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

[Westbrick]

The SNES era is pretty goddamned overrated. FE3 is not a particularly good game, FE4 is terrible, with FE5 being the only gem, and even that has its flaws.

This pains me. What don't you like about FE4, exactly? Good story (captivating realpolitik + da magik), awesome generation system, mind-bendingly good music... I mean, it's broken as hell, but it's got rankings if you want a challenge.

I don't necessarily think the GBA era is the best, but what I will say is that it's the most consistent. FE1/2 are plagued by growing pains, FE3 is bland as hell, FE5 really could've afforded a normal (i.e. not entirely cheap and out of the player's control the first time through) difficulty, FE9 is easy beyond easy, and FE10 has balance issues out the wazoo and the most uneven difficulty curve in gaming history. FE6, 7, and 8 all have minor problems, but the core mechanics, though simple, are relatively flawless, and each sports a likable cast and pretty good stories.

[eclipse]

I'm a DS fangirl, because reclassing allows me to be absolutely insane with my characters. Did Rody's stats end up horrible? No problem, because Catria on horseback can take his place. Is Ryan getting Speed-screwed in the desert? Jake to the rescue!

If I want to see characters, I'll gladly hop into FE7.

[Westbrick]

I'm a DS fangirl, because reclassing allows me to be absolutely insane with my characters. Did Rody's stats end up horrible? No problem, because Catria on horseback can take his place. Is Ryan getting Speed-screwed in the desert? Jake to the rescue!

If I want to see characters, I'll gladly hop into FE7.

Hey beauty queen, what are your thoughts on that anti-FE7 epic that's developed quite the reputation here? Since you're a fan of the FE7 characters (which I agree with you about).

[eclipse]

I think it's kind of like the backlash that FF7 got - while it's not the world's best game, the story/gameplay isn't as bad as the bashers are making it out to be. It improved a lot on the things introduced in FE6, and it's a lot of fun to replay.

The other game with underrated characters is FE12. Those supports are amazing.

[Westbrick]

I'd consider FE7 a top ten game, actually, along with FE13 and FE4. But your FFVII analogy's pretty solid, I'd say: popular thing overshadows less popular thing, fan of less popular thing initiates diatribe, DRAMA ensues.

It's too bad FE12 isn't getting a stateside release, since apparently it's fantastic despite keeping the same claymation aesthetic

[Topaz Light]

Hm... The GBA era is my favorite, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the best, because I know it's lacking in some areas. I loved the flashy animations and how the art style in general used very distinct, yet non-abrasive colors. I am a huge fan of FE7; it being my first Fire Emblem game, Blazing Sword and its cast will forever hold a special place in my heart. But I do confess that the GBA games were mechanically without the flourish that many others in the series possess. Units could use either weapons or magic, never both, skills were either removed entirely or implemented rather underwhelmingly, and there was no forging or reclassing yet, (not that New!Archanea-style reclassing would have made much sense there.) I haven't played any of the SNES ones, so I can't comment on those, but I appreciate that the GBA games did improve in some areas, even if they stepped backwards in others. Of course, they also made recruitable Dark magic users, where Dark was present, a tradition, rather than leaving leaving Thracia's Salem a lonely one-off occurance, so there's that, too, although it's only a little thing.

To be honest, I think this is really a subjective thing; whichever games you enjoy the most are the best to you, and it's not really fair, (or frankly even effective,) to tell people that their taste is inferior because some other FE game is clearly so much better on so many totally objective levels.

In short, to each his/her own, is what I say.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Starlight36

[MacLovin]

GBA FEs are easier to obtain overall, and provide decent stories, and gameplay and characters.

Tooo bad there were only 3.

fe4/5 were pretty fun, fe9 was kinda boring with Mount rape, and fe10 was wierd.

[Dark Sage]

This pains me. What don't you like about FE4, exactly? Good story (captivating realpolitik + da magik), awesome generation system, mind-bendingly good music... I mean, it's broken as hell, but it's got rankings if you want a challenge.

I actually used to like FE4 but gradually turned on it. The story is incredibly bland and part of the problem is that a lot of the characters just do not have personalities. The other problem is the horrible pacing and bad structure, particularly in the 2nd gen where a lot of it is "Celice beats up a dude, takes over the castle, Levin delivers incredibly wooden exposition, maybe check back on the villains, rinse repeat." Pretty much the only reason why people have such praise for the plot I found was ZOMG plot twist, but that's pretty much the only real trick it has.

There are infinitely better political + magical plots as well. Tactics Ogre for example absolutely shitstomps it in that area as well as FFT and FF12.

The generation system seems neat and that was what sold me on the game. The problem is that there's not much point in making pairings for the 2nd Gen because you can just leave must of your losers at the castle while Celice and the holy weapon users go out and rape everything to high heaven.

