its maps to any effectiveness. There are long stretches of just walking and action usually only happens in one area of the map (making it pointless to have one big map vs a bunch of small maps).

So simply saying "it has big maps" isn't a problem in itself, no, but it does lead to problems.

Exactly. There's a distinction between facts and the valuation of those facts, and while this makes universal agreement impossible, we can likely find some intersubjective standards to agree upon. For example: imagine that FE14 has a boatload of enemies with high critical hit rates. This may not be a "problem in itself," since someone could like high critical hit rates for whatever reason, but most of us would contend that consistently high crit rates take control out of the player's hands and make the game more luck-based.

That said, the case of FE4's long maps isn't as clear-cut. I'll agree that the large maps have a number of negative effects- radical imbalance in favor of mounted units, stretches of redundant wandering- but this comes with the added benefit of scope. FE4 feels like the most epic game in the series because of the huge, continent-spanning maps, and for many, myself included, this is certainly worth the price of admission.

[Randombobman]

Somebody needs to rename this topic "The FE4 Battle Royal"

[Loki Laufeyson]

Eirika!Lyon and Ephraim!Lyon are very different, yes. One has the illusion of control and continues scheming throughout the game, the other has been consumed by the Demon King from early on.

And I think you'll agree that those answers aren't very satisfactory. Lyon is always viewed as a rather brilliant mind; how could he overlook something as trivial as "use the trust of my friends to steal the bracelets" or "destroy the stones incognito"? (The Demon King wasn't in control of him by this point, so that excuse doesn't work either). Compare that to Elbert's situation, which, while never explicitly stated, has a very strongly implied solution (he was against it period) that fits with his character.

I think we can chalk that up to lousy writing. Lyon SHOULDNT really be different for Eirika or Ephraim.

[BrightBow]

I recently played through FE7 again (past couple of months), and this isn't really what pushes the narrative forward. The driving question isn't "Has Elbert gone rogue?" but rather "What happened to Elbert, and is he okay?" As I explained in my last post, few characters take seriously the idea that Elbert has engaged in some conspiracy against the Lycian League, so once Elbert's actual fate becomes clear, there's little reason to bring up the idea again.

It's a part of the mystery as soon as the game implies he might have been in support of rebellion. And if you didn't care about that part of the mystery being unresolved, thats good for you. I noticed it the first time I played and it bugged me a lot. Especially considering how easy it would have been to answer it.

At the time this is presented to the player (Ch.16/17), what we know is that Elbert was called upon by Laus to meet, and went to confront him. As we later learn, this confrontation was an attempt to stop him and persuade him to let go of Nergal. Just as a random example, here's a line from Ch.18/19:

Elbert

How many times must I tell you, Lord Darin? You are being used by this man!! By helping him bring dragons back into this world, you are helping him destroy mankind! Do you understand?!?

Remember, the player sees this line a mere two chapters or so after Leila's report, and mere three or so after Erik's admission. So to recap, here's what the player perceives regarding Elbert's disappearance over the first half of the main campaign:

Chapters 11-12: Elbert has disappeared! What could have happened? Time for Eliwood & Co. to find out.

Chapter 13: Lord Helman mentions that he informed Elbert of Darin's plans, which motivated him to seek out Laus. Hm...

Chapter 14: Uh oh, Erik seems to be suggesting that Elbert has gone rogue! He's not a reliable character by any stretch, but could he be right?

Chapter 16: Leila's report is inconclusive. Could Elbert really be scheming with Laus and Nergal?!

Chapter 18: ...Oh, Elbert's being held hostage. I guess not. Time to go save him and fill in the gaps!

At which point, the gaps are filled in: Elbert learned of Laus' plans, confronted him with his knights, his knights were killed off and he was kept alive for the ritual.

I'm hardly going out of my way to defend FE7 here, because nothing major is left ambiguous at all.

No gaps are filled. Elbert being held hostage does not prove anything. I am not arguing that Elbert moved against Nergal after arguing with Darin.

Erik even said himself that Elbert left because he didn't like Ephidel's involvement and speculates that the Black Fang would probably have killed him for it.

