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

[Constable Reggie]

Again, you're emphasizing that Fe5 apparently can only be played in one specific way on certain chapters, but from someone who's actually played the game, this is flat out not true (with exception to maybe some early chapters before preparation, but this applies to all Fe games). I'm still baffled by the idea that Fe5's difficulty somehow makes it inherently worse. Not only is that what Fe5 was specifically going for, but it's used effectively to strengthen the game's theme of being overwhelmed. Compare that to say, Fe6, who's difficulty is because of lacking design choices and is an afterthought to the actual game.

I say it's another Fe3 because it effectively ignores most of the main mechanics from Fe4 and 5, and basically advances from Fe3. 4 is obvious enough, while 5 was entirely centered on fatigue, difficulty from design (as opposed to high stats), and unique chapter objectives. Fe6 specifically threw all that out and is literally just a retelling of Fe3, with a few scant updates from 4 and 5. Fe7 improves on it some more, but still not enough to really be considered innovative, new, or different in any significant way. "Stifling innovation" is probably the wrong way to say it, it's probably more akin to disregarding or ignoring innovation/creativity. I'm not arguing that innovation in itself is a good thing. Fe4, 5, and 10 all tried to innovate, and pulled it off. They succeeded, so it's not just innovation for innovation's sake. Something like Fe2 tried to innovate, but arguably is hurt due to how much it had to sacrifice to try it (level design in particular took a huge blow). Neverdead may have some of the most innovative ideas ever for a tps, but it fails as a game because it didn't succeed in pulling them off well.

Fe10 existing doesn't suddenly undo all character development from Fe9, not sure where you're getting that from. But yes, I agree that RD did have some big faults, namely lack of character development, relatively bland overarching enemies, and the ball drop of part 4. But Fe10 had some really excellent story elements to it, and it's gameplay somewhat supported what it was going for. Again, I'm not praising Fe10 just because it took risks. I'm praising Fe10 because it successfully pulled off those risks, but at the cost of some other things. I believe the things RD did well, it did very well and stands out, and somewhat makes up for it's faults, at least enough so that it surpasses Fe9 as a game.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Espinosa]

How many ways are there to SSS-rank FE5? Isn't it somewhat limited?

[PresidentEden]

You say "from someone who's actually played the game" as though I haven't... I acknowledge it's been a while, but you've taken an unnecessarily condescending tone throughout that has not been constructive for discussion.

I understand FE5 was going for difficulty. I also understand that it was an effective tool given the plot. On the whole, I think it was a good move. But it does hurt the game to an extent because, again, the difficulty limits strategic options to the point that the strategy to clear it becomes formulaic on several occasions (moreso than the typical FE). I also want to point out that I never called FE5 bad; I only observed that the difficulty limited it in developing some of its innovative aspects, because it gave the player a lot of strategic options (Rescuing comes to mind immediately), but aforesaid formulaic nature limited the ability of the player to deploy them. (Good comparison to FE6.)

I'm mostly with you on the second paragraph (particularly with FE4 and FE5 being examples of innovation done right, or in the case of FE5, mostly right and certainly more right than wrong), but I'm just not seeing it for FE10. I feel I must be missing something about its gameplay that was innovative. I'll start with the lone example specifically raised so far, which is the chapter where your different controlled squads end up fighting each other. I agree that there's a lot that could have been done with that scenario. It could have been incredibly emotionally powerful with well-developed characters and good writing. It could have made the plot much more painful and involved with the defeated characters staying dead. It could have been so much... but it wasn't. The "slain" friends-turned-enemies return later and everyone's on the same side in the end, and the game's disjointed jumping around everywhere made it far too difficult to connect with the characters introduced in FE10 (and if not for FE9 developing the returning cast, the same would be said there), not to mention that all their "deaths" are Disney Deaths anyway. All of the potential to make that an impacting part of the game was wasted. In fairness to FE10, I liked being able to mix-and-match Skills (realism implications aside) and I love that the BEXP accounts for capped stats. Both of those were good additions that (AFAIK) were new to FE10. But I don't think those carry it, and I don't really think the other innovations were especially good.