I don't necessarily think the GBA era is the best, but what I will say is that it's the most consistent. FE1/2 are plagued by growing pains, FE3 is bland as hell, FE5 really could've afforded a normal (i.e. not entirely cheap and out of the player's control the first time through) difficulty, FE9 is easy beyond easy, and FE10 has balance issues out the wazoo and the most uneven difficulty curve in gaming history. FE6, 7, and 8 all have minor problems, but the core mechanics, though simple, are relatively flawless, and each sports a likable cast and pretty good stories.

So what about the DS games?

[Westbrick]

I actually used to like FE4 but gradually turned on it. The story is incredibly bland and part of the problem is that a lot of the characters just do not have personalities. The other problem is the horrible pacing and bad structure, particularly in the 2nd gen where a lot of it is "Celice beats up a dude, takes over the castle, Levin delivers incredibly wooden exposition, maybe check back on the villains, rinse repeat." Pretty much the only reason why people have such praise for the plot I found was ZOMG plot twist, but that's pretty much the only real trick it has.

There are infinitely better political + magical plots as well. Tactics Ogre for example absolutely shitstomps it in that area as well as FFT and FF12.

The generation system seems neat and that was what sold me on the game. The problem is that there's not much point in making pairings for the 2nd Gen because you can just leave must of your losers at the castle while Celice and the holy weapon users go out and rape everything to high heaven.

I'm well-versed in FE4 apologetics, so let me see if I can't address a couple of these things. First, the character development. No doubt that it isn't nearly as strong as, say, FE7 or FE9, but it was far and away the best the series had seen up until that point. Just compare it with FE3. Second, the plot deserves praise (especially in Gen.1) for being a captivating political drama; the twist is just a part of the appeal. And while other games have done the "politics & magic" premise better (Tactics Ogre being a great choice), FE4 was one of the pioneers, and is certainly better than FFT's plot, which has god-awful pacing and, instead of incorporating the political and mystical elements, goes full-fledged reversal about two-thirds through.

As good as the Generation system is, you haven't touched on the ranking system. Maybe it's just me, but I really feel that games with well-crafted rankings have a lot more depth and replayability, and I'm terrible at playing ranked.

So what about the DS games?

FE11 was awful, and I'm sure everyone agrees about this one. All the problems you mentioned with FE4 are made trivial by comparison here: no character development, no plot, ugly graphics, and lazy, lazy higher difficulty. FE12, on the other hand, is apparently godlike, so I'll hold out judgment until the English patch comes out.

[Celice]

I wouldn't call FE12 godlike. The new additions are pretty nice which makes it preferable to FE3 Book 2--but it's still the same game at heart. I think the better way to put it is the FE1->FE11 conversion is pretty lacking when compared to the FE3 Book 2->FE12 conversion.

[Integrity]

oh wow what can I do with this

I'm well-versed in FE4 apologetics, so let me see if I can't address a couple of these things. First, the character development. No doubt that it isn't nearly as strong as, say, FE7 or FE9, but it was far and away the best the series had seen up until that point. Just compare it with FE3. Second, the plot deserves praise (especially in Gen.1) for being a captivating political drama; the twist is just a part of the appeal. And while other games have done the "politics & magic" premise better (Tactics Ogre being a great choice), FE4 was one of the pioneers, and is certainly better than FFT's plot, which has god-awful pacing and, instead of incorporating the political and mystical elements, goes full-fledged reversal about two-thirds through.

As good as the Generation system is, you haven't touched on the ranking system. Maybe it's just me, but I really feel that games with well-crafted rankings have a lot more depth and replayability, and I'm terrible at playing ranked.

The first thing that strikes me about this is "no doubt that it isn't nearly as strong as FE7 or," which is a hilarious line because FE7 has shit for character development. As far as writing goes, I'd peg FE7 below FE4, and I bear FE4 extremely little goodwill for its writing. Extremely little.

Alright, nit has been picked, let's move on. I'm sorry, mate, "the best they had at the time" only matters at the time. That time is not this time, compared to this time it doesn't have shit. Would you say FE4 has good graphics? They were pretty nifty for the time, but they're piss-poor now. So why are we comparing it with FE3? That post essentially says that all the games before FE4 have worse writing and all the games after FE4 have better writing because they came later. Somehow, this excuses FE4 (because it came before) but it doesn't excuse FE3 (even though it came before). Okay, bro. Whatever you say.

The plot deserves praise for what reason? Let's take a random sampling of people: me. I didn't like the FE4 plot. I don't think the "twists" (I presume you mean killing Eltshan and losing horribly) to be particularly well-executed. What other "captivating political drama" did it have? Sigurd getting excommunicated? Gen 2? Everybody agrees that Gen 2 doesn't have a story (despite my yellings to the contrary) so obviously you're talking about Gen 1. So I ask again, what "captivating political drama" is there and as a secondary question what are your standards for "captivating"?

