Fire Emblem Wii U

[Anouleth]

Are you saying knowing exact damage isn't needed in a game like Fire Emblem?

I think it is needed: but that's because Fire Emblem, as a game, is fundamentally flawed.

Even the obvious thing about conserving weapon uses is important, but there's also the matter of enemies using different weapons.

Which is itself a flaw. Imagine if, in Final Fantasy, enemies would arbitrarily carry spells that could OHKO certain allies. And every time you enter combat, you have to scan every single enemy to make sure that one of your allies wouldn't instantly die. And when an ally died, it was enough of a setback to make a reset inevitable. That is what Fire Emblem is now.

Let me ask: would Fire Emblem be playable without the battle preview or the R button? Perhaps. It might depend on the player. I think that of all the Fire Emblems, Fire Emblem 4 is the one most suited to that kind of play. And that might be part of the reason why it is so popular.

I think it's more of the issue of the damage you take than the damage you deal in a regular RPG with more than one character it's fine because there's usually a revival mechanic. In the case of Fire Emblem I'd want to know the enemies maximum(due to skills,crits,etc.) because without a precise measurement(or even a measurement at all) you wouldn't really be able tell if your character with 1213 HP, 127 vitality, 146 spirit can take 1,2 or 3 hits before they permamently die.

Which just goes to show that permadeath is a broken mechanic, because it forces the player to constantly check how strong every enemy is. You do not have to do this in any other game. Even in aggressively difficult RPGs such as Persona, do you have to know in advance how much STR/SPD/MAG/CRIT every enemy has?

[Byte2222]

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "sense of agency" or "feel of your actions doing something". Or when you say that the system feels more abstract? How, exactly, do you determine how abstract a system feels? Why is 20 damage less abstract than 200 damage (as you might see in pokemon) or 2000 damage (as you might see in Final Fantasy) or 2 million damage (as you might see in World of Warcraft)? When you swing a sword, the damage you deal isn't measured as a number. But video games have to make things simpler, like in a scientific model, by representing things in terms of numbers. And like in a scientific model, the specific numbers you choose don't matter, as long as relative to each other they have the same relationships.

Fire Emblem chooses to keep the numbers small. That's fine, I guess. But it's ridiculous to scrape around for some flimsy, vague justification as to why it's superior.

I have no idea if I'll be able to make you see what I'm saying (I suspect not) but I'm going to give it a go. In Paper Mario (the example I brought up) you start the game with 10HP and your attacks do 1 or 2 damage (don't know how familiar you are with it). It's easy to grasp the scale of 1 - 10: 2HP is 'danger', 8HP is only slightly scratched. Later in the game 1 or 2 damage attacks are minor and 10 damage is massive, even in the endgame (you only finish on something like 60HP IIRC). It's easier to impose real consequences onto the numbers, or at least I feel it is. Conversely, in the example of a Final Fantasy game, how big is 2000, really? A mighty blow or a minor scratch? It's a bit harder to characterise and relate to the action in my opinion. From what I've seen it doesn't even remain particularly consistent over the course of the game; your numbers go up by more than an order of magnitude over the course of the game. There's nothing wrong with this, you get a great sense of growth from it, but it disconnects the numbers from the actions.

To make an even more extreme case, the largest number I've ever encountered (that I can remember) describes the exergy (useful energy) of the sun: something like 2ZJ. That's 2 x 10^21 or 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules. I, for one, cannot begin to fathom just how large that is. Oh, I know it's really big but I can't grasp the implications of just how big it is. Is it enough to run the world for a thousand years? Is it enough energy to roast the life from planet Earth? I can't really understand just how big it is. I know it's an extreme example but maybe it's illustrated my point. Maybe, I'm guessing that you're the type to focus more on the numbers as a maths problem than to relate them to what your character's actually doing (I don't mean that to sound like a criticism, games are, after all, a problem to solve).

Also, I'm not arguing that either big numbers or small numbers are superior, I'm just trying to characterise the two ends of the spectrum.

Edit:

Let me ask: would Fire Emblem be playable without the battle preview or the R button? Perhaps. It might depend on the player. I think that of all the Fire Emblems, Fire Emblem 4 is the one most suited to that kind of play. And that might be part of the reason why it is so popular.

I can tell you from first hand experience (FE2) that Fire Emblem is very playable without the battle preview but, yes, you do need to check enemy stats a little more regularly. In my experience of this, it's better to try and get a rough idea of what you're going to do and wing it a little more.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Byte2222

[Dark Sage]

Guys, you're forgetting that Anouleth just likes to be a contrarian. Don't take it too seriously.

[Byte2222]

Guys, you're forgetting that Anouleth just likes to be a contrarian. Don't take it too seriously.

Yeah, I'm still practically new here but I think he has enough of a point that it's worth debating. Or trying to.

