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

[LunaSaint]

Mechanically speaking, I vastly prefer the GBA games. Let's look at FE7,

• The logic and numbers are fairly intuitive, with no game-changing hidden values other than supports and growths.
• Skill procs are a unique exception for a gimmicky class, as opposed to a core part of the system.
• The weapons are the most balanced of the series, almost everything has a purpose (lol bows).
• The map and combat graphics are very crisp and clean.
• Map design is good enough that I'm not hauling my ass round huge stretches of plains, forests or long, 1-2 space wide chokes.

I really prefer it when a turn based strategy has this kind of elegance. FE6 doesn't perform so well on this, but FE7 and to a lesser extent FE8 are as good at this as I've seen FE get.

After that, I'd say FE9 had a some good stuff. My favourite writing in the series and the best support system by a country mile. There were some awkward elements in there, but overall the combat was fairly smart still and most skills weren't too crazy.

[RJWalker]

While 8 & 7 are my favourite games of the series, I don't think there are the most well made Fire Emblem games. That would be New Mystery.

One thing about the GBA games that is far superior to any other Fire Emblem game is art design for the sprites and battles.

I'll excuse the first 2 games for being really limited in what they could do.

I won't comment on 3 because I haven't played it.

For 4, the sprites move as if they are completely unaffected by the laws of physics. Shaking your sword wildly before striking won't make the hit stonger. In fact it will only make you tired quicker. What's the point of having a flying horse if you're just going to land on the ground and stay there when attacking?

What's that? The GBA battle sprites are also unrealistic you say? That's true but it was clearly being intentionally cartoonish and over the top. Genealogy tries to present it's battle as more realisitic but it fails at that.

For the Tellius games, the attack animations are just all sorts of wierd. I can't really explain it but they look really wierd with those sudden swift motions.

Don't get me started on the DS games. The battles are so boring. and every unit of one class uses the same animation without even colour change except for hair colour.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Integrity]

Don't get me started on the DS games. The battles are so boring. and every unit of one class uses the same animation without even colour change except for hair colour.

Did I totally miss the point or didn't the GBA games do exactly that?

[RJWalker]

Maybe I worded that incorrectly. What I meant that only their hair colour is different in the DS games. And those that wear helmets and such are the exact same. Not even a different colour for their armour or anything. It's a small difference, I admit, but it adds up. I'm not saying the DS games have bad battle animations. They do their job of showing battles in a realistic way but that only makes them uninteresting to the eyes.

[BrightBow]

What's that? The GBA battle sprites are also unrealistic you say? That's true but it was clearly being intentionally cartoonish and over the top. Genealogy tries to present it's battle as more realisitic but it fails at that.

No.

What Geneology did, was using the available data to simulate an actual battle. The GBA system simply has everyone perform their animations right were they stood.

The SNES system would have worked just fine with cartoonish sprites. The problem with the GBA system is not that it's cartoonish but that it's simply cheap and lazy.

In fact, they were so lazy with the whole thing, that they even cheated with projectiles. If someone fires a projectile and the opponent dodges, the projectile it will just disappear because apparently making the game able to decide whether a projectile should hit or keep flying was too much effort.

The sprites themselves are lazy as well. Animations have very few frames and a lot of them simply consist of a blurry mess in an cheap attempt to simulate fast motions. And of course, they no longer have unique sprites for each weapon.

Don't get me started on the DS games. The battles are so boring. and every unit of one class uses the same animation without even colour change except for hair colour.

I'm not much of a fan of the DS animations but at least they had two attack animations and backgrounds that cover the entire screen. And they have no platforms floating above a black abyss.

I take that over unique pallets any day of the week.

Edited January 1, 2013 by BrightBow

[secondworld]

• The weapons are the most balanced of the series

Luna says hi.

One thing about the GBA games that is far superior to any other Fire Emblem game is art design for the sprites and battles.

I'll excuse the first 2 games for being really limited in what they could do.