And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to excuse FE4's plot just because it was a "pioneer" or osmethne. Yes, the plot was better than FFT's. You know what other games have better overarching plots than FFT? Most of them. All you establish FE4 as with that line is that FE4 is ...not necessarily in the lower echelon of game plots. I can agree with that, but it's absolutely meaningless.

FE11 was awful, and I'm sure everyone agrees about this one. All the problems you mentioned with FE4 are made trivial by comparison here: no character development, no plot, ugly graphics, and lazy, lazy higher difficulty.

FE11 was a competent game. The story is a shell (it's a remake of a shell), the characterization is hollow or nonexistent (they're reincarnations of hollow or nonexistent characters). Why doesn't FE11's plot get the same pass compared to FE4 as FE4 got compared to FE7? The graphics are ugly, by ...what standard? They shit all over FE4's graphics. FE11 has a (five, really) lazy higher difficulty? FE4 doesn't have any higher difficulty. FE4 also has issues like terribly paced gameplay, absolutely amazingly awful AI (oh my alliteration), pure distilled bullshit in several points (alvis, to name one), balance - nah, it's not even worth commenting on FE4's balance, because it's so unbalanced the unbalance is fun.

[Celice]

FE4 doesn't have any higher difficulty.

(a "higher" difficulty unlocks once you complete the game once, accessible from the options menu)

[Integrity]

(a "higher" difficulty unlocks once you complete the game once, accessible from the options menu)

Semantics aside, I literally did not notice a difference tabbing the "AI" switch to hard. I heard from somebody once that it makes enemies attack when they won't do damage (which would make the game, uh, easier) but I didn't notice any difference.

Granted, I only did it once (I didn't save and patched ROM = no epilogue - I had loaded a savestate from Darros that did have Hard unlocked) so I could be dreadfully wrong.

EDIT: (if the quotation marks indicated sarcasm my post still stands because i really am curious as to whether this changes anything at all)

Edited June 28, 2012 by Integrity

[Westbrick]

oh wow what can I do with this

The first thing that strikes me about this is "no doubt that it isn't nearly as strong as FE7 or," which is a hilarious line because FE7 has shit for character development. As far as writing goes, I'd peg FE7 below FE4, and I bear FE4 extremely little goodwill for its writing. Extremely little.

Fire Emblem 7 was universally praised by critics for its exceptional character development, and gave the series an international reputation for fleshed-out casts. Don't act insecure because you're in the minority position.

Wonderful evidence you've provided against FE4 and 7, by the way. Stunning stuff.

Alright, nit has been picked, let's move on. I'm sorry, mate, "the best they had at the time" only matters at the time. That time is not this time, compared to this time it doesn't have shit. Would you say FE4 has good graphics? They were pretty nifty for the time, but they're piss-poor now.

FE4's plot is still pretty good today, but it was truly great given its era. You're free to discount this if you'd like. As for the graphics, yes, they still look excellent. 2D sprites have aged gracefully.

So why are we comparing it with FE3? That post essentially says that all the games before FE4 have worse writing and all the games after FE4 have better writing because they came later. Somehow, this excuses FE4 (because it came before) but it doesn't excuse FE3 (even though it came before). Okay, bro. Whatever you say.

...Really? The jump from FE3's barebones, bland plot to FE4's captivating blend of politics and the occult is huge, and even if it's not the best plot today, it deserves praise for how it pushed the series forward. FE3's plot was bland even for the low standards of the day.

The plot deserves praise for what reason? Let's take a random sampling of people: me. I didn't like the FE4 plot. I don't think the "twists" (I presume you mean killing Eltshan and losing horribly) to be particularly well-executed. What other "captivating political drama" did it have? Sigurd getting excommunicated? Gen 2? Everybody agrees that Gen 2 doesn't have a story (despite my yellings to the contrary) so obviously you're talking about Gen 1. So I ask again, what "captivating political drama" is there and as a secondary question what are your standards for "captivating"?

My standards for "captivating" are getting the player invested in the action, through development and intrigue. FE4 has plenty of both; every map is oozing with subplots, political conflicts, and various miscellaneous tensions all over the place.

There are my standards. Please provide yours, beyond "I didn't like it lol."

Yes, the plot was better than FFT's. You know what other games have better overarching plots than FFT? Most of them. All you establish FE4 as with that line is that FE4 is ...not necessarily in the lower echelon of game plots. I can agree with that, but it's absolutely meaningless.

This is completely and utterly false. Most video game plots are terrible, so FE4's and FFT's being "good" actually put them in the upper echelon of game plots. Again, you're free to provide specific examples to make your case.