[Constable Reggie]

It's fine if you don't necessarily enjoy or agree with Fire Emblem's mechanics, but to flat out say that they're flawed because you have to plan beforehand is stupid. That's what Fire Emblem is: an extremity of turn-based strategy games. Is Civilization a fundamentally flawed game because you have to constantly check all your opponents' territory, units, objectives, etc? Is it wrong for the Mount and Blade games to have a very high difficulty- part of which comes from how easy death can reach you and how punishing it is? In Fallout: 3/New Vegas, you usually have to constantly check enemies before attacking with the VATS system to determine their danger and durability. Would Fallout 3/New Vegas been better off without the scanning part of the VATS system, because it imposes (according to you) menial enemy-checking?

Edited December 9, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Anouleth]

It's fine if you don't necessarily enjoy or agree with Fire Emblem's mechanics, but to flat out say that they're flawed because you have to plan beforehand is stupid. That's what Fire Emblem is: an extremity of turn-based strategy games.

They're not flawed because you have to plan beforehand, though. They're flawed because in order to make plans, you have to go through a tedious process of calculation, checking statsheets, and counting squares. Some Fire Emblems avoid this better than others. FE4 makes it much easier to calculate attack speed than FE5, and enemy stats don't vary, so you only have to check one enemy to know how strong they all are. In FE9 and FE10, you can see what weapon an enemy is carrying without checking with the R button. So you don't need to check and make sure that none of the enemies have a Bow. And indeed, the stated goal of the weapon triangle is to make the relationships between various units more clear, so for example, you can know that your axe user will beat that soldier, or that your shaman will kill that mage. Simple stuff like this takes out a lot of busywork. It's a shame, indeed, that the games don't do stuff like this more.

And my problem with stuff like this is that it's not strategy. Calculating which one of my weapons does the most damage, and then using that weapon is not strategy. Calculating how many enemies I can expose Jill to, and then exposing Jill to those units is not strategy. It's just busywork.

[Dark Sage]

17:21 Druid you really don't like permanent death?

17:22 Senaleth I think it could work better

17:22 Senaleth as in, less permanently

17:22 Druid "because it forces the player to constantly check how strong every enemy is."

17:22 Druid how come you think this is a bad thing?

17:23 *** GeneralSpoon joined #feto

17:23 +++ ChanServ has given op to GeneralSpoon

17:24 Senaleth Druid, imagine if in every battle in every Final Fantasy, you had to check how powerful every enemy was and calculate to see if in some combination, they could kill one of your units, and then move appropriately

17:24 Senaleth or if you had to do that in every battle in pokemon

17:24 *** ALEXMORGAN13 joined #feto

17:24 +++ ChanServ has given admin to ALEXMORGAN13

17:24 +++ ChanServ has given op to ALEXMORGAN13

17:24 Druid you do to an extent in competitive pokemon

17:25 Druid I would appreciate it more than the current system because it means you can be more strategic instead of mindlessly beating things down

17:25 Senaleth except how is just checking and crunching numbers strategy?

17:26 Paperblade imagine if games required strategy

17:26 Druid it allows you to make more strategic decisions duh

17:26 Paperblade nah fuck that

17:26 Paperblade too much effort

17:26 Paperblade angry birds much more fun

17:27 Senaleth Except that basic addition and subtraction =/= strategy

17:27 Paperblade if there's no risk in the game

17:27 Paperblade there's no reason to make a strategy

17:27 Senaleth I didn't say there should be no risk

17:28 Senaleth I'm saying, that stuff like counting squares or calculating damage isn't fun

17:28 Senaleth for example, there's risk in pokemon

17:28 Druid I like calculating damage

17:28 Senaleth if you try to fight a water type with a fire type, you'll probably die

17:28 Senaleth but you can see that obviously

17:29 Mekkah if you don't like counting squares or calculating dmg maybe srpgs/fire emblem arent for you

17:29 Druid yes but being able to precisely calculate how much damage people will do to you or the damage of their attacks to you could allow to make a better decision

17:29 Druid I can't believe I have to explain this

17:30 Senaleth you don't have to check how much attack the enemy has, then compare it to your defense, then compare the result to your HP, then calculate how much attack speed they have they calculate your own attack speed and compare the two

17:30 Druid I mean you seem like a smart guy, you should get this

17:30 Mekkah generally in fe you don't have to do that cause the enemies are bad

17:30 Paperblade you're making it sound like a lot more effort than it is

17:30 *** GeneralSpoon quit (Ping timeout)

17:30 Paperblade also you don't have to count squares unless you're playing FE10 since normally they let you see the move range

17:30 Mekkah there is like a 6-wide speed range where you dont have to calculate jack shit in that regard

17:31 Mekkah in his defense you have to count squares a lot for 3-10 range enemies that don't actually move

17:31 Mekkah cause the game thinks they can

17:31 Senaleth yeah, and Paperblade, everyone complained about counting squares in FE10

17:31 Paperblade oh yeah those guys

17:31 Paperblade fuck them

17:31 Mekkah which is annoying as fuck

17:31 Senaleth even if it's easy

17:31 Paperblade yeah because it was retarded and tedious

17:31 Paperblade but basic math isn't tedious

17:31 Paperblade because it's instant

17:31 Druid it takes like a millisecond to calculate AS for example

17:31 Paperblade unless you're 12

17:31 Mekkah spoilers Senaleth is 12

17:31 Senaleth so apparently, counting is more tedious than addition and subtraction and multiplication