I won't comment on 3 because I haven't played it.

For 4, the sprites move as if they are completely unaffected by the laws of physics. Shaking your sword wildly before striking won't make the hit stonger. In fact it will only make you tired quicker. What's the point of having a flying horse if you're just going to land on the ground and stay there when attacking?

What's that? The GBA battle sprites are also unrealistic you say? That's true but it was clearly being intentionally cartoonish and over the top. Genealogy tries to present it's battle as more realisitic but it fails at that.

For the Tellius games, the attack animations are just all sorts of wierd. I can't really explain it but they look really wierd with those sudden swift motions.

Don't get me started on the DS games. The battles are so boring. and every unit of one class uses the same animation without even colour change except for hair colour.

I think BrightBow pretty much summed my thoughts on this.(I hate those platforms)

Also,

Shaking your sword wildly before striking won't make the hit stonger.

Neither does spinning an arrow around before shooting it(almost every bow-using class), or tossing an axe into the air and attacking an enemy with it after you catch it(berserker), or spinning a javelin before throwing it(almost every lance-using class), or simply shaking a sword and then performing the exact same attack you would do normally.(mercenaries)

Also, I never saw it as shaking the sword, but rather as an after-image of sorts.

As for the topic itself, no, the GBA era is not the best.

I would like to say that the GC/Wii era is the best, but I can't look past RD's terrible writing and the butchering of previous characters' personalities.(RIP Astrid)

That said, SNES gets my vote.

Edited January 1, 2013 by RayDavid99

[OrangeCrush980]

Luna says hi.

It's balanced by its users either being mediocre or having too little availability.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Orange Crush

[RJWalker]

Neither does spinning an arrow around before shooting it(almost every bow-using class), or tossing an axe into the air and attacking an enemy with it after you catch it(berserker), or spinning a javelin before throwing it(almost every lance-using class), or simply shaking a sword and then performing the exact same attack you would do normally.(mercenaries)

You missed my point. The GBA battles are clearly being over the top. Rule of Cool is being applied. The FE4 critical looks silly in a game where the battles are simulated in a relativel realistic way. You know the critical animation for the Pegasus Knight where it quickly swoops down and flies back up as it stabs the foe? That should be the normal animation. That's the ideal tactic in battle when ou have a flying mount. But no. Most of the time, all they do is land there. You have flying horse. With wings. Fucking use them.

I really don't think there is a bes era. The GBA era is my favourite era but I don't think those games are the most well made ones. I think that title goes to New Mystery. It may not be my favourite but it's still the most well designed and thought out one I think.

[secondworld]

You missed my point. The GBA battles are clearly being over the top. Rule of Cool is being applied. The FE4 critical looks silly in a game where the battles are simulated in a relativel realistic way. You know the critical animation for the Pegasus Knight where it quickly swoops down and flies back up as it stabs the foe? That should be the normal animation. That's the ideal tactic in battle when ou have a flying mount. But no. Most of the time, all they do is land there. You have flying horse. With wings. Fucking use them.

Where did you get this idea that FE4/FE5 were trying to be realistic?

A realistic game wouldn't have people jumping several feet into the air with large battle axes.

Only a few of the regular animations were actually realistic.

[RJWalker]

Which is why I said 'relatively' realistic.

[Gone2Ground]

As much as I appreciate all that the GBA games stood for, when the first ones you play are FE9/10 the lack of any form of Skills system throws you off a little. So my favorite's 10 for gameplay/level design, 4 for story and 9 for a good balance.

[Vorena]

I disagree with GBA being the best "era". To me, it was the SNES era which is on top. I feel it offers the most variety in mechanics and gameplay. It also offers a range of difficulties as well. FE3 is super easy while FE5 becomes on one of the most difficult. FE7 feels the most polished for a single game in the series, but FE6 feels a bit unbalanced.

[Luftwaffe]

I've no preference for any console era. I really only like the Akaneia games (and Gaiden). Also, I'm pretty sure I'm one of the few who actually prefers FE11 over FE12. Then again, FE3 is my favourite and FE1 is the only fe i haven't played.