FE11 was a competent game. The story is a shell (it's a remake of a shell), the characterization is hollow or nonexistent (they're reincarnations of hollow or nonexistent characters). Why doesn't FE11's plot get the same pass compared to FE4 as FE4 got compared to FE7?

Because FE4's plot is still good today. FE1's is not.

The graphics are ugly, by ...what standard? They shit all over FE4's graphics.

Everyone agrees that FE11 graphics are sinfully bad. Get your eyes checked.

FE11 has a (five, really) lazy higher difficulty? FE4 doesn't have any higher difficulty.

Increased enemy stats versus adjustable AI, ranking system, and generation system. No comparison, FE4 wins.

FE4 also has issues like terribly paced gameplay, absolutely amazingly awful AI (oh my alliteration),

I don't know what "terribly paced gameplay" means. Every Fire Emblem has terrible AI except for FE5.

pure distilled bullshit in several points (alvis, to name one),

FE4 is one of the fairer games in the series. If you want to complain about bullshit, try FE5 or FE6's reinforcements.

[Thor Odinson]

Terribly paced gameplay meaning you walk across large stretches of the map without ever doing anything other than walk. Aka the maps are too big and enemies could be better placed.

I personally like FE4, but it's got plenty of problems. I just like it despite the problems and god the graphics are terrible. FE5 at least fixed the terrible mugs part.

[Westbrick]

Terribly paced gameplay meaning you walk across large stretches of the map without ever doing anything other than walk. Aka the maps are too big and enemies could be better placed.

I personally like FE4, but it's got plenty of problems. I just like it despite the problems and god the graphics are terrible. FE5 at least fixed the terrible mugs part.

If that's what he meant, then it's a fair complaint. The large-scale maps give the campaign an epic feel, although it's definitely not for everyone. It also means you need to maximize movement options, since getting around takes a while.

[tenkiforecast]

I'm more inclined towards the SNES games... well, FE4 and FE5. I think in terms of storytelling, those two were the high water marks of Fire Emblem as a franchise. FE1 and FE3, and thus FE11 and FE12 had pretty cliche and dull stories with dull characters. When you learn what went on in the making of the original games (FE1 had 4 people total, if Kaga is to be believed based on the Treasure interviews, it's safe to assume they didn't pay attention to the story all that much) it explains why those aspects are lacking, but I just can't get past it. FE4, yes, the second gen has a really weak story outside of Thracia/Lenster and Ishtar, but that is interesting. FE5 focuses on Leaf, and tells the story from a different sort of perspective, a smaller part in a larger story. That type of approach is most similar to FE7 when the conflict was more personal in nature. I'm just more fond of the stories in these two games than the others.

The GBA games I think are the second best point, maybe I'm still soured at the amount of plot holes and mary sues in FE10 seeping into my thoughts on FE9, but I do like them overall. FE6 does has a pretty weak story, and I wasn't too impressed by FE8's either. FE7 is the high point for the GBA, easily. The story is the most consistent in its own universe, and the characters have personalities that do not become walking cliches. Add to that they all have reasons for being involved in the conflict besides "War! Join my side not the laughably evil people!" that do become personal.

FE9's plot is very good. I don't have many criticisms of it, but it did not impact me as much or leave as much of an impression as FE7's did, so I rank it a bit lower. It was still well-told and well planned. It's a shame that FE10 ruined it...Bengion becoming a country of Captain Planet villains, Micaiah being a walking Mary Sue (I still can't get over her character, she annoys me so freaking much), Ike regressing into blandness, and a lack of central focus.

As for gameplay, I would put FE5 at a pretty high point. Yes, the RNG hates you and opponent's stats can be disgusting, but the game plays very well. FE4 introduced skills and has a lot of quirks but it still works well as a Fire Emblem game. The GBA games had to take things out to fit everything onto the cartridges, so I'm not complaining about the skills being removed. I don't have many complaints about FE6's gameplay either, I think all of the GBA games play really well (except FE8 is too freaking easy...). FE9 was more balanced, Titania can wipe most of the game but she's not a walking god like Seth or FE4/FE5's cast. FE10... ... Dawn Brigade can stay on the sidelines. If the game was about THEM alone I wouldn't complain, but almost all of them have terrible stats and growths, are *always* underlevelled, and can't even compare to every other group of units in the game. There is almost no point ot leveling them in Part 1, just have Sothe/Volug wipe everything and occasionally give Mary Suecaiah kills so she hits 20. Then have them and other prepromos do all the work in Part 3 and drop ALL of them in Part 4. I didn't like how all the skills transferred from person to person either, it always seemed like it was something unique to a person instead of easily transferable.

DS games...I'm just not fond of. Part of it is that I like playing the games for the story. I also was not a fan of the Class Swap feature. Graphics are good, dual screens are used well, but I just never had the same interest I had in any of the other games.