17:32 ALEXMORGAN13 where fetroll

17:32 Druid terrain bonuses

17:33 Senaleth "adding one was easy, but now I have to add 2! brain asplode"

17:33 Paperblade it's tedious because usually you have to take it at a pace or you risk losing count

17:33 Paperblade you can't just go 123456

17:34 Senaleth look, other RPGs don't have the same torouble as Fire Emblem when it comes to combat

17:34 Paperblade for reference

17:34 Paperblade what RPGs are you comparing FE to

17:34 Senaleth Pokemon, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

17:35 Paperblade since not to be a dick but most RPGs are so easy that I just spam my most damaging attack on every but the healer

17:35 Paperblade *on everyone

17:35 Senaleth I actually found Pokemon Whtie 2 to be pretty challenging

17:35 Paperblade I haven't played BW2

[Constable Reggie]

I think you're over exaggerating checking enemy stats. Generally, Fire Emblem's not that difficult in that it requires tedious work that you describe. Most difficult enemies can simply be defeated by checking the automatic battle screen, but the difficulty from Fire Emblem generally comes from proper player positioning/handling the larger enemy quantity, not raw enemy stats. A simple gloss over general enemy stats (for finding notable exceptions to general enemy power) and weapons is really all that's needed. If you're complaining about counting squares, then you need to simply stop playing turn based strategy games as a whole. You benefit from counting movement in all tbs games.

In fact, all your complaints are coming from general tbs/rts aspects. If you absolutely refuse to check combatants, because it's "boring", then don't play strategy games. And yes, your examples are strategy, because a) You're ignoring the other facets that come with deciding what weapon to use (will it leave me exposed to more enemies? Would I be better off saving the better weapon for later? etc), or determining how much damage JIll can take (Will moving Jill there help the rest of my team the next turn? Does the cost of taking so-so damage justify the damage output Jill doles?). Is determing how long it takes to make 10 zerglings, then doing it, not strategy? Of course it's strategy, because the player has to decide if those Zerglings are worth making, and how they will benefit him. Assuming Fire Emblem is best played with just choosing the highest static numbers is ridiculous.

In fact, I highly doubt that IS's intention behind all the similar enemies was eliminate the so-called tedious process of calculations. I've got a feeling it was done more to supplement the story: those units combined are basically 1 large army, all the units are the same to convey this idea. It's why Fe4 units are in specific (or purposely random) formations, instead of being seemingly all over the place like in other Fe's.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Rehab]

The more I think about it, the less I understand what you mean by strategy, Anouleth. I actually think FE makes some things the average RPG does more clear- you know there's a shitload of numbers involved in all those games, but you often don't know just how accurate you are, or just how much damage they'll do, or who's going to attack who. FE just gives you all the numbers to figure it out yourself, does most of it for you at the battle screen, and lets your positioning decide who attacks what and when (though it fucks this up when it does ghost calculations like double rngs and shit) (and indeed as you said how it's not readily apparent whether a unit can double another, but being fe4's approach was horribly unbalanced I'll take some ambiguity over that before attacking over only some units being able to double, and generally being much more effective than the ones that can't) (though a way to show at a glance whether a unit can double another would be great, yeah). How is checking how much damage Jill can take any less strategic than checking how much damage a medium tank would take in a similar point guard position? Certainly, how is that combat worse than any RPG?

Edited December 10, 2012 by Rehab

[Anouleth]

I think you're over exaggerating checking enemy stats. Generally, Fire Emblem's not that difficult in that it requires tedious work that you describe.

I'm not saying this is difficult, though! Rote checking isn't difficult, at all.

Most difficult enemies can simply be defeated by checking the automatic battle screen, but the difficulty from Fire Emblem generally comes from proper player positioning/handling the larger enemy quantity, not raw enemy stats.

Right, and I'm happy for the difficulty in Fire Emblem to come from unit placement and positioning. That's a good thing.

A simple gloss over general enemy stats (for finding notable exceptions to general enemy power) and weapons is really all that's needed.

Oh, well, I only need to read through forty statsheets per chapter. That's like, barely any!

If you're complaining about counting squares, then you need to simply stop playing turn based strategy games as a whole. You benefit from counting movement in all tbs games.

No I don't. I don't count movement in Advance Wars, because I can just put my cursor over a given unit and see it's range. I don't count movement in Fire Emblem 11 or 12 because I can easily see their range. I don't count movement in FFTA or Civilisation or Pokemon Conquest because movement is generally low enough that I can eyeball it. So when I'm forced to in FE10 HM, it's annoying.

In fact, all your complaints are coming from general tbs/rts aspects. If you absolutely refuse to check combatants, because it's "boring", then don't play strategy games.

Like Starcraft II? Because I don't need to make sure that all my Zerglings have the right claws equipped, or check that group of Immortals are carrying normal Immortal weapons and not, say, a random anti-air weapon, or make sure that the unit that appears to be an anti-air unit is not actually carrying a weapon that's effective against tanks.

And it's not that I refuse to. I just don't want to. And it's bad design, that I have to.