FE6 is the onlt gba era game i enjoy. There's just something I like about using characters with low growths (another reason i'm not a huge fan of fe12).

I've warmed up to tellius despite dismissing it prematurely after playing through RD's abysmal plot. FE9 is the better game imo.

I like FE4 but half of the game is aids. It reminds me of FF4 except it's actually enjoyable at times. Both have great characters (dew can fuck off though, as well as everyone in ff4 apart from kain and rydia) but suffer from terrible game mechanics. FE5 is the better game though it quickly loses its lustre.

[Parrhesia]

I feel it FE3 is super easy

I disagree. The sheer tedium of Chapters 2 and 3 will take years off your life.

[MacLovin]

I've no preference for any console era. I really only like the Akaneia games (and Gaiden). Also, I'm pretty sure I'm one of the few who actually prefers FE11 over FE12. Then again, FE3 is my favourite and FE1 is the only fe i haven't played.

FE6 is the onlt gba era game i enjoy. There's just something I like about using characters with low growths (another reason i'm not a huge fan of fe12).

I've warmed up to tellius despite dismissing it prematurely after playing through RD's abysmal plot. FE9 is the better game imo.

I like FE4 but half of the game is aids. It reminds me of FF4 except it's actually enjoyable at times. Both have great characters (dew can fuck off though, as well as everyone in ff4 apart from kain and rydia) but suffer from terrible game mechanics. FE5 is the better game though it quickly loses its lustre.

Gen 1 gets boring as fuck and sometimes annoying if you want to do goofy pairings.

Like FinXTiltyu or FinXBriggid.

[Raven]

I respectfully agree with the notion that GBA FE is the best era... Well let's be more specific here. It may not be the "best" (I think that goes to FE9 and 10), however it is most certainly my favourite era of the FE series. I haven't played anything (3 chapters of FE4 don't count) before FE6 so ehh.

[MacLovin]

THe GBA era is just the most accesible era. (free)

[PresidentEden]

I know this is an old post, but it's one of the first 10 topics on the board...

I think the GBA arc as a whole is the best arc. FE9 is the best game (and really everything made since has been quite poor; FE13 excepted), but FE7+FE8 is the best combination on any one platform. FE4 is up there with 7/8/9 but the rest of the ones before 7 aren't anything special.

[Jedi]

My personal feelings on the matter. All the FE's have a charm and a draw to them, they attract us all for different reasons. My personal favorites are 9 and 6, but all the other games are great in their own rights. Simple words I shall share about each game seeing as I have a positive experience with them all.

Sure we may all never agree on which game is "The best" or anything but we should try to keep level heads and not aimlessly bash

FE1: Launched Off the Series

FE2: Introduced concepts that would be used in FE8 and FE10 like triple class, choice of promotion, the map screen, split storyline and had some unique things to make it stand out still today

FE3: Expanded on 1 and added the dismount system and for all means and purposes I think it should have stayed

FE4: A Unique experience 2 Generations, The Skill system. The Introduction of Canto, The Weapon Triangle, the lover, castle, gold system. Almost none of which would return.

FE5: The game of desperation, capture, first playable dark mage, The introduction of a difficulty unknown to the series at the time, Fog of War and Gaidens. Also the reintroduction of dismount

FE6: The simplification of the series with a HM that will leave you in tears if not prepared

FE7: The Wests first taste. Solid game overall

FE8: The Gateway, the reintroduction of Gaiden concepts

FE9: The Beginning of the "Epic" of the series and reintroduction of the skill system and the beginning of the BEXP system and the Laguz

FE10: The Ending of the "Epic" applied more advanced concepts like high ground advantage. Reintroduction of FE2's split storyline

FE11: The introduction of Marth to the west and the concept of Reclass

FE12: The Perfection of the difficulty curve, the mastery of Reclass and character development for Marths lot at long last

FE13: I haven't played but it looks like a grand mesh of them all to some degree

Edited March 14, 2013 by Jedi

[Phoenix Wright]

I know this is an old post, but it's one of the first 10 topics on the board...

