In which order?

[Sunwoo]

I actually had an easier time finding FE8 than FE7. But anyway, I'd say FE7 is a good start. Although PoR isn't a bad start either. That's what I started with. Just ... don't begin with FE10 or FE11.

[I don't play for turns]

Play 9 before 10 and 11 before 12 and 13. Start with 8 because it's easiest. You should probably go to FE7 next, because it slightly bumps up the difficulty level without adding new features. That's it.

I don;t really know what I'm talking about too much, just warning you.

[Anouleth]

lol; as a note, don't listen to this. For your first impression of the series, don't listen to absolutes like the above.

You can pick pretty much any entry in the series. FE6, FE7, and FE9 have tutorials, with FE7's being the easiest to transition into. But you can get into pretty much any one of them and come away with an idea of how the rest of the games will feel.

FE8 also has a tutorial.

[Celice]

FE8 also has a tutorial.

As does FE11/FE12, however, those are more of optional guides where the players have to willingly learn how to play; the tutorials in the other choices actually lead a player and shows them how to play. As such, their tutorials are much more engaging and puts their learning into practice, and doesn't really allow for one to mess-up in their execution until after the tutorials are over. The guides have no control over teaching the player :/

[VulneqSVB/=]

Well, I'm playing according to the canon/fanon order:

FE4 1st Gen -> FE5 -> FE4 2nd Gen -> (WILDCARD!) -> FE11 -> FE2 -> FE12 -> FE13 -> FE7 -> FE6

Potential wildcards:

FE9 -> FE10

FE8

Ehh, I need an official timeline so I can see how the events of the game sequence themselves. :P Heard that the Tellius Saga takes place between the end of Seisen and Shadow Dragon, or before everything else. Magvel might be the same, but I'm placing my bets on the MU's son Mark = the FE7 Strategist.

[sunshineYON]

FE7 was made for modern gamers to dive into the series.

[BrightBow]

FE8 also has a tutorial.

As does FE11/FE12, however, those are more of optional guides where the players have to willingly learn how to play; the tutorials in the other choices actually lead a player and shows them how to play. As such, their tutorials are much more engaging and puts their learning into practice, and doesn't really allow for one to mess-up in their execution until after the tutorials are over. The guides have no control over teaching the player :/

Actually, you just have to play easy mode and FE8 forces you to go through the motions just like FE7 does. Except, that FE8s is a lot shorter.

Edit: As a result I like that one a lot better since it is actually an realistic option to start the game again in case you forgot something because you can get through it in a few minutes, while FE7 takes you hours of boredom to go through. Besides, longer duration also means that the information you are looking for is easier to miss. And it lacks that handy in-game manual.

FE7s tutorial is a mess anyway.

You do learn stuff best by actually doing it. In FE7 you technically don't do anything. You just confirm whatever the game railroads you to do, by pressing the a-button.

They even go so far as to completely log the action menu options so you can't even internalize them. Which is for example a problem with the "talk" command because you only see it twice in the tutorial while "item", "trade" and others show up a lot so you can experiment and internalize them. But talk is only used twice and by the time you can finally use it again, you probably already forgot it existed.

And the only reason that the FE7 tutorial is so long is the first place is because it loves to clog your brain with useless information.

Like all those times when Lyn or someone else tells you to do something and then the game follows up by telling you to do the same thing.

Or when right at the beginning, when the game tells you that you are the green unit and that you don't actually do anything.

You're only here as a strategist, Mark. You will only appear during special events. Your job as strategist is to place the cursor on blue units to issue their orders.

Why bother telling me that I can't use a units that isn't even on the map? And particular that "special events" part is nothing but misleading. He never does jack.

I also hated when they introduced the "monk" class.

The monk Lucius has joined your group. Monks are users of the magic of light. Those who wield magic are highly attuned to its flow, so they have a high magic resistance. Units with high magic resistances can reduce the damage caused by magical attacks. When magic users battle each other, they often find it hard to inflict damage. The light magic of monks is strong against the dark magic favored by shamans. Lucius should come in handy here. Let's put his magic to the test. Have Lucius attack the shaman nearest him.