He argues with Darin on Valor? Erik already said that he didn't want the Black Fang involved and left the castle because of it.

Everything that happens fits in right nicely with what Erik said.

Again, factually incorrect. Let's take a look at the game script, shall we? All of this occurs at the end of Chapter 14:

No.

Sorry but nothing what I said in that part you quoted is in any way wrong. Let's get that quote back here for a moment:

When Erik tells Eliwood about what he knows, he has a complete breakdown. The narration of the next chapter also elaborates on Eliwoods determination to find out the truth.

Eliwood had a breakdown after what Erik told him. You mention that too, so you don't argue that it's wrong.

And the narration of next chapter elaborates on Eliwoods determination. Here is the opening Narration of E15:

In Laus, Erik tells Eliwood of a plan. A plot to use Laus as starting ground in a rebellion against Ostia. Eliwood needs proof to believe these accusations, and so he and his allies pursue Darin, the fleeing marquess of Laus. Where that chase would lead, Eliwood could not have known.

Seriously, I went out of my way to phrase that one accurately. The three hours I spend on that post don't just come from me being a slow typer. Unless of course the accusations Eliwood does not believe are actually that a rebellion was going to happen at all.

Erik

Marquess Pherae, he had approved of the idea.

This is the only line in the conversation that suggests Elbert has gone rogue, and is quickly followed up by the following:

Erik

My father and yours argued vehemently that day. Marquess Pherae always distrusted Ephidel. He tried to convince my father to send Ephidel and the Black Fang assassins out of Lycia. My father would not be persuaded, and Marquess Pherae left the castle. As you know, he then disappeared. I doubt he's still alive.

Does Erik need to repeat himself three times until you assume that he could actually mean what he says?

Plus, it was actually followed by this:

Hector: What?

Eliwood: Never! My father would never agree to such a thing!

So the game actually puts quite a bit emphasis on that point in that scene.

And what Erik says afterwards, does absolutely nothing to disprove the line before.

This is a major part of what leads to Eliwood's breakdown: the idea that his father may no longer be alive. As to the idea that Elbert supported rebellion, we go from "He supported the idea" (Erik, Ch.14) to "I can't say if he supported the idea or not" (Leila, Ch.16) to "Oh whoops, he's being held hostage and vehemently rejects any willingness to go along with Laus" (Ch.18 and beyond). Again, where is the plot hole?

Leila didn't even know that Elbert was being held hostage on Valor. Just that he was there for unspecified reason.

Erik was actually in Laus during Elbert's interactions with Darin. Of course he can be more specific on that subject. Leila having less information then Erik does not make him wrong in any way. And neither does that she does not want jump to conclusions prematurely. Leila is not Erik.

Which is fair. We don't know enough of the details early on to know if Elbert supported the proposal. Three things about this, however:

1) Based on Elbert's personality, what we learn about the whole fiasco later, how he responds to it, etc., it seems very, very out of character.

2) What drove the first half of the narrative was learning about what happened to Elbert. Other than the very early stages of the rebellion plotting, everything is crystal-clear.

3) This isn't a plot hole.

1) Unlikely? Not exactly.

I will just quote my prefvious post for this one:

And I would also like to remind that Marquess Santaruz was also going to participate in the rebellion. Despite all disbelief of our heroes, that much is sure.

If a gentle old guy like him is participating, then it's not entirely absurd that Elbert might intend to join as well.

Besides, do you need to be a mustache twirling bad guy to support rebellion?

We didn't know anything about Ositia or Lord Uther at that point. There might be valid reasons for a honorary man to oppose Ositia. And it doesn't exactly help that the game later does not exactly speak faithfully of the Ositian nobles.

2) I have nothing more to say about it what I already did:

The writers brought this question up to raise tension. They should have answered the question eventually to clean things up.

3) Well, it's a technicality but: I'm not even sure that's the case. It's not really left ambiguous. Technically.

Erik said that Elbert was in favor of the rebellion and came to Laus to clear things up. No other perspective on that event is given. Nothing what happened later contradicted or even challenged his words in any way.