Even though FE6 is my favorite for, well, nostalgia reasons, my personal ranking for top 3/4 would be: 1. FE4, 2. FE7, 3. FE5, 4. FE9.

Edited June 29, 2012 by tenkiforecast

[Parrhesia]

If that's what he meant, then it's a fair complaint. The large-scale maps give the campaign an epic feel

COMING TO A CINEMA NEAR YOU

THE NEXT INSTALLMENT IN THE CRITICALLY-ACCLAIMED JUGDRAL SAGA

SIGURD RIDES THROUGH A DESERT WHILE HIS MEN ARE SET ON FIRE II

THRILLS!

"OH GOD FIRE okay it's cool it was like thirteen damage I'm a'ight"

LAUGHS!

"HAHAHHAHAHAHA oh man those green guys are so fucked... back to the movement phase. *sigh*"

LOVE!

"Jesus christ Jamka would you just fuck her already"

ADVENTURE!

"DON'T REST EASY, MEN, WE'VE ANOTHER HARD RIDE AHEAD OF US TOMORROW"

"Go fuck yourself, Sigurd."

Also, yeah, what the fuck? FE11 graphics wipe the floor with those of FE4. I mean, FE5, I could see that. Maybe. If it weren't for inconveniences like all the fucking duplicates.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Furetchen

[eclipse]

I'm not Integrity, but I can't let this go.

FE4's plot is still pretty good today, but it was truly great given its era. You're free to discount this if you'd like. As for the graphics, yes, they still look excellent. 2D sprites have aged gracefully.

I think the plot of FE4 was a mix of boring and silly (the latter being Diadora's beginnings). I also think that the sprites were terrible. "Aged well" are the GBA mugs - most of them still look decent, despite being on a system two generations back.

My standards for "captivating" are getting the player invested in the action, through development and intrigue. FE4 has plenty of both; every map is oozing with subplots, political conflicts, and various miscellaneous tensions all over the place.

I thought it was pretty cookie-cutter until Chapter 3, where I stopped playing because I didn't have the patience to wait for Azel and Dew.

This is completely and utterly false. Most video game plots are terrible, so FE4's and FFT's being "good" actually put them in the upper echelon of game plots. Again, you're free to provide specific examples to make your case.

I think the Tekken plot outweighs FE4. As does just about every FF plot besides 1 and 3. And Tales of Symphonia II (yes, I went there). FE4 feels like the new FF7, in terms of hype.

Everyone agrees that FE11 graphics are sinfully bad. Get your eyes checked.

I am in the subset of "everyone". I much prefer FE11's graphics to FE4's ones. If FE11 is bad, then FE4 is drunk doodling.

Increased enemy stats versus adjustable AI, ranking system, and generation system. No comparison, FE4 wins.

Reclassing, increased enemy stats, and generics in FE11 beat out everything you listed about FE4, IMO. If FE4 is winning anything, it's skills. Maybe.

I don't know what "terribly paced gameplay" means. Every Fire Emblem has terrible AI except for FE5.

Turn 1: Deploy people, and move them.

Turns 2-?: Do the same. Possibly wait for non-horse units to catch up.

Later: Curse the RNG for missing some stupid boss or other. Eventually capture the castle. Realize that you need to haul everyone to the other end of the map.

Even later: Repeat until the map is over.

---

While I'm well aware that FE4 is quite popular here, please don't speak as if people who don't think FE4 is all that are some kind of heathens. It wasn't my thing, but I'm going to advertise how much it sucks, or belittle everyone else who likes it. The only reason why my two cents are here is because I really didn't like that post.

[Westbrick]

[inane ramblings]

Thanks for that, Seinfeld. All I meant was that the large maps make you feel like you're really engaging in a nation-wide conflict; god forbid you spend a turn or two moving units in a tactical grid-based strategy RPG.

Also, yeah, what the fuck? FE11 graphics wipe the floor with those of FE4. I mean, FE5, I could see that. Maybe. If it weren't for inconveniences like all the fucking duplicates.

I'm going to assume I went to sleep and woke up in an altered reality where FE11 wasn't universally considered to be an ugly, ugly game. Oh, and clearly, FE4 and FE5 are different enough to be distinguished. Compare: beautiful, timeless sprites...

...to ugly, outdated eyesores:

I think the plot of FE4 was a mix of boring and silly (the latter being Diadora's beginnings). I also think that the sprites were terrible. "Aged well" are the GBA mugs - most of them still look decent, despite being on a system two generations back.

Couple things here:

1) What was silly about Diadora's origin story? The forest-tribe part, or the disturbed-parents part?

2) What is bad about the FE4 sprites? They're well-detailed and well-animated.

And how about a mugshot comparison? Sprites that have aged well...

...versus "drunk doodling":

I thought it was pretty cookie-cutter until Chapter 3, where I stopped playing because I didn't have the patience to wait for Azel and Dew.