On the last part, I didn't say FE10 undid the character development in FE9, on the contrary I said it rode the coattails of it. It definitely undid the core plot of FE9 though, and for no appreciable reason. FE9 centered on Ashnard attempting to overthrow the Begnion-led continental order in favor of his own the-strong-and-the-dead philosophy, and while that philosophy is certainly Generic Big Bad, the development of the other antagonists involved and the refreshingly down-to-Earth development of the protagonists made up for it. By retroactively making Sephiran the real Big Bad and making Ashnard some manipulated chump, the whole point of the war, around which FE9 spent so much time developing its antagonists, is just gone. The intrigue and drama surrounding FE9's tale of competing ideology and societal vision was what made its plot so compelling, and FE10 essentially relegated that to a sideshow in the overall plot of the Tellius arc. You need a pretty damn respectable and intelligent alternative theme to make up for that. FE10 went back to the tripe "stop the crazy guy from reviving the evil demon and killing everyone" plot that FE9 turned into something respectable and really good, and then just kinda left it there, or ineffectually recycled themes from FE9 and didn't do them as well, and in the meantime neglected the character development that might have made up for all of the gaping plot holes and unsatisfying twists and turns that constitute FE10's plot. I don't see what risks FE10 took that succeeded at all. The gameplay was solid, but almost every game in the franchise has solid gameplay. The series is great because of strong gameplay and compelling storytelling. FE10 was on the path to the former and wouldn't know what the latter looked like if its life depended on it (which, thankfully for IS and the franchise's health, it did not; there's no denying that it was a commercial success, and despite my clear significant misgivings for it, I'm still glad it was). I'm definitely not seeing how it surpassed FE9 in either of those, or any other, aspect.

ETA: Going to add that I agree with Espinosa re: rankings, though I'll extend that criticism to other FEs as well and not state it as an exclusive critique of FE5 here

Edited March 14, 2013 by PresidentEden

[BrightBow]

"The Tellius arc was complete after it was done"?

The game left so many plot hooks lying around that I can't even list them all on the drop of my head.

For example, the game just casually mentioned, that not only is the god of Telius very real but also just so happens to be sitting in a tower in Begnion. Sephiran even said at the end that there would be further war. The game was clearly intended to have a sequel.

Edited March 14, 2013 by BrightBow

[Florete]

As much as I'd love to rip apart PresidentEden's criticism of RD, this whole FE5/10 thing is kind of getting off topic. Try to steer it back.

[MacLovin]

Fe7/6 had me kind of care for some of the recurring characters.

[OK, OK, it was JUST Marcus and Eliwood.]

[PresidentEden]

Though the nature of the discussion, in my opinion, lends itself to discussing the entire franchise, including non-GBA games, I can see that this is taking a decidedly non-GBA turn, so I'll not comment further on the tangent. I would like to request that the good Constable be permitted to have the final word on it though.

With respect to the original subject, i.e. the claim that the GBA games are the best: I tend to agree with that sentiment because I evaluate segments by their weak points as much as their strengths. I've been grouping the segments of the franchise like so:

NES/SNES

GBA

GC/WII

DS/etc.

As has been amply discussed, I feel the GC/WII is average on the whole, because I really liked FE9 and really disliked FE10. I felt 11 was terrible and 12 was... well, not-11, and I'm undecided on 13, so I don't think I can evaluate it either way (though I lean strongly away from the DS/etc. being the best era). SNES individually might take the prize, and it might be unfair for me to group NES with SNES. The NES games drag them down in a relative discussion because, while being great concepts that started it all, like almost every set of foundational games in a long-running, healthy franchise, they're just not going to stack up. It's a sign of a good franchise that's evolving, growing and maturing. I group them together because the site does and because I've always done so mentally, but that may not be fair to the SNES.

tl;dr Given these divisions I think the GBA is the best, however divided another way I could go differently.

Edited March 14, 2013 by PresidentEden

[Constable Reggie]

As much as I'd love to rip apart PresidentEden's criticism of RD, this whole FE5/10 thing is kind of getting off topic. Try to steer it back.

It directly relates to the question of if the GBA series is better than the Snes/modern console series. But okay.

How many ways are there to SSS-rank FE5? Isn't it somewhat limited?

SSS is frankly impossible except for the most advanced Fe players, probably harder to pull off than even Fe13 Lunatic+. If you're going to try and obtain the rank, then great, but that means you, not the game, are restricting yourself.

You say "from someone who's actually played the game" as though I haven't... I acknowledge it's been a while, but you've taken an unnecessarily condescending tone throughout that has not been constructive for discussion.

Of course I'm not, I just find that claming something that plainly isn't true and using extremely shaky reasoning behind it is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not going to respond to the rest of the Fe5 part post because it just ends up going back to "Fe5 limits your strategy playstyle", when it doesn't (compared to the rest of the Fe games, at least). And since when is one sarcastic remark "throughout"?