And yes, your examples are strategy, because a) You're ignoring the other facets that come with deciding what weapon to use (will it leave me exposed to more enemies? Would I be better off saving the better weapon for later? etc), or determining how much damage JIll can take (Will moving Jill there help the rest of my team the next turn? Does the cost of taking so-so damage justify the damage output Jill doles?).

The problem is that a lot of these "decisions" are just no-brainers. 90% of situations, there is one weapon that is strictly better than all the others. How is it "strategy" to calculate how much damage you do and pick the bigger number? It's true that sometimes, you are forced with a genuine tradeoff. But too often, making decisions in Fire Emblem is just a matter of addition and subtraction: then picking the bigger number.

Is determing how long it takes to make 10 zerglings, then doing it, not strategy? Of course it's strategy, because the player has to decide if those Zerglings are worth making, and how they will benefit him. Assuming Fire Emblem is best played with just choosing the highest static numbers is ridiculous.

While not all decisions in Fire Emblem are like that, many are.

In fact, I highly doubt that IS's intention behind all the similar enemies was eliminate the so-called tedious process of calculations.

I like how it's apparently now a matter of debate whether simple maths is fun.

I don't really know if it was their intention to make the game easier and more predictable, but they did it, and this was the effect, and I think that effect was beneficial. By doing this, Fire Emblem comes in line with other RPGs, where enemies of the same "type" or "species" will always have the same stats and predictable attacks, patterns, and formation, or at least, within a certain degree of variation, while in Fire Emblem, two Cavaliers or two Soldiers can have completely different stats and gear.

I've got a feeling it was done more to supplement the story: those units combined are basically 1 large army, all the units are the same to convey this idea. It's why Fe4 units are in specific (or purposely random) formations, instead of being seemingly all over the place like in other Fe's.

Or perhaps, they were just maintaining the system of all the previous titles?

Edited December 10, 2012 by Anouleth

[Knight]

Let's stop arguing over statistics and mechanics, Fire Emblem works the way it works, it isn't perfect, but no RPG is. Let sleeping dogs lie and stay on topic.

[Constable Reggie]

Huh, I didn't think you'd deconstruct my post sentence by sentence.

1) You saying that one's required to go thorugh several calculations implies that Fire Emblem is difficult enough to warrant it. Do I really need to go through calculations to know that the enemy soldier will do 6 damage at a 38% chance against my 40 health unit? It's not needed.

2) You do realize what "gloss over" means, right? It's only to check to see if there's significant discrepancies in stats between some enemies, ie bosses or special enemies. Holding down the up button to do this takes like 10 seconds.

3) First mention of specifically Fe10's hard mode. I agree that the highlight removal on hard mode was an incredibly stupid way to try and increase the difficulty. This does not apply for ANY OTHER Fire Emblem game/mode, however. Also, lol @ FFT's 3-7 movement (by the way, you also have to account for ambiguous height restrictions in FFT) being generally low enough but Fe's generally 4-8 movement not.

4) Wow. Way to take things way too literally. In Starcraft the units have upgrades, which you have to manually check to see if they have or not. This is basically true for any rts/tbs games. You have to check if FFT units have Shirahadori/Reflexes that render your melee units completely useless.

5) My bad. Next Fe10 playthrough, I'm going to blaze through 3-6 with Edward brave sword, Zihark killing edge + beast slayer, and Jill brave axe. They're bigger numbers right? It's bound to succeed!

6) The argument isn't whether extremely minor tasks is fun or not, but whether they detract from the game. Since minor math application takes all of less than a second to do, and the fact that it's barely required (battle screen menu usually does it for you automatically), means it doesn't detract from the game, unless you're being super nitpicky. Spec Ops: the Line's shooting mechanics can be argued as "merely functional", but it doesn't matter because it doesn't detract from the experience and ultimately serves a much more important and satisfying goal.

7) I would agree that Fe4's overall system was pretty great (besides general unbalancedness of skills), but for completely different reasons, not because it's more predictable or easier. I highly doubt changing enemy stats by 1 or 2 points here and there would have changed the core gameplay whatsoever.

8) Uh. What? No other Fire Emblem game positions the enemies in medieval-style formations that compliment the overall setting and style. Other games have enemy placement as either random or crafted for purely gameplay reasons.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Knight]

My comment has become invisible.

[Anouleth]

Huh, I didn't think you'd deconstruct my post sentence by sentence.

1) You saying that one's required to go thorugh several calculations implies that Fire Emblem is difficult enough to warrant it. Do I really need to go through calculations to know that the enemy soldier will do 6 damage at a 38% chance against my 40 health unit? It's not needed.

2) You do realize what "gloss over" means, right? It's only to check to see if there's significant discrepancies in stats between some enemies, ie bosses or special enemies. Holding down the up button to do this takes like 10 seconds.

3) First mention of specifically Fe10's hard mode. I agree that the highlight removal on hard mode was an incredibly stupid way to try and increase the difficulty. This does not apply for ANY OTHER Fire Emblem game/mode, however. Also, lol @ FFT's 3-7 movement (by the way, you also have to account for ambiguous height restrictions in FFT) being generally low enough but Fe's generally 4-8 movement not.