EDIT: Your problem with the Elbert subplot, then, seems to be reducible to the following: "I don't like how the game strongly implies that Elbert rejected the idea of rebellion entirely, but left open the distant possibility that he agreed early on and then immediately changed his mind." Hilariously nitpicky.

My problem with the Elbert subplot is that the game states that Elbert was going to participate in a rebellion against Ositia and then leaves the issue unresolved and then only speaks respectfully of him later, despite that he would be undeserving of this respect by the only version of events the game ever actually offers:

That Elbert was going to participate in a rebellion against Ositia but dropped out of the plan when he learned about Ephidel and the Black Fang.

He was going to stop Nergal. So what?

You can easily be in favor of a rebellion without being in favor of also supporting an evil, crazy wizard's plan to collect the lifeforce of countless humans to summon ancient beings with the potential power to turn the whole world to ashes.

It's not like I can't come up with explanations to justify the events.

I can believe that Elbert faked sincerity towards Darin to gain information. But it's not confirmed in the game.

I can believe that Erik lied for some reason. But it's not confirmed in the game.

Erik's version of the event is the only one the game ever gives. And it says that Elbert was initially in favor of rebellion.

For comparison's sake, we can look at all the much more jarring narrative gaps in FE8's storyline. Why didn't Lyon simply take the bracelets from Eirika and Ephraim using the trust the three of them had? He could have simply summoned them on a friendly visit before starting his global war, had the two of them assassinated, and then taken their bracelets before invading Renais. On a related note, why start a full-scale war? Vigilante missions to extract the stones seems like a much more intuitive plan. And if a larger-scale mission had to be carried out, why attach the name of Grado to it? Why not simply operate in the shadows, denying national involvement as long as possible? What does it say about Ephraim's competency to charge a secured fortress with a total of four footsoldiers? What are we to make of the two different Lyons, beyond simply "a different plot for each branching path"?

Now, I'm not suggesting that the above don't have answers or excuses (although I can't think of any at the moment); but if I wanted to take the same approach so many have regarding FE7, I could easily trump these up into a lengthy post and declare FE8's plot as A STORY COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF PLOT-HOLES. Which would be unfair, but then that characterization is unfair of FE7 just as much (if not moreso), wouldn't you say?

Why are you bringing up FE8 now? I merely addressed on of my issues with FE7. You are free to do the same about FE8 of course, but it has nothing to do with what I talked about.

Edited July 9, 2012 by BrightBow

[Westbrick]

It's a part of the mystery as soon as the game implies he might have been in support of rebellion. And if you didn't care about that part of the mystery being unresolved, thats good for you. I noticed it the first time I played and it bugged me a lot. Especially considering how easy it would have been to answer it.

I already addressed how it was brought up during Chapter 14. If it bothered you, that's fine, but we can prove pretty objectively that it isn't what drives the plot. All of one line is spent talking about concerns about Elbert betrayal, while the rest of the relevant script deals with finding Elbert, making sure he's okay, and rescuing him if needs be.

I'm not trying to downplay your concerns at all, because, as we'll discuss below, there may be a small ambiguity here. But we can demonstrate that this isn't what drives the narrative.

No gaps are filled. Elbert being held hostage does not prove anything. I am not arguing that Elbert moved against Nergal after arguing with Darin.

Erik even said himself that Elbert left because he didn't like Ephidel's involvement and speculates that the Black Fang would probably have killed him for it.

He argues with Darin on Valor? Erik already said that he didn't want the Black Fang involved and left the castle because of it.

Everything that happens fits in right nicely with what Erik said.

Gaps filled:

-How Elbert found out about the plan

-What Elbert felt about Nergal and Laus

-What happened to Elbert after he failed to convince Laus to reconsider

-What happened to the knights accompanying Elbert

Gaps not entirely filled:

-Whether or not Elbert may have supported the rebellion early on

That should sum things up. Most gaps were filled, while one was only implied.