As for RD, I'll let someone else better committed to defending the game to argue against your points, since it's not exactly in my top Fe game list, as opposed to Fe5. I know the game has a lot of faults, but it still does a lot right, that no other Fe does, that makes it stand out to the typical Fe game, which thus, in my opinion, makes it better than PoR. Either way, I still feel that the Tellius series is better than the GBA series because 6 is awful compared to every other Fe game.

tl;dr Given these divisions I think the GBA is the best, however divided another way I could go differently.

I personally think it should be divided like this:

Akaneia (1-3 [3 plays more similarly to 1 than it does 4-5])

Jugdral (4-5)

GBA (6-8 [nowhere else to put 8])

Tellius (9-10)

Akaneia Remake (11-12)

It's too early to really group Awakening with anything, since it doesn't have a (substantial) connection to any other game and plays far more differently than the rest.

As for what I think is the best, easily Jugdral/Snes, with Tellius, GBA, Remakes, and Akaneia afterwards in that order. 6 drags the other two down far too much for me to consider GBA above tellius. Gaiden gave up too much for the things it introduced, and I'm just not a fan of Mystery at all.

edit:

You need a pretty damn respectable and intelligent alternative theme to make up for that.

*nitpick* Fe10 does, though. *nitpick*

Edited March 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Florete]

It directly relates to the question of if the GBA series is better than the Snes/modern console series. But okay.

The FE5 tangent could be seen as being compared to the GBA games, but the 9/10 thing was really about just how 9 and 10 compare to each other. As PresidentEden said, it's just taking too much of a non-GBA turn despite it being kind of a grey area thing. And I see you've stealthily brought GBA games back into the equation which means it's basically on topic now anyway.

[PresidentEden]

In retrospect, dividing by arc makes too much damn sense for me not to have done. I realize the logic process behind going by console (since the thread is "GBA era," i.e. grouping by console), but I already grouped Tellius by arc instead.

So let's see. I'd actually keep your list, sans of course flipping Elibe+Magvel and Tellius. I think FE10 was more of a sore spot than FE6 and that only having one good game to make up for the sore spot instead of two sets the Tellius arc behind Elibe+Magvel. But, if I were to accept the reverse position (namely that FE10 wasn't that bad a sore spot/wasn't a sore spot, and FE6 was), then I'd rank Tellius ahead. Basically I see where you're coming from, and though I disagree with the valuing judgments you made on the games, I think your logic for ranking them the way you did is valid if I take those judgments as a given.

Not sure where I'd put Akaneia Mk. I vs Akaneia Mk. II. Frankly I don't really give a shit which one takes last and which takes second-to-last... provided we're in agreement that they're not in contention for first, I'll let it sit.

(P.S. -- Started replaying FE6 today due to this thread. Stopped after four chapters due to boredom. I've only played through FE6 a few times, so it's not overplayed-fatigue. I'm still not a fan of FE10 at all, but the logic behind 10 > 6 is becoming easier to accept by the minute.)

[Constable Reggie]

Fe6 gets worse, imo, with dreadfully long and boring maps mid/lategame. It reaches it high point in the Western Isles, then just goes downhill from there. Fe7/8 are both excellent games, without a doubt, but I'm still of the opinion that Fe6 is the worst Fe game of all time (although not necessarily a bad game by game standards), and not even a gold-plated Fe game made of chocolate can make up for that. Fe9/10 are at least both solid in gameplay, so even if you find 10's story elements to be incredibly stupid, at least it isn't as much a chore to play.

As for Akaneia, it's pretty difficult to judge the nes games. Do we consider how much of an impact they left when they were released and the legacy they leave behind, or stictly by how well they hold up today? Regardless, I felt both 2 and 3 were also weak entries that easily could have been better, with 2 retaining some more stuff from 1 (seriously why did they butcher the level design), and 3 not phoning it in for book 2. Shadow Dragon did bring some cool stuff and had a really cool art style, but it's mired by the fact that it's still a remake of an nes game. I still had lots of fun with it though and it's still the only (officially released) game with a competent multiplayer, so there's that.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[PresidentEden]

Yeah, I'm starting to see it. "A chore to play" is pretty much the perfect description. The plot is uninspiring too. (I also wasn't clear earlier, I do think 10 > 6 due to gameplay, I meant more the logic that Tellius > GBA because 10 > 6. I'm starting to buy into that logic the more and more I work through this chore.)

re: Akaneia, since this is mainly a comparison of games instead of franchise impact, I'd lean toward the latter criterion in your question. I guess that would make Mk. II superior. I always get stuck on these because on one hand, it seems stupid to compare, say, the graphics of a NES game to a DS game and judge the former poorly by comparison, because the tech limit at the time was what it was, but on the other hand I don't see how you would ignore it, either. I dunno.