In Final Fantasy Tactics Advance at least, the vast majority of units have three or four movement with only a tiny minority having more. I couldn't speak for Final Fantasy Tactics.

Also, there is good mathematical evidence suggesting that subitism is only done for numbers lower than five.

4) Wow. Way to take things way too literally. In Starcraft the units have upgrades, which you have to manually check to see if they have or not. This is basically true for any rts/tbs games. You have to check if FFT units have Shirahadori/Reflexes that render your melee units completely useless.

It's less onerous in FFTA since there are only six enemies in a chapter, and Reflexes isn't that powerful anyway since you can hit through it with abilities. Also, you only have to check one enemy to see if upgrades have been researched in SCII. Or if you know they don't have a Forge, you don't have to check at all! But even there, it's busywork.

5) My bad. Next Fe10 playthrough, I'm going to blaze through 3-6 with Edward brave sword, Zihark killing edge + beast slayer, and Jill brave axe. They're bigger numbers right? It's bound to succeed!

This is the thing: the nice thing about Fire Emblem is that deciding which units to use isn't just a matter of adding up numbers. In a situation like this, the decisions that the player makes are not just based on calculations of which unit is the best, but they are based on the how the player wants to approach the rest of the game... in other words, deciding what units you plan to use is a strategy. You might choose a strategy that revolves around lots of mages, or lots of flying units, or whatever.

What I am complaining about is stuff like "oh look, my Steel Sword does 15 damage and my Iron Sword does 12 damage". That is not a strategy. That is just picking the bigger number. And a choice like this isn't strategic.

6) The argument isn't whether extremely minor tasks is fun or not, but whether they detract from the game. Since minor math application takes all of less than a second to do, and the fact that it's barely required (battle screen menu usually does it for you automatically), means it doesn't detract from the game, unless you're being super nitpicky.

I think that tasks like this do detract from the game and are symptomatic of bad and unintuitive game design. And the argument, isn't whether they detract from the game. The original point was that being able to make those calculations was a good thing. I disagree. I think that being able to calculate in advance how much damage you'll do is a solution without a problem, because people don't want to calculate it, and if the game forces you to do so, it's bad game design.

7) I would agree that Fe4's overall system was pretty great (besides general unbalancedness of skills), but for completely different reasons, not because it's more predictable or easier. I highly doubt changing enemy stats by 1 or 2 points here and there would have changed the core gameplay whatsoever.

8) Uh. What? No other Fire Emblem game positions the enemies in medieval-style formations that compliment the overall setting and style. Other games have enemy placement as either random or crafted for purely gameplay reasons.

No, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the perfect uniformity of enemy stats. This is an element that you also see in FE1, 2, and 3.

[nflchamp]

What I am complaining about is stuff like "oh look, my Steel Sword does 15 damage and my Iron Sword does 12 damage". That is not a strategy. That is just picking the bigger number. And a choice like this isn't strategic.

Yeah, and I have to decide Surf is better than Water Gun. I have to decide the ultimate sword is better than the wooden one in most games. "Stronger weapon is better than worse weapon" is a decision made in nearly every game with equipment. I'd argue FE requires more strategy on that front solely because it gives a reason you might not want to use the stronger weapon all the time. You're oversimplify the current system to a ridiculous degree because you're used to it.

[Knight]

Yeah, and I have to decide Surf is better than Water Gun. I have to decide the ultimate sword is better than the wooden one in most games. "Stronger weapon is better than worse weapon" is a decision made in nearly every game with equipment. I'd argue FE requires more strategy on that front solely because it gives a reason you might not want to use the stronger weapon all the time. You're oversimplify the current system to a ridiculous degree because you're used to it.

Agreed, most RPG's have weapons entirely better than the other, at least Fire Emblem you concern yourself with cost, critical, hit, and durability.

[Constable Reggie]

Yeah, and I have to decide Surf is better than Water Gun. I have to decide the ultimate sword is better than the wooden one in most games. "Stronger weapon is better than worse weapon" is a decision made in nearly every game with equipment. I'd argue FE requires more strategy on that front solely because it gives a reason you might not want to use the stronger weapon all the time. You're oversimplify the current system to a ridiculous degree because you're used to it.

This, this, this. I can't really say more after this great post.

As for Fe4 following Fe1-3, I'm assuming Fe 1 and 2 had it because of memory limitations, and Fe3 is so radically different from the rest of the games that I have no clue. If IS thought that uniform stats was such a great idea, why'd they immediately take it out in Fe5 and all titles afterwards?

[Anouleth]

This, this, this. I can't really say more after this great post.

As for Fe4 following Fe1-3, I'm assuming Fe 1 and 2 had it because of memory limitations, and Fe3 is so radically different from the rest of the games that I have no clue. If IS thought that uniform stats was such a great idea, why'd they immediately take it out in Fe5 and all titles afterwards?

If IntSys think that uniform stats is such a bad idea, why do we see it again in FE13? Perhaps they've realised it was a mistake to change?

Yeah, and I have to decide Surf is better than Water Gun.