For one thing, that text was way to colorful. "Those who wield magic are highly attuned to its flow". Seriously? Get to the point.

And then, it essential repeats the same thing three times in a row.

"Those who wield magic are highly attuned to its flow, so they have a high magic resistance. Units with high magic resistances can reduce the damage caused by magical attacks. When magic users battle each other, they often find it hard to inflict damage."

Did they really need to say the same thing 3 times in a row? It almost sounds like they were trying to explain the game to infants. They wouldn't automatically understood that having magic resistance means that you take less damage from magic. And that this results in mages not dealing much damage to each other.

Everyone else just needs to read: "Magic users have high resistance against magic attacks".

While they were on it, they also could have introduced the whole magic triangle. But they just say: Light > Dark and left it at that.

Besides, the point about magic being weak against mages could probably have been better made by having the Shaman attack before the explanation, so you could see they barely scratch each other. I mean, it worked in chapter 1. They always had Sain screw up so they could explain what he did wrong. Why break the pattern and take a different approach here?

And this one here:

Mathew: An armorslayer! Just as the name suggests. armorslayers are useful against knights in armor. You want to know something? You need to give weapons to those who can wield them. Otherwise, it's just a waste of a perfectly good weapon. Take this blade. I mean, I can use it, but... I'm not too strong, and...I just hate being counterattacked.

It doesn't tell you anything about which factors decide who would be suited to wield a weapon and who wouldn't. So how does that help me? Of course, since he says he is not strong I might assume it is strength... in which case I would be completely wrong.

Plus, "I just hate being counterattacked" is to vague on what consequences heavy weapons have. On top of just being barely right to begin with.

And allies who die while tell you after the fight that they are merely injured. Presented like that I expected it to be like in Starfox 64. When on of your allies gets shot down, they take a timeout and are back two missions later. I ended up having to restart the entire tutorial.

Edited May 24, 2012 by BrightBow

[Thor Odinson]

FE7 forces you to go through the tutorial the first time, is the thing. Maybe if you get it on cart and the previous owner has already beaten it, you can circumvent LNM, but there's no other way around it.

FE8, start straight on normal mode. Tutorial is not forced at all even on a brand new cart or ROM. You don't have to go through the bullshit known as loleasy.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Westbrick]

Actually, you just have to play easy mode and FE8 forces you to go through the motions just like FE7 does. Except, that FE8s is a lot shorter.

Edit: As a result I like that one a lot better since it is actually an realistic option to start the game again in case you forgot something because you can get through it in a few minutes, while FE7 takes you hours of boredom to go through. Besides, longer duration also means that the information you are looking for is easier to miss. And it lacks that handy in-game manual.

FE7s tutorial is a mess anyway.

[yelling]

...Honestly, what the hell is this post?

The tutorial, even on NM, should take a semi-experienced player no more than 45 minutes-1 hour. LHM can be completed in 30 minutes. After the first run-through, it's entirely optional. Only the first few chapters are on-rails, and like any good tutorial, it gradually hands the reigns over to the player; you certainly "do something," unless you're confusing the entire 12-chapter Lyn Mode with the first half of Chapter 1, as this poster seems to be doing inanely.

The anti-FE7 sentiments (which seem to be entirely unique to Serenes Forest) are rather grating, and reflect the kind of immature anti-popularism you see in series like Final Fantasy. Can't people simply embrace that some games simply aren't their cup of tea? I'm no longer the biggest fan of Sacred Stones despite it being my first game in the series, but I wouldn't really feel the need to go into a lengthy diatribe against its Easy Mode.

Either way, TC is best set starting with FE7/8 and then moving to the earlier or later games.

[Anouleth]

FE7 was made for modern gamers to dive into the series.

Yet somehow it did worse than FE1 and FE3, which didn't have tutorials. It's almost like people don't like being patronised and having their hand held.

Tutorials in video games are pretty bullshit. Many of the greatest and most popular video games of all time lack tutorials. This is true even for games that are popular amongst casuals, or have been released into cold markets.