Edited March 14, 2013 by PresidentEden

[WyvernSurfer]

Only really played the GBA series and I wouldn't consider the quality to be consistent.

While Fire Emblem 7 is a more solid and balanced game, FE6 was a chore late game and Sacred Stones was a bit too short and easy for my tastes (That didn't stop me from having some fun with it, mind you).

Edited March 14, 2013 by WyvernSurfer

[Murdok Dracul]

They're the worst (besides NES). They have the fewest innovations and the least developed mechanics. Shadow Dragon is better than all of them (though obviously not in terms of characters and plot).

For a comparison between them:

6 is boring, with an average storyline, boring, boring characters, and minimal game mechanics.

7 also has minimal game mechanics, but the story and characters are compelling enough that it doesn't matter, and the gameplay is much more fun and feels more rewarding than 6 anyway.

8 has branching promotions and post game, which I love. An army of Mage Knights, Valkyries and Assassins is awesome. Characters are interesting; the story itself is good - not as good as 7, but better than 6, I think (though maybe 6's story is affected by its translation - I dunno). It may be easier than the others, but the great amount of content makes up for that (short game my arse; how many people who call 8 a short game have actually bothered to try the Tower of Valni and Lagdou Ruins past the first floors?). Overall, this is my favourite GBA FE.

But as I said, I prefer Shadow Dragon, largely due to its gameplay options: battle save, reclass, skip enemy turn with Start, press X to see the entire enemy range, etc. These innovations are a small part of why I'm shuddering in anticipation for 13.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Murdok Dracul

[The Magus]

GBA was definitely the best, especially FE7. There's just something so much more appealing about the cartoony, over-the-top sprite animations!

[Ragingrob13]

actually i think the only thing holding up fe9 and fe10 is fe9. FE10 was too easily RNG abusive and the story I thought was terrible. I think it was personally the worst way to follow up FE9 seeing that it was such a wonderful game today.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

I agree, I like the GBA games the best.

[Quick]

actually i think the only thing holding up fe9 and fe10 is fe9. FE10 was too easily RNG abusive and the story I thought was terrible. I think it was personally the worst way to follow up FE9 seeing that it was such a wonderful game today.

You can really only slightly abuse the RNG in FE10, with the limited BEXP you get in Hard mode (and that being the only thing you can RNG abuse in that game) it's not really RNG abusable and it's gameplay is pretty solid if you ask me.

Anyways, I disagree with what the OP said, I personally believe that the Gamecube and Wii games are the best but I have only played the GBA, 3DS, and the aforementioned eras of the system (all of them) so I can't really say for sure. Once I figure out how to legally buy FE4 and FE5 cheap I can probably join the SNES arguments that people are having here.

[Icon of Sin]

Once I figure out how to legally buy FE4 and FE5 cheap I can probably join the SNES arguments that people are having here.

Get a Japanese Wii, which has FE 1-5 on VC. Otherwise, stick to emulators since carts like those are definitely not cheap.

[shadowofchaos]

Get a Japanese Wii, which has FE 1-5 on VC. Otherwise, stick to emulators since carts like those are definitely not cheap.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fire-Emblem-Seisen-no-Keifu-Super-Famicom-Japanese-Import-SFC-SNES-JP-/171040577186?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item27d2d016a2

6 bucks for FE4.

[Quick]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fire-Emblem-Seisen-no-Keifu-Super-Famicom-Japanese-Import-SFC-SNES-JP-/171040577186?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item27d2d016a26 bucks for FE4.

Thanks I'll make sure I get it. Hopefully FE5 is almost/just as cheap.

[dondon151]

no, FE5 is invariably going to be super expensive. it's a rare cartridge as is.

[Constable Reggie]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fire-Emblem-Seisen-no-Keifu-Super-Famicom-Japanese-Import-SFC-SNES-JP-/171040577186?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item27d2d016a2

6 bucks for FE4.

That looks like Fe3 to me.

[Naglfar94]

SNES era was best for me they had many things the GBA ones did not like more skills stronger legendary weapons with more special affects cool classes just wow I can go on longer but yeah SNES all the way but I love the GBA ones at the same time actually haha I just like all FE stuff but I like the SNES most.

[HM02 Af]

Wow. Nihil is my old account I was really shocked when I saw this was still up! Yeah, I think the GBA era is the best, maybe only because FE8 was the first I owned. I also think out of all the GBA games FE8 is the best with features, but it is too easy. FE7 has got to be my favorite in terms of the quality and difficulty.