Seriously, I went out of my way to phrase that one accurately. The three hours I spend on that post don't just come from me being a slow typer. Unless of course the accusations Eliwood does not believe are actually that a rebellion was going to happen at all.

You're misunderstanding my intention here. You made it seem as though Eliwood had some mental break-down regarding his father being an advocate of rebellion. I was correcting this assertion by pointing out that the idea Elbert may be dead was just as significant a factor, if not (and this is far more likely, given the script) much greater.

Does Erik need to repeat himself three times until you assume that he could actually mean what he says?

As an antagonist with an agenda against Eliwood and Hector, he's an unreliable source of information. See: his claims that Elbert is probably dead.

So the game actually puts quite a bit emphasis on that point in that scene.

And what Erik says afterwards, does absolutely nothing to disprove the line before.

I never said it did. The scene is brief, there's only one line relating to Elbert being a possible traitor, and this is coupled with the idea that Elbert is likely no longer alive, which plays as significant a role in troubling Eliwood. These are simple facts.

And neither does that she does not want jump to conclusions prematurely. Leila is not Erik.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I posted. Leila is spying on the Black Fang; if Elbert were in cahoots with Laus and Nergal, she'd invariably hear about it. That she doesn't is telling of Elbert's condition, a suspicion confirmed two chapters down the road. Again, this fits in with the narrative the game sets up: possible traitor -> unknown relation -> hostage. The dots are supposed to be connected by the player.

1) Unlikely? Not exactly.

I will just quote my prefvious post for this one:

Besides, do you need to be a mustache twirling bad guy to support rebellion?

We didn't know anything about Ositia or Lord Uther at that point. There might be valid reasons for a honorary man to oppose Ositia. And it doesn't exactly help that the game later does not exactly speak faithfully of the Ositian nobles.

No. Helman is not some "nice old guy": he's frail, weak, and easily manipulated. Elbert, by contrast, is consistently portrayed as strong, willful, and caring. The point about the Ostain nobles makes little sense, since Uther and Elbert seem to have very strong ties; the greater threat is Bern, and having a civil war between other Lycian nations would invite Bern's army to steamroll the area.

Here's what your argument for Elbert being involved in the rebellion early on boils down to: maybe. It doesn't jive with his character. This is only brought up by Erik, an antagonist and unreliable source of information, and no dialogue later on supports this notion. I'll agree there's an ambiguity here, but the game puts enough faith in the player to fill in the gap. If you want to consider this a flaw in the writing, then fine; it's an extremely, extremely minor one.

My problem with the Elbert subplot is that the game states that Elbert was going to participate in a rebellion against Ositia

No, "the game" doesn't do this. Erik does. One time. The same speaker who tells us that Elbert is likely dead. The same speaker with a clear vendetta against Eliwood.

Again: Elbert's absence is the driving force of the early campaign. The details of his abduction are fully explained except for the early stages. He probably didn't support the rebellion, but the remote possibility is on the table. That's the only ambiguity there is.

Let's take a look at what would be needed to be added for each account to hold up, mine and yours:

Elbert didn't support the rebellion...

Eliwood: Father, you didn't really endorse rebellion, did you?

Elbert: Of course not. I came only to discourage Laus from bringing another war to the people of Lycia.

Fits with his character, fits with the events that take place regarding his abduction, no loose ends.

Elbert DID support the rebellion...

Eliwood: Father, you didn't really endorse rebellion, did you?

Elbert: Well, you see, son, I did- at first. Why? Because I wanted to overthrow Ostia's stranglehold over the rest of Lycia [not consistent with his character / not suggested in game] / I wanted to bring greater prosperity to Pherae at the expense of surrounding states [not consistent with his character / not suggested in game] / I wanted the power for myself [not consistent with his character / not suggested in game].

The downsides here are obvious. The only upside is that it conforms to the single-line claim of an unreliable antagonist with a clear vendetta against Pherae makes early into the campaign.

Again: you and I agree that there's an ambiguity. Where we disagree is in the significance of this ambiguity, and the evidence seems to point specifically in one direction.

Why are you bringing up FE8 now? I merely addressed on of my issues with FE7. You are free to do the same about FE8 of course, but it has nothing to do with what I talked about.