I think the GBA arc as a whole is the best arc. FE9 is the best game (and really everything made since has been quite poor; FE13 excepted), but FE7+FE8 is the best combination on any one platform. FE4 is up there with 7/8/9 but the rest of the ones before 7 aren't anything special.

FE10 and FE12 were amazing, and FE11 was acceptable.

As a side topic, I'd argue that the GBA Fire Emblems give me a reason to keep animations on, due to the ridiculousness, whilst in all of the other games they're too realistic for us to really care. Which sucks because I'd love to see Walhart do some ridiculous crit attacks...

Edited March 14, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[PresidentEden]

inb4 this starts a huge debate but I think FE10 was an absolute abortion. FE9 was about as close to perfect as a game can get and closed the Tellius arc very satisfyingly. Being dragged all over the place in the same arc with a plot that created more problems than it solved for the arc's storyline was godawful. 10 and 11 being back-to-back like that set the franchise back several years. And admittedly, I did forget about FE12; while I hold it's nothing special, I do rescind the "quite poor" labeling. I'm not sure if my memory of it not being bad is simply carried by "It's not 10 or 11" sentiment or its own merit, but it helped the franchise crawl out of the crater 10-11 left.

[Constable Reggie]

I disagree with your statement that everything below 7 (barring 4) is nothing special. Fe5 is one of the most special game in the series (arguably compared to 4), with several new great mechanics implemented, some still not in any Fe game after it (mechanics that could easily fit into current Fe-style games, unlike 4). All the GBA series did was simplify the formula, which after playing Fe4/5, I felt was for the worse. I'm of the opinion that the Snes era (specifically Jugdral) is the best era.

Fe10 has it's problems, but pitting your two playable casts/armies against each other was an incredibly innovative and unique idea, that while probably not expanded on as much as it should have been, was incredibly awesome. I thought the risks it took puts it above Fe9, which plays it completely safe.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[PresidentEden]

"Nothing special" refers to quality, not level of innovation or creativity. I value innovative concepts highly -- but only if they're sensibly executed and done well. FE5 brought in great mechanics and certainly deserves a lot of credit for its impact on the series, but as an actual game I felt the difficulty overshadowed the great mechanics and kept it from being as great as it could have been. I recall (though I'm unable to cite chapter and verse due to having played it a while back) several situations where it appeared that only one strategy would actually suffice to clear a level without copious dependence on luck. In my opinion that's not the mark of a good strategy game. EDIT: Think of FE5 as the science of the ancient Greeks, and the franchise's more recent titles as modern science. The latter would not be what it is today without the former, and the former deserves a lot of credit for making the latter what it is; but the latter, by improving upon the former, is better than the former. It takes nothing away from the former to say that, either.

And based off of the above criteria (innovation isn't innately good and doesn't deserve intrinsic credit), FE10 gets nothing. The risks that were taken were complete disasters. I get rewarding risky concepts that work out over safe concepts, but not ones that don't.

Edited March 14, 2013 by PresidentEden

[Constable Reggie]

Forgive me for misunderstandering your idea of "nothing special", which I believed to mean "nothing special", ie nothing new, innovative, or creative (different from what is usual, Fe12 would apply here, since while it ulitized what it had extremely well, it didn't actually do anything "special") ideas/mechanics/something.. And to argue that Fe5 is somehow inherently worse for limiting your route options (I can not think of any chapter in fe5 where only 1 strategy is viable), or that because it's difficult (seriously?) isn't valid, because the same could apply to Fe12 or 13, which are generally considered above average FE titles.