Clearly the opinion of an informed, open-minded gamer.

I think the Tekken plot outweighs FE4. As does just about every FF plot besides 1 and 3. And Tales of Symphonia II (yes, I went there). FE4 feels like the new FF7, in terms of hype.

I'm not even sure where to start here. You're doing Fire Emblem 4 a huge disservice by comparing it to Final Fantasy, aka a game full of melodramas written by a fifth grader. The classic series that brought us "EVERYONE KILLS THEMSELVES (but not really) (p.s. everyone bad is mind-controlled) (pps. main baddie is your brother)," "Evil tree is trying to kill things," "Evil clown is trying to kill things," and "WE ALL GREW UP TOGETHER (but forgot)." The only serviceable plots are FFVII, and- funny enough- FF1 and 3, because in those cases, the story is minimal and lets the gameplay shine.

Specifics might help people understand what you're getting at here.

I am in the subset of "everyone". I much prefer FE11's graphics to FE4's ones. If FE11 is bad, then FE4 is drunk doodling.

FE11's graphics are dark, lack detail, look goofy, and are poorly animated. Maybe you like the bizarro claymation style; most everyone doesn't. Hence why FE11 is far and away the least-liked internationally released title.

EDIT: I almost forgot you said you were a DS fangirl, so I'll backpedal a little here. By "goofy" I meant "pretty goofy," and by "poorly animated" I meant "somewhat poorly animated." Hopefully we can still be friends

Reclassing, increased enemy stats, and generics in FE11 beat out everything you listed about FE4, IMO. If FE4 is winning anything, it's skills. Maybe.

...We're talking about difficulty options here, not gameplay features. Gotta keep up with the context!

EDIT: Unless you're talking about difficulty modes as well, but then I'm not sure how reclassing fits. Would "not using X units" in FE4 also count?

While I'm well aware that FE4 is quite popular here, please don't speak as if people who don't think FE4 is all that are some kind of heathens. It wasn't my thing, but I'm going to advertise how much it sucks, or belittle everyone else who likes it. The only reason why my two cents are here is because I really didn't like that post.

See that bold? That was Integrity's post. I was simply responding. God forbid we have a discussion about Fire Emblem quality on a Fire Emblem message board.

And people are free to feel however they like. Love Gaiden and Sacred Stones? Go for it. Love the DS games but hate the SNES titles? Good for you. That doesn't somehow preclude serious discussion about game quality, or necessitate us lathering up posts with "IT'S MY OPINION" disclaimers all over the place. Healthy debate can be fun and enlightening.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Westbrick

[Westbrick]

[forgot we can't double-post. placeholder]

Edited June 29, 2012 by Westbrick

[Only My Unit]

Westbrick, I kind of disagree with you about the graphics debate. I agree that FE4's graphics are better than 11's overall due to the fact that the DS graphics seemed like a regression compared to what they could do before. It sent the graphics back to where they were with 4 and 3. However, as good as the graphics of FE5 are (compared to other things on the Super Nintendo and the Gameboy Advance games) on the more debatable end of the spectrum.

For the whole plot insults, Tekken has the advantage of having a continuity beyond one game or so. Of course it has better plot. It's an entire series compared to one game. Now of we're speaking of the original Tekken game, then at the very worst on FE's side it is equal to FE4's plot, but definitely not better.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Only My Unit

[Westbrick]

Westbrick, I kind of disagree with you about the graphics debate. I agree that FE4's graphics are better than 11's overall due to the fact that the DS graphics seemed like a regression compared to what they could do before. It sent the graphics back to where they were with 4 and 3. However, as good as the graphics of FE5 are (compared to other things on the Super Nintendo and the Gameboy Advance games) on the more debatable end of the spectrum.

My problem with FE11's graphics has less to do with how it took advantage of the system's technical capabilities and more its graphical style: darker, less fluid. FE4's graphics are bright, crisp, well-detailed and well-animated. I'm seriously finding it difficult to understand how anyone could find FE4's graphics to be unappealing.

For the whole plot insults, Tekken has the advantage of having a continuity beyond one game or so. Of course it has better plot. It's an entire series compared to one game. Now of we're speaking of the original Tekken game, then at the very worst on FE's side it is equal to FE4's plot, but definitely not better.

...? I'm assuming that Tekken, as a fighting game, has a pretty terrible and generic plot.

[Integrity]

Beh. I loathe doing quotemine arguments but you've set it up for that ;/

Fire Emblem 7 was universally praised by critics for its exceptional character development, and gave the series an international reputation for fleshed-out casts. Don't act insecure because you're in the minority position.

Wonderful evidence you've provided against FE4 and 7, by the way. Stunning stuff.