Your issue is petty, and your choice to dote on it reflects an obvious bias. Other games in the series, such as FE8, have much more obvious narrative problems. This site has an embarrassing obsession with anti-FE7 nonsense, and as this conversation demonstrates, it's not grounded in reality.

EDIT: Re-reading this post, I want to clarify that I'm not using "petty" in a pejorative sense. I'm strictly going by the dictionary definition here; it's trivial. You brought up this FE7 spiel from nowhere, it's not the first time I've seen you do it, and I can't for the life of me understand why you feel the need to promulgate falsehoods regarding FE7's storyline. No one's comparing it to Shakespeare, but it's a simple, serviceable plot with no plotholes and few significant ambiguities. It's a vehicle for the characters, no different than FE8.

---

I think we can chalk that up to lousy writing. Lyon SHOULDNT really be different for Eirika or Ephraim.

Completely, 100% agree. So tell me: why isn't there an anti-FE8 crew roaming around Serenes and GameFAQs, criticizing its plot with hyperbolic statements like "The entire story is a series of plot holes"? Why isn't there a 100-page essay written about the flaws in FE8's narrative, flaws which are much more obvious and problematic? The obvious answer is childish insecurity.

As a community dedicated to taking Fire Emblem seriously, the pettiness of some posters here regarding this issue (many of whom are otherwise excellent, like Othin) is something I'll never understand.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Westbrick

[TheGhosteon]

The GBA era being best? That's a matter of opinion. I think that PoR/RD were better, but that's me, a weird PoR fangirl.

[Polaris]

Having read all the above arguments I can only come to the well-thought out conclusion that FE1 was the greatest game ever made.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this wonderful thread.

[Eltoshen]

Gamecube for me, then again I have a boner for Ike and the characters in general are actually quite dynamic--by Fire Emblem standards-- (the ones that matter at least) so...

And I want to play FE10 but I don't have a Wii...and I'm saving for a gaming PC, and WoW MoP...and ;-;

[Roosterofdoom]

I've only played 6-11, but

1. Path of Radiance

2. Rekka no Ken

3. Shadow Dragon

I guess I'm just indecisive. I will say though, that I didn't like Sacred Stones. Don't know why, particularly. It's just my least favorite.

[marcus90]

These games are fast paced but not profound as FE4-5

[GuardianX]

Certainly I must say the GBA Fire Emblems are the best, for they certainly have well developed game play as well as story, speed, and the overall game engine. The first one I personally have played was the Sealed Sword, and that one is possibly my favorite out of all of them. I like the DS and Wii versions, but to me they didn't really give me the feel of playing a real Fire Emblem game. But don't get me wrong I don't dislike them entire, for the Black Knight is one of my favorite characters, and their stories are good, practically the DS versions are remakes of the older NES and SNES versions. But I can't really base favoritism towards the SNES, since primarily I haven't played them except now I'm playing FE4.

[Anouleth]

Completely, 100% agree. So tell me: why isn't there an anti-FE8 crew roaming around Serenes and GameFAQs, criticizing its plot with hyperbolic statements like "The entire story is a series of plot holes"? Why isn't there a 100-page essay written about the flaws in FE8's narrative, flaws which are much more obvious and problematic? The obvious answer is childish insecurity.

Uh, there is. There are groups on both sides. I've personally decided to stop playing the "which FE is the worst" game, but given that you are taking part in it, you can't take some sort of moral high ground and act as if everyone else is being "childish".

[OrangeCrush980]

There are many fans that hate/dislike FE8, they just don't go as far as Othin or Banzai.

[bottlegnomes]

There are many fans that hate/dislike FE8, they just don't go as far as Othin or Banzai.

That. And I'll never understand that hatred either, especially since most of them love FE7. Now if you loved FE7 and hated FE4, that would actually make some sense.

Edited August 8, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Florete]

That. And I'll never understand that hatred either, especially since most of them love FE7. Now if you loved FE7 and hated FE4, that would actually make some sense.