And tell me, besides smoothing out Fe5's rough edges, how did the gba era improve on Fe4/5's formula? Accessibility only gets you so far, especially when it stifles innovation. Your analogy falls apart when you try to imply that the GBA actually improved on Fe5's formula, when all it really did was take a scant few mechanics from 4 and 5, ignore absolutely everything else, sand out some edges, and make another Fe3.

Fe10's risks are pulled off relatively well, however. It's when Fe10 relegates itself to the typical "we must team up and defeat this clearly evil super boss and her lackeys" Fe formula where it starts to crumble. It's not Fe10's innovative ideas that screw it over.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[PresidentEden]

You'll notice that I already didn't agree with the consensus on 12 and 13, meaning that it certainly is valid to critique FE5 on the same basis. The focal point of a strategy game is strategy, which relies both on the ability to craft a strong attack plan and to adapt it to changing circumstances. This should not be a formulaic process by which one derives one optimal goal and pushes through from there; the hallmark of a good strategy game is one in which all players have access to multiple viable paths to victory. (For an example of this, consider the board game Diplomacy.) FE in general has some trouble with this, but FE5 in particular I recall being difficult enough that the player basically had one viable strategy to clear some of the maps. (The contrast of this would be FE8, where even on hard mode, the maps were easy enough that too many strategies would work. My point here is that people routinely and justifiably criticize FE8 for failing the strategy aspect by being too easy, but that FE5, which in my view fails it for being too difficult, gets off light.)

As for the analogy, it's not absolute. Clearly the GBA games took a different turn from the S/NES games, a turn that I personally think was well done. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how they equate to "another FE3." It's pretty obvious that they're different from FE3 in a lot of respects. In fact, I'm not sure how any of your second paragraph is even correct in this context. The GBA games didn't stifle innovation just because they didn't try a lot of things that didn't work. You seem to come from the "try anything new" school of thought, which I have trouble understanding on a fundamental level for reasons I've previously outlined. It seems intuitively obvious to me that innovation for innovation's sake is not helpful or useful. (It's certainly better than its opposite, namely "try nothing new," but that only goes so far.)

And frankly, I think you're being far too easy on FE10. FE10 didn't just devolve to a generic plot; if that were its sole fault it would be the greatest game in the series, since every Fire Emblem plot has as much. It's that it went about it in such a way as to undo completely the depth evident in FE9's plot that makes it so spectacularly horrible. FE9, for all of its Generic Big Bad plot, added a lot of depth by fleshing out various realities of Tellius society. Even though Mad King Ashnard was a rather lame villain from a plot standpoint, the development of the other antagonists, the main characters, and subtexts of society (I'm thinking in particular of the level of attention given to beorc-laguz racism) more than made up for it. It's the Fire Emblem signature plot done about as well as possible. The Tellius arc was complete after it was done; the ending was emotionally and logically satisfying with all loose ends tied up assuming a fair dose of suspension of disbelief (namely not ever really finding out why Ashnard was so intent on reviving a dark god in his quest to overthrow Begnion's hierarchy; there's the obvious "because it would give him power" angle but again, you need a little suspension of disbelief to buy into that fully). FE10 not only made the mistake of trying to enhance a satisfactorily-complete plot, but did so by completely contradicting and essentially tossing out the core components that made the FE9 plot's clichédness acceptable in favor of a significantly more obscure and less developed Generic Big Bad plot than the one it undid. Worse, it basically rode the coattails of FE9's character development; the constant shifting between playable squads meant that the game was unable to develop the characters especially well.

The truth is that the fundamental concept of FE10 itself was risky. You just don't try to expound on complete storylines. It's why sequels have a reputation for sucking, especially when they follow good standalone films, and why people are more willing to forgive poorly-executed first stories that strongly lend themselves to sequels. To praise FE10 for its riskiness is to praise a head coach of an American football team who, holding a close lead with 2 minutes to play, elects to try to convert a 4th-and-31, fails, and allows the opponent to win the game. Risky moves that are built on sound logic, respectably high probabilities of success and high payouts are worthy of praise, even if they fail. FE10 is in no respect such a move.