...Honestly, what the hell is this post?

The tutorial, even on NM, should take a semi-experienced player no more than 45 minutes-1 hour.

1 hour too long.

The anti-FE7 sentiments (which seem to be entirely unique to Serenes Forest) are rather grating, and reflect the kind of immature anti-popularism you see in series like Final Fantasy. Can't people simply embrace that some games simply aren't their cup of tea? I'm no longer the biggest fan of Sacred Stones despite it being my first game in the series, but I wouldn't really feel the need to go into a lengthy diatribe against its Easy Mode.

Since the biggest problem people have against LM is it's non-optional nature, this is a false analogy. It would be like saying "you shouldn't complain that FE10HM doesn't let you see movement, because I don't complain about FE9HM".

As does FE11/FE12, however, those are more of optional guides where the players have to willingly learn how to play; the tutorials in the other choices actually lead a player and shows them how to play. As such, their tutorials are much more engaging and puts their learning into practice, and doesn't really allow for one to mess-up in their execution until after the tutorials are over. The guides have no control over teaching the player :/

This post is just completely wrong, except for the bit where you say it's optional: since you can avoid the tutorial by selecting Normal or Hard mode.

Perhaps in the future, you should actually play the games that you criticise.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Anouleth

[Celice]

This post is just completely wrong, except for the bit where you say it's optional: since you can avoid the tutorial by selecting Normal or Hard mode.

Perhaps in the future, you should actually play the games that you criticise.

Oh, I have! I just forgot about the forced tutorials because I never played the easiest options. I remembered the guides more than the tutorials. Thanks for being a dipstick about it though

Yet somehow it did worse than FE1 and FE3, which didn't have tutorials. It's almost like people don't like being patronised and having their hand held.

That is a beautiful correlation you're insinuating.

[Agro]

Oh for fuck's sake.

FE7 is a good one to start with because it's where a vast majority of people started and you'll find out why everyone loves FE so much. Sacred Stones (FE8) is a good one to do after that because most of the gameplay mechanics are mostly an improvement over FE7--it's not an awful lot of fun doing things in backward order, especially when the games have improvements in mechanics with each instalment.

Once you feel comfortable with the series you can really go any way you like; it's just that FE7 is always a nice one to start with because the storytelling is compelling and easy to follow (for a first-time player, at least). After that it's up to you; but be wary that if you play some of the earlier games you may or may not get frustrated with certain parts. For example, FE4 doesn't have trading. Or, despite coming after FE8, FE9 doesn't have branched promotions or a freeroaming world map. Approach all of them with an open mind and never feel like you're entitled to anything and playing any of them should be a fun experience.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Agro

[Original Alear]

Akaneia

FE1 or FE3 book 1 before FE3 book 2

FE11 before FE12

Jugdral

FE4 part 1 (prologue - ch 5)

then it really doesn't matter if you do the rest of fe4 or fe5 first

Elibe

FE7 before FE6 (not so much because either will spoil the other, but because FE7 is easier, and if you are going to do something as shitty as LNM you may as well do it when you don't know how FE plays very well).

Tellius

FE9 before FE10

Overall, FE6-9 are probably the best places to start. FE10 EM is also very easy, but iyou'll be spoiled i nterms of plot. Once you have one game under your belt it doesn't matter that much in terms of difficulty what order you do the others in, IMO.

[Westbrick]

1 hour too long.

Sorry, but I've got to give this a "boo hoo." Plenty of games which are considered among the best of all time involve rather lengthy introductions. Hello Ocarina of Time, hello most every Japanese RPG. And unlike those games, the FE7 tutorial is required only once. Complaining about it is the epitome of pettiness.

Since the biggest problem people have against LM is it's non-optional nature, this is a false analogy. It would be like saying "you shouldn't complain that FE10HM doesn't let you see movement, because I don't complain about FE9HM".

Read. I wasn't saying that FE8's tutorial was forced; I was saying that I wouldn't feel the need to let some inferiority complex about my favorite FE title compel me to overly scrutinize the more popular games in the series.