What's wrong with loving FE7 and hating FE8?

[bottlegnomes]

What's wrong with loving FE7 and hating FE8?

Nothing in particular, but they are very, very similar in terms of gameplay, which is what most of the people who hate focus on, at least in my experience.

[BBHood217]

I don't hate 8 per se, but I used to find it inferior to 7 years ago. I got over that, though.

[OrangeCrush980]

FE8 is a lot shorter and easier than 7, and the plot and characters are arguably worse as well. I still like it despite all that, but I can understand why lots of people dislike it.

[Arek1985]

From playing through most of the series again recently I have to say I've had a hard time going back to the GBA games after playing FE 4 and 5. I can easily move back to Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn, it just seems the GBA games are lacking and have nothing major outside of the Weapon Triangle. I will say Fire Emblem: Blazing Sword was probably more balanced than Thracia or Genealogy. But Blazing Sword however removed the skill system which added more depth and strategy aspects to the game. I guess overall I find Genealogy to be the best simply for the lovers system and the scope of the game. I mean you literally moved across the Continent to liberate kingdoms. I was also a big fan of the skill system even though some skills were pretty broken especially if you had the right set of skills on a character. The downsides I saw in Genealogy was that magic was not balanced since Wind just seemed to outclass everything except for maybe Resire. I mean the base Fire book had such a high amount of weight it really hindered the user. Balncing issues aside FE4 probably had the most engaging story of the whole series that spanned almost 2 decades as opposed to the general 1-2 year campaign.

What I liked about FE7 was I generally did enjoy the story, but have found myself having trouble going back to it now after recently playing the SNES games. I just feel the GBA games removed some features I enjoyed. I just found it to be more basic and it further broke the weapon triangle by giving a larger bonus for a triangle advantage. I did like that they balanced the magic system more by making tomes have reasonable weights. So when I first played it I loved the GBA games and probably out of them FE7 is my favorite. I do see them as a good starting point to be introduced to the series.

So in no way do I dislike the GBA games, just prefer some of the features in the SNES games that returned for the GCN and Wii iterations. Heck Thracia has one of my favorite features in capturing enemies, but I'm not sure if I'd want to see it again for the fact that Thracia was created around the aspect of capturing for weapons and money. I'd love to see another Fire Emblem like Genealogy of the Holy War though just because I enjoyed the big maps.

[Trickster]

I feel the GBA may not be the best but its simplicity made it nice for just breezing through and enjoying yourself. The SNES was great if you wanted a challenge. The FE4 and 5 stories were good but not my favorite. FE9 could have been my favorite but with the messing of the weapon level up system, it infuriates me to this day, FE10's battle animations were better than any other imo, same with the skill system but it lacked a challenge. DS is .... meh the animations were the worst. My unit and reclassing were the best things they added but Fe13 made them better. However while 13 has some of the best gameplay its story is lacking, but it has good character development. So I propose that none of them are the best but all are good equally. shame no one will agree with me

[ragnell.]

I disagree with TC. I prefer 9,5,4,10 over the GBA ones.

[Keiya]

I like the GBA ones best because of how simple the play style is. It's something you can literally pick up and enjoy without having to have a Master's in Dualizing or a Ph.D. in Sphere Grids. It's much more accessible for beginners that way.

Also, I really like the animation style/design for the GBA. The 3D FE's are pretty cool, but something about those sprites really attracted me.

Also, while I prefer FE6 or FE7's story, I spent more hours playing FE8, if only because Valni and Lagdou were a blast to play. Both getting those broken bishops, and then letting them loose on monster hordes were a lot of fun.

And don't get me started on the Arena.

[Junkhead]

Hey people! Personally i think the GBA Fire Emblem games are the best, but others may have different thoughts. Post what you think!

Why do you think the GBA era is the best?

Personally I prefer the Tellius saga. I like the plot, characters and gameplay aspects (among other things). I think if the two combined their strong points they would make a perfect game (that being, FE9's plot and character backrounds and FE10's gameplay).

[Missile]

I prefer FE10's story, it has some writing issues but also nice ideas.