Oh, I'm awfully sorry that I forgot to provide evidence beyond "I didn't like it" for why I didn't like it. I really should have provided an equal amount of evidence as to why FE7 was bad as you did as to why FE4 was good.

Wait, I did. (note: your "evidence" was simply calling it a "captivating political drama")

Okay, sarcasm mode aside, you're confusing character development with character definition, mate. The cast of FE7 is defined, sure, can't argue against that, but they don't go anywhere. Hector in BBD is the same as C11 Hector. I'm not saying that he's the same person (well no shit ike), I'm saying that he hasn't evolved a single step since his introduction. Same goes for every character in FE7 unless I'm dramatically forgetting somebody (as I said earlier, you might be able to make a case for Eliwood). It's not necessarily a series thing - characters do evolve in FE. To name one, as much as I hate the little bitch, Soren evolves somewhat. There, evidence.

So I never disputed that FE7 had fleshed-out characters. I disputed that they evolved at all.

FE4's plot is still pretty good today, but it was truly great given its era. You're free to discount this if you'd like. As for the graphics, yes, they still look excellent. 2D sprites have aged gracefully.

Okay, no. FE4 has not aged gracefully. Somebody provided FE4 and FE6 mugs (was it you?), but that's not fair. Compare same-system mugs:

Can you really say that you don't see a difference, or that the FE4 ones are actually better? FE5 is significantly better graphically than FE4. Even the landscape shots (that you posted) are better. The overworld sprites? Maybe not so much, but that's just as much one category as mugs are one category.

...Really? The jump from FE3's barebones, bland plot to FE4's captivating blend of politics and the occult is huge, and even if it's not the best plot today, it deserves praise for how it pushed the series forward. FE3's plot was bland even for the low standards of the day.

My standards for "captivating" are getting the player invested in the action, through development and intrigue. FE4 has plenty of both; every map is oozing with subplots, political conflicts, and various miscellaneous tensions all over the place.

There are my standards. Please provide yours, beyond "I didn't like it lol."

This is completely and utterly false. Most video game plots are terrible, so FE4's and FFT's being "good" actually put them in the upper echelon of game plots. Again, you're free to provide specific examples to make your case.

Because FE4's plot is still good today. FE1's is not.

At least I get to mash several together for this one. Bear with me, since I never touched FE3, as I intended to wait for FE12. I'm assuming a slightly more than FE2/FE11 fleshing out here.

FE4 is "oozing with subplots" in every map? Again, I'm going to assume you're only talking about Gen 1 since that's all anybody ever talks about and you never mentioned anything to the contrary. Okay,

Prologue: DROPPED INTO THE ACTION. Opening narration is decent, some chick gets kidnapped, Alvis shows up. Frankly, the Prologue is pretty good.

C1: Ignoring the fact that this is among the worst maps in the series for gameplay, what's the intrigue? Jamka betraying whatsisface? He was obviously going to be open to that from the very moment we first saw him. Evil cult in control of the evil empire? You can't tell me that was novel even for 1996. Also, Ayra and Dew.

C2: Eltshan helped us, we go help Eltshan. I LIKE THIS. Then run all over the place, get Levin from nowhere, get Fury from nowhere, the castles each decide to go to war against you one by one (surprising?).

C3: Go kill this castle. I don't even remember why we have to go kill the first castle. Then Eltshan is FORCED TO FIGHT and this CANNOT BE RESOLVED WELL. This is the first "twist" and my first stickling point with FE4's plot because I don't like the way it's handled. Either you kick the piss out of Eltshan and send him deading or you get Lachesis to talk him out of it and he ...goes home and dies. Also Trabant shows up and then suddenly the pirates decide to try to steal from us. In sequence.

C4: Longest run ever, the only twist in the first part of the map is that they decide to pull the bridge up on you and Cuan leaves sort of arbitrarily. Once you have the first castle, something actually good happens in that Mahnya and Co die. This would have been much better handled if we weren't arbitrarily blocked by the Silesian soldier (rather, just making it impossible to get to Mahnya in time with any combination of available resources besides Fury) but I'm not going to nitpick it. Then you shitstomp whatserface for killing Mahnya.

C5: The BIG TWIST. Sigurd's dad is alive (but only to deliver the sword) and then a lot of fighting and Cuan shows up to help and dies, cementing our hatred of Trabant. It's one of my least favorite scenes and I like it because I actually hate Trabant until he shows up again late in Gen 2. THIS IS EFFECTIVE. Then Sigurd and everybody die to the backstabber who backstabbed Reptor who turns out to be Alvis' front.

End result? It's not bad. It's not as amazing as you're 'sperging it up to be, but it isn't bad. For the time? Sure, it's great (even, dare I say, revolutionary), but that doesn't hold overmuch relevance. Things deserve credit for being revolutionary for their time when they retain relevance years later.