[Westbrick]

1 hour too long.

Sorry, but I've got to give this a "boo hoo." Plenty of games which are considered among the best of all time involve rather lengthy introductions. Hello Ocarina of Time, hello most every Japanese RPG. And unlike those games, the FE7 tutorial is required only once. Complaining about it is the epitome of pettiness.

Since the biggest problem people have against LM is it's non-optional nature, this is a false analogy. It would be like saying "you shouldn't complain that FE10HM doesn't let you see movement, because I don't complain about FE9HM".

Read. I wasn't saying that FE8's tutorial was forced; I was saying that I wouldn't feel the need to let some inferiority complex about my favorite FE title compel me to overly scrutinize the more popular games in the series.

[Original Alear]

Sorry, but I've got to give this a "boo hoo." Plenty of games which are considered among the best of all time involve rather lengthy introductions. Hello Ocarina of Time, hello most every Japanese RPG. And unlike those games, the FE7 tutorial is required only once. Complaining about it is the epitome of pettiness.

Well, maybe Anou hates those games too. Also, plenty of JRPGs have length plot introductions, but in terms of gameplay, even if you're playing with the bare basics you don't necessarily have as much completely scripted gameplay as LNM does. In FF7, 8 and 9 your first battles aren't scripted; in fact, in 9 you can steal some items before beating the guy. And LNM is also pretty irrelevant to the rest of the game in terms of plot; Ninian and Nils's introduction could easily have been done later in the game, and the events of Lyn's mode have pretty much no bearing on the plot of the game besides putting Lyn in position as a character in Eliwood's story. Also, if interested in seeing 18/19xx, you'll probably play LNM again, and waste several dozen turns grinding a unit who doesn't need stats. And players who want to use the knight crest on someone besides Wallace will need to replay the tutorial on HM, and though your actions aren't scripted, it's still extremely boring.

"the FE7 tutorial is only required once." Oh look, if I keep a save file at the end of the introduction of Ocarina of Time or most every Japanese RPG, it's only required once! If I make a save right before the final boss, I don't have to play through the whole game to fight the final boss! If i beat the game, I don't have to play again because I already beat it! If I don't buy the game, I never have to play it!

To each his own, but LM IMO sucks.

Read. I wasn't saying that FE8's tutorial was forced; I was saying that I wouldn't feel the need to let some inferiority complex about my favorite FE title compel me to overly scrutinize the more popular games in the series.

Right, because when someone asks for advice on what game to play first in a series, a player shouldn't offer their own opinions, but the most popular opinion!

Nice psychoanalysis you condescending douchebag, any other diagnoses for us today?

The anti-FE7 sentiments (which seem to be entirely unique to Serenes Forest) are rather grating, and reflect the kind of immature anti-popularism you see in series like Final Fantasy. Can't people simply embrace that some games simply aren't their cup of tea? I'm no longer the biggest fan of Sacred Stones despite it being my first game in the series, but I wouldn't really feel the need to go into a lengthy diatribe against its Easy Mode.

No, that's really not at all the same. FF7's popularity was explosive, and set a mark not just for the FF7 series but for RPGs and for gaming. Fire Emblem 7 sold about 1/10 as well as FF7. Certainly decent, but it's not exactly "popular" on any comparable level. I've met plenty of people in person who have played FF7 - the only person I've met offline who played any FE is my brother, on my cartridge IIRC. Furthermore, if you insult someone by calling them immature because they like or dislike a game you like, you are immature. If you find other people's preferences grating, I wonder why you go on video game discussion boards. Keep in mind that I actually like FE7, I probably beat it more times than I've beaten all the other FEs put together, and it holds a special place i nmy heart for being the first game in the series.

If SF hated based on popularity, we would hate Marth, Ike, and Roy, because those are probably the most popular FE characters. Either SSBM or SSBB outsold the entire FE series.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Hawkeye Hank Hatfield

[Westbrick]

Well, maybe Anou hates those games too.

Maybe he does. But it's not uncommon, it's not particularly long in FE7, and it hasn't stopped other games from being considered among the best ever. It's also not clear why easing a first-time player into the game is a problem or a "flaw."