The irony is that while you make fun of Pokemon for having a supposedly very easy choice, the choice of what move to learn in pokemon can often be quite tight. For example, Jellicent has four choices for a Water-type STAB move: Hydro Pump, Surf, Scald, and Water Spout. Water Spout is by far the strongest, but Jellicent needs to be at full HP to make full use of it. Hydro Pump is second strongest: but has reduced accuracy. Surf is reliable, but boring. Scald is weakest, but can burn opponents, helping Jellicent deal with it's lower physical bulk. Or alternatively, you could use Will O'Wisp to burn opponents: but then you have to choose between Taunt, Shadow Ball, and Recover for your third and fourth moves. Or you could use Hex instead of Shadow Ball to hit burned opponents harder; or you could use Toxic if you plan to stall the opponent out; or you could use one of Jellicent's many other coverage moves such as Psychic, Energy Ball (Giga Drain if you have the shards), or Ice Beam. In fact, the decision of whether to use Surf in Pokemon is probably more interesting than any point where you have to choose a weapon in Fire Emblem. And really, why shouldn't Surf be better than Water Gun? A Silver Sword is obviously always superior to a Steel Sword (as is a Killing Edge). Why shouldn't lategame moves be far stronger than earlygame moves? Isn't part of the fun of an RPG the feeling of growth, of becoming more powerful? Isn't that fun dependent on getting stronger weapons and higher stats? Why does your power at the end of the game need to be balanced against your power at the start of the game? Imagine if when you got the Master Sword in Legend of Zelda, it was weaker (or just as powerful) as the wooden sword, because they wanted to give you a reason to use both? Why should there be a reason to continue to use the same weapon, when upgrading your equipment is fun?

I have to decide the ultimate sword is better than the wooden one in most games. "Stronger weapon is better than worse weapon" is a decision made in nearly every game with equipment. I'd argue FE requires more strategy on that front solely because it gives a reason you might not want to use the stronger weapon all the time. You're oversimplify the current system to a ridiculous degree because you're used to it.

FE requires no strategy on that front. Strategy is not determining which of two numbers is bigger. Again, that is just busywork. Strategy requires, by definition, long-term decisions. Since deciding what weapon to use every turn is not a long-term decision, it is not strategy. A strategy would be something like "always use Steel weapons" or "always use Iron weapons". In fact, I would go so far as to say that the current system is anti-strategy, because people do not make long-term decisions about what weapons they use. As you said, you always want to be changing weapons. If you couldn't change weapons, then it would be more strategic since you'd have to make long-term decisions (as you do in pokemon where you have to make long-term decisions about what moves you learn).

I think it's interesting to consider that in Fire Emblem forums, the same subjects always arise (because people find them interesting). So people talk about what units they train (a long term decision) or what supports they built (a long term decision) or what weapons they had blessed (a long term decision) or what children they made (a long term decision). Endless debates on FE8 boards go on about which promotions (a long term decision) to choose. Nobody talks about that time when they used an Iron weapon instead of a Killer weapon to save money (how boring).

Meanwhile, choosing whether to use Iron or Steel is not interesting because there is always an obviously correct answer. And it's not just because I'm used to it. You don't have to be an FE expert to tell that 10x2 is better than 13. Tell me, what reason is there not to use the stronger weapon in this instance? There isn't: you will always pick the Iron Sword. It's a choice as obvious and boring as picking Caineghis over Renning. But imagine if, like in FE4, you could only have either the Iron Sword or the Steel Sword in your inventory! Suddenly, the choice is much more interesting. And it saves you from having to figure out which one is better for each individual turn of the chapter.

[47948201]

Not to be too much of a minimod, but wasn't the topic about what you want to see in a possible Fire Emblem game on the Wii U and not how the series works (or doesn't) as a whole? Besides, this troll seems to be doing a fair job of countering his own points; why not leave him to that while discussing more relevant matters?

[Knight]

Not to be too much of a minimod, but wasn't the topic about what you want to see in a possible Fire Emblem game on the Wii U and not how the series works (or doesn't) as a whole? Besides, this troll seems to be doing a fair job of countering his own points; why not leave him to that while discussing more relevant matters?

At least someone agrees with me.

[Anouleth]

Not to be too much of a minimod, but wasn't the topic about what you want to see in a possible Fire Emblem game on the Wii U and not how the series works (or doesn't) as a whole? Besides, this troll seems to be doing a fair job of countering his own points; why not leave him to that while discussing more relevant matters?

Hah, why is it that when I point out design problems in Fire Emblem, everyone suddenly gets all defensive? I think questions like this are absolutely relevant. Fire Emblem has struggled to break into the mainstream: and I think it's interesting to look at what mainstream RPGs do differently from Fire Emblem and to consider how Fire Emblem could be improved.

In any case, I don't need to win you people over. Clearly someone at IntSys agrees with me: which is why, in the most recent Fire Emblem, Silver weapons are clearly strong than Steel weapons, which are clearly stronger than Iron weapons, which are clearly stronger than Bronze weapons. And I would hope that such a change is here to stay for good, along with many of the other changes in FE13! So, even if you think that I am a "troll", and that I am "beneath you", and that I am contradicting myself, I have already won this argument! Haahaa haahaa! I am just responding because I never get tired of being right, hahaha.