EDIT: If you're talking about FE4's plot as a whole, rather than just Gen 1's, please do speak up because I will cede a LOT more points of "political intrigue" if you're not just a rabid GEN 2 DOESNT HAVE A STORY guy.

For the record, despite what you seem to think, I don't hate FE4. I'm actually a pretty damned big fan of FE4, even though I dislike the more rabid fanbase.

My "standards" primarily involve giving me characters that provide me with feelings, good or bad. Most of Gen 1 fails to do this. Well, that's not fair since most of Gen 1 doesn't appear in cutscenes, so we'll modify that to most of the main characters of Gen 1. The only person in Gen 1 who provides a strong enough showing to give real emotional feedback is Trabant. Everybody else is either a throwaway betrays-Sigurd, is in your party, or is actually Eltshan.

Everyone agrees that FE11 graphics are sinfully bad. Get your eyes checked.

1: hahahaha what. "Everyone" (using this lightly) agrees that FE11 has a different style that a lot of people don't like. It's also, technically, a hell of a lot more proficient than FE4. The mapview sprites are much better, the mugs - eh, the mugs are love 'em or hate 'em, and the maps themselves are much, much better. All you've said to me in this post is that you don't have any sort of objectivity when it comes to FE11, and instead rely on hyperbole.

2: Why is there a complete set of bold, italic, and underline tags here? I cannot figure it out.

Increased enemy stats versus adjustable AI, ranking system, and generation system. No comparison, FE4 wins.

Are you ...

You're serious, aren't you?

Okay, let's do this. Adjustable AI - show me what changes. I already asked everybody's favorite weeaboo Serisu, but I seriously have zero confirmation that that AI switch does *anything* at all besides, anecdotally from one person, that the AI actually becomes stupider. Ranking system is not a difficulty option. Generation system is not even close to a difficulty option.

I can already predict the response, "but you can do subpar pairings/do subs runs for extra difficulty!" because that's the only thing I can even think that you were thinking of when you said it was a difficulty feature. If that counts as difficulty, FE11 blows FE4 out of the water because of how many shitty units FE11 has - and six levels of increased enemy stats to boot!

I don't know what "terribly paced gameplay" means. Every Fire Emblem has terrible AI except for FE5.

Despite the fact that this was already covered, I might as well snipe at it too. "Terribly paced gameplay" means the time shuffling units between castles, which you have to do multiple times in every single map besides Prologue. There are massive stretches of empty land that will never be skirmished on. Obviously, this is a stylistic choice (since they have the ~30 chapters of other FEs stitched into 12) but that doesn't really make it better. Unless you're rushing FE4 at BREAKNECK SPEED (which I usually do, so this is lessened), you will have several turns between each castle (up to ten or fifteen) of doing nothing but relocating your entire formation. God help you if you want to get Aideen up for more healing while you're at it.

And it's not even dynamic. In most cases, absolutely nothing or one single group goes aggro before you've gotten back into formation and can peel them off. It could have been interesting, leaving scrubguards at back castles because enemies will make snipe captures at them (the Final chapter does this particularly well) but for the most part all capping a castle does is spawn one group of units who charge recklessly and a bunch of others who just sit and wait for you.

FE4 is one of the fairer games in the series. If you want to complain about bullshit, try FE5 or FE6's reinforcements.

Overall? I'd say the only games (taken at a modest difficulty like H2 for FE11, no reverse lunatic bullshit) that are less fair than FE4 are FE5 and *maybe* FE6. That doesn't make for "one of the fairer games in the series", chief. That said, that was utterly not my point. I never insinuated that FE4 wasn't a fair game overall, I only said that several points in the game were pure bullshit. Like Alvis. Hooray, a boss who literally 1HKOs most of your army (and doubles, with ~100% hit) and can only actually be damaged by, uh, Celice/Ares/Shanan/maaaybe Holsety!Sety with anything resembling accuracy. Also he has crit immunity and Big Shield.

Just because FE5 and 6 are worse doesn't make FE4 good relative to 7/8/9/10/11. That's lower echelon, mate.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Integrity

[Only My Unit]

My problem with FE11's graphics has less to do with how it took advantage of the system's technical capabilities and more its graphical style: darker, less fluid. FE4's graphics are bright, crisp, well-detailed and well-animated. I'm seriously finding it difficult to understand how anyone could find FE4's graphics to be unappealing.

...? I'm assuming that Tekken, as a fighting game, has a pretty terrible and generic plot.

I was trying to play devil's advocate and represent how far I was going to let FE4 be insulted. Tekken actually has a good plot with how all of its characters come together if you take into account their backrounds and endings. Then again, probably not expressed much in the original game alone. If it was being compared to King of Fighters, I would definitely point out that it has a terrible storyline. 13 main games and a whole lot of bullcrap.

FE's gotten a lot more accomplished with its 13 games.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Only My Unit