Also, plenty of JRPGs have length plot introductions, but in terms of gameplay, even if you're playing with the bare basics you don't necessarily have as much completely scripted gameplay as LNM does.

Have you played Lyn Mode? The "scriped gameplay" involves the Prologue and the first half of Chapter 1, as well as a few other bits and pieces which add up to a very small percentage. It's trivial.

And LNM is also pretty irrelevant to the rest of the game in terms of plot; Ninian and Nils's introduction could easily have been done later in the game, and the events of Lyn's mode have pretty much no bearing on the plot of the game besides putting Lyn in position as a character in Eliwood's story.

Character development, introduction to the themes of the main plot, introduction to central characters like Eliwood/Lyn, foreshadowing of Nergal and the Black Fang. It's a side-story, but one that does its job.

Again, other games do this all the time, and it's very common in video game plots and literature generally: a story opens with a small subplot that is only tangentially related to the main conflict. This isn't a problem.

Right, because when someone asks for advice on what game to play first in a series, a player shouldn't offer their own opinions, but the most popular opinion!

Nice psychoanalysis you condescending douchebag, any other diagnoses for us today?

Calm down. Read. Make sure you understand what's being said before commenting. I didn't anywhere suggest that the only correct opinion is the popular one.

Oh, and you should look up what "psychoanalysis" means if you're going to throw it into an insult.

Furthermore, if you insult someone by calling them immature because they like or dislike a game you like, you are immature.

Again: read before posting.

If you find other people's preferences grating, I wonder why you go on video game discussion boards.

Again: read before posting. I appreciate you responding with that (rather excessively length) post, but it's a wasted effort if you don't understand what the other side means.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Westbrick

[Gryz]

Dear topic creator,

DO NOT PLAY ANY FIRE EMBLEM GAMES!!!

Look at how it transforms civilized polite people into bitter argumentative savages.

Run! Run and don't ever look back!

[Westbrick]

I don't think anyone here is being particularly uncivilized. Couple unnecessary insults, maybe, but there's nothing wrong with having a fun little discussion about game quality. Jeez, people are so sensitive to any kind of controversy or disagreement...

[Ciarre]

He's not being serious.

[Agro]

Dear topic creator,

DO NOT PLAY ANY FIRE EMBLEM GAMES!!!

Look at how it transforms civilized polite people into bitter argumentative savages.

Run! Run and don't ever look back!

lest you turn into a pillar of salt

[Westbrick]

He's not being serious.

Yeah, he was.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm half-joking. His "run and never look back" bit was obviously joshing around, but the way he painted the discussion came off as serious, like people were seriously getting upset. I'm not, at least!

Edited May 25, 2012 by Westbrick

[Gryz]

Exaggeration. A common tool in comedy.

Anyways, I wasn't talking about anyone specifically. When the situation turns into quote-to-quote combat, I usually just start skimming posts and lose track of who is saying what.

[Anouleth]

Sorry, but I've got to give this a "boo hoo." Plenty of games which are considered among the best of all time involve rather lengthy introductions. Hello Ocarina of Time, hello most every Japanese RPG.

Final Fantasy 7: you start a battle immediately after the first cutscene with no tutorial and then BLOW UP A POWER PLANT WHAT THIS IS SO AWESOME

Ocarina of Time: you are inside the first dungeon within 10 minutes

And unlike those games, the FE7 tutorial is required only once. Complaining about it is the epitome of pettiness.

The FF7 and OoT tutorials are required zero times.

[Paperblade]

Yet somehow it did worse than FE1 and FE3, which didn't have tutorials. It's almost like people don't like being patronised and having their hand held.

Tutorials in video games are pretty bullshit. Many of the greatest and most popular video games of all time lack tutorials. This is true even for games that are popular amongst casuals, or have been released into cold markets.

While I agree that lengthy tutorials (especially ones where the game pigeonholes you into certain actions like FE7) are bullshit, implying that not having a tutorial significantly influences the quality of a game is pretty laughable