[Knight]

Hah, why is it that when I point out design problems in Fire Emblem, everyone suddenly gets all defensive? I think questions like this are absolutely relevant. Fire Emblem has struggled to break into the mainstream: and I think it's interesting to look at what mainstream RPGs do differently from Fire Emblem and to consider how Fire Emblem could be improved.

In any case, I don't need to win you people over. Clearly someone at IntSys agrees with me: which is why, in the most recent Fire Emblem, Silver weapons are clearly strong than Steel weapons, which are clearly stronger than Iron weapons, which are clearly stronger than Bronze weapons. And I would hope that such a change is here to stay for good, along with many of the other changes in FE13! So, even if you think that I am a "troll", and that I am "beneath you", and that I am contradicting myself, I have already won this argument! Haahaa haahaa! I am just responding because I never get tired of being right, hahaha.

Nice point, you can leave now.

[47948201]

Pah, defensive? You sound defensive if anything, given that you're defending your point when I didn't even disagree with you. (not to mention using some of the faultiest logic I've seen in that last post there, but enough of that)

But if y'all want to keep discussing this, here's a thread for that. Let's stick to FEWU for right here. I say this because I'm fairly interested in both conversations, but having this talk in this thread is overshadowing the original intent and reducing talk about FEWU.

Edited December 11, 2012 by 47948201

[Constable Reggie]

I haven't played Fe13, but I can only assume that only the after the next game in the series is release will we know what IS's true intentions were. Because as it stands, for the game right before it, why did they bother to fluctuate the stats of similar enemies when Fe3 didn't have it?

Lol @ surf being docked because it's boring. What kind of logic is that.

Also, if your notion is that IS is purposely trying to streamline Fe mechanics, part of it being in the form of weapons, why do succeeding weapons have less accuracy (is the bigger chance of missing worth the possible extra damage output?)? Why do they have less uses (Is it worth using this weapon right now, or am I fine with using a less weapon and saving it for a more difficult scenario)? Why do they cost more to use (Do I buy 10 steel weapons that I can use for far longer with more people, or do I buy 5 silver weapons with much less uses, can only be distributed to 5 people, but are more powerful)? Yes, generally in Fe the higher quality weapons are USUALLY better in pure combat, but there's still situational consequences, or even constant major ones (hi Fe5) in some cases. It's not 100% clear cut in every single situation. And also, saying that short-term decisions is not strategy is wrong. Any decision where the player has to decide whether the benefits, toward the end goal, are worth the consequences is strategy. Whether that is to decide to buy Jump + 7 or Jump +10 (Jump +10 is clearly the better skill, but there are situations where getting Jump +7 will be better) or to decide to spend more time to save up enough to buy a mythril sword instead of just immediately getting a longsword in Final Fantasy (a short term decision, considering both will likely be soon replaced anyway), it's strategy. It may not be as enthralling or exciting to talk about, but it's still strategy.

Also, for your 10x2 versus 13 example, there is a situation where you would use steel. Why should I risk taking a counter from a 13 hp enemy instead of simply killing him in the first strike immediately? But even then, it's still not clear cut. Do I risk the higher chance of missing, ultimately doing nothing and eating a counter for a chance of not taking a counter at all, or do I go with the absolute positivity of his death, but also 100% forced to risk a counter attack? This is strategy. You have to think, and decide between two choices, neither of them being the absolute best one. Sure there are times when a weapon is flat out better than the other, but to say that this is the case all the time is incorrect. I don't know how more clearly I can explain this.

People have different tastes, which is fine. But to change a game's fundamental mechanics because they don't find it enjoyable while others could is wrong. You simply play other games. If all different, debatably flawed games conformed to the normal standard of popular and accessible video games, what happens to innovation? Was Medal of Honor better off when it basically became a second Call of Duty? How about Syndicate, where it departed from it's strategy origins and was turned into a generic first person shooter because the current gaming crowd really likes first person shooters? What about Duke Nukem Forever, where it basically followed the typical 20xx shooter formula of first person shooters (because CoD/Halo style fps' are really popular and enjoyable by lots of people!) to a ridiculous level (2 weapon limit, extremely linear map design, turret sections, etc)? No, because that's not Duke Nukem we knew and loved. If Fire Emblem follows the route of other similar styled games while basically giving up it's core mechanics, then the gaming industry and gamers themselves lose something unique and great, even if it wasn't enjoyed by the mainstream. It wouldn't be Fire Emblem anymore.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Anouleth]

I haven't played Fe13, but I can only assume that only the after the next game in the series is release will we know what IS's true intentions were. Because as it stands, for the game right before it, why did they bother to fluctuate the stats of similar enemies when Fe3 didn't have it?

I don't know. Even the best of us make mistakes.

Lol @ surf being docked because it's boring. What kind of logic is that.

Well, I just mean that in the sense that it's a reliable move that doesn't have any special effect.

Also, if your notion is that IS is purposely trying to streamline Fe mechanics, part of it being in the form of weapons, why do succeeding weapons have less accuracy (is the bigger chance of missing worth the possible extra damage output?)?

Because FE13 is a modern FE, in which hit rates are generally quite high, the loss of 5 hit when you have 90 hit is very small in real terms. And certainly this is a move away from earlier FEs where Steel weapons were unusably heavy and inaccurate, to the point where you would have to enjoy a 10 point speed lead in order to effectively use a Steel weapon.

Why do they have less uses (Is it worth using this weapon right now, or am I fine with using a less weapon and saving it for a more difficult scenario)? Why do they cost more to use (Do I buy 10 steel weapons that I can use for far longer with more people, or do I buy 5 silver weapons with much less uses, can only be distributed to 5 people, but are more powerful)?

Having less uses is pretty much in line with Pokemon, where stronger moves have less PP. And of course they're more expensive. My whole point is that more expensive, rarer, higher rank weapons should be better than cheaper, more common, lower rank weapons. Otherwise, what is the point of money, if "expensive" weapons have to be balanced with "cheap" weapons? What is the point in advancing in the game if the weapons you get are not more powerful than your E Ranks? What is the point in increasing your weapon ranks when a lot of the time, you want to use Iron weapons anyway?

Cost is a bit different anyway. Sure, more expensive weapons cost more. But usually, the game gives you more money anyway towards the end of the game. So in real terms they're often not more expensive. So why make them more expensive at all? To make the player feel richer. So this is really an RPG thing. In FE4, weapons could get extremely expensive!

Yes, generally in Fe the higher quality weapons are USUALLY better in pure combat, but there's still situational consequences, or even constant major ones (hi Fe5) in some cases. It's not 100% clear cut in every single situation. And also, saying that short-term decisions is not strategy is wrong. Any decision where the player has to decide whether the benefits, toward the end goal, are worth the consequences is strategy. Whether that is to decide to buy Jump + 7 or Jump +10 (Jump +10 is clearly the better skill, but there are situations where getting Jump +7 will be better) or to decide to spend more time to save up enough to buy a mythril sword instead of just immediately getting a longsword in Final Fantasy (a short term decision, considering both will likely be soon replaced anyway), it's strategy. It may not be as enthralling or exciting to talk about, but it's still strategy.

Nope, not strategy. A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim. A general, undetailed plan of action, encompassing a long period of time, to achieve a complicated goal. These things you mentioned are tactics, and without good tactics to underpin it, a strategy cannot succeed, and certainly these things might be part of a broader strategy with the goal of beating the game or the level, but they are not strategies.

Also, for your 10x2 versus 13 example, there is a situation where you would use steel. Why should I risk taking a counter from a 13 hp enemy instead of simply killing him in the first strike immediately?

The enemy has 15 HP. So you see, in this situation the Iron weapon is always better.

But even then, it's still not clear cut. Do I risk the higher chance of missing, ultimately doing nothing and eating a counter for a chance of not taking a counter at all, or do I go with the absolute positivity of his death, but also 100% forced to risk a counter attack? This is strategy.

No, it isn't. You're not achieving a major or overall aim. It's not a general, undetailed plan. It doesn't encompass a long period of time. You're not achieving a complicated goal.

You have to think, and decide between two choices, neither of them being the absolute best one.

No, the Iron Sword is the absolute best one.

Sure there are times when a weapon is flat out better than the other, but to say that this is the case all the time is incorrect. I don't know how more clearly I can explain this.

I'm not saying it's the case all of the time: merely most of the time.

People have different tastes, which is fine. But to change a game's fundamental mechanics because they don't find it enjoyable while others could is wrong.

Fire Emblem is a niche title. It is not wrong for it to try and appeal to the mainstream, even if it gets up the hackles of message board commentators who think that being inaccessible and overly numbers-based is a good thing.

You simply play other games. If all different, debatably flawed games conformed to the normal standard of popular and accessible video games, what happens to innovation?

Is it innovation for Fire Emblem to continue to do the same thing over and over again? Why am I the one who hates innovation, when it's you who wants to turn back the clock to FE5/6/7 when the game was apparently balanced and full of strategy? I want to see Fire Emblem get out of it's rut, it's comfort zone. FE13 is a good first step. It is making Fire Emblem more like other RPGs. You have a world map you can explore. You upgrade your weapons. You learn skills as you level up. But it also preserves the core mechanics of Fire Emblem: like the grid system and the wide cast of characters. And I for one, would very much like to see Fire Emblem continue down this path. Fame and fortune await!

Was Medal of Honor better off when it basically became a second Call of Duty? How about Syndicate, where it departed from it's strategy origins and was turned into a generic first person shooter because the current gaming crowd really likes first person shooters? What about Duke Nukem Forever, where it basically followed the typical 20xx shooter formula of first person shooters (because CoD/Halo style fps' are really popular and enjoyable by lots of people!) to a ridiculous level (2 weapon limit, extremely linear map design, turret sections, etc)? No, because that's not Duke Nukem we knew and loved. If Fire Emblem follows the route of other similar styled games while basically giving up it's core mechanics, then the gaming industry and gamers themselves lose something unique and great, even if it wasn't enjoyed by the mainstream. It wouldn't be Fire Emblem anymore.

Except that Steel weapons having shitty hit is not a core mechanic. Unless you're saying that FE4 isn't a real Fire Emblem.