How Effective Are Fire Emblem Mechanics?

[47948201]

Given that the series is a series, it's pretty obvious that the grid-based SRPG starring rock-paper-scissors gameplay and permanent death was effective in the 8-bit era. But have those same systems stood the test of time? Which ones? Why or why not?

(EDIT: Ohhey I can have question marks in the title)

Edited December 11, 2012 by 47948201

[Knight]

If something ain't broke, don't fix it, games like Pokemon have lasted on a similar system since the beginning, and are still successful. The only complaint I have is balancing the hit/avoid system and some broken characters (Seth), graphics, level design, and online play can always be improved. There's no point taking a risk on something that works functionally already. People still enjoy Tetris for gods sake.

[CT075]

"don't fix it if it ain't broke" is one way to look at it

"innovation requires taking risks" is the philosophy i prefer to follow

[BrightBow]

They pretty much had a horrible hand when trying to meddle with the mechanics ever since they dumped them down for FE6.

You know, with pointless stuff like Biorhythm or my personal favorite: Map Affinity.

And most of the old mechanics were broken when IS finally brought them back.

To give a few examples:

-bringing random encounters like in Gaiden back for FE8 didn't work because you actually lost money during encounters.

Kinda an important factor, especially considering that it has an endless game.

But you still could theoretically win money in FE8. But only specific maps had rewards which had enough worth.

Grinding is already tedious enough as it is but with all the stress FE8 added, it became downright unpleasant.

And of course, even the endless game gave you no source to repair your more valuable weapons.

This was no problem in Gaiden because there was no money and items had infinite uses. Staying alive was the only concern in random encounters.

-The skills in FE9 and 10 were pretty much pointless for the most part, because most of them were random chance. This was also a problem in FE4/5 but there at least a few who were actually useful.

Also Mastery Skills in Radiant Dawn are the ultimate proof that people at IS can't do math. Strength * 5 and Defense Negation? Seriously?

-Leadership was also pointless in FE10. In FE4, it meant you had to effectively place your leader. And you could take out the enemy leader to deprive those sometimes very huge bonuses from the enemy.

In FE5, they affected any unit on the map but there were several units with leadership stars besides Leaf. You had to decide if they were worth deploying for their leadership. And again, sometimes it was useful to go after the enemy leader because of the stars.

In FE10, only the leader's stars count and they affect anyone on the map. That means, that there is no strategy involved. It's just a bonus which lasts from the first turn to the last. As for the enemy, all levels are so designed that the chapter is pretty much won when taking down the leader so it' exactly the same there.

It's not like they put any practical thought in that bonus either: It makes the hard stages harder (Micaiah's) and the easy ones easier (Ike's).

And for some reason tons of units have leadership despite never being a leader. This could be justified as displaying their theoretical leadership ability but...then Micaiah really should have a lot of stars because she has the most fanatical followers.

-Shadow Dragon was pretty broken in general because they failed to take into account how their changes would affect the overall game.

I would sum it up like this: They changed way to little in order to change as much as they did.

For example Shadow Dragon introduced the weapon triangle to the original game... which was entirely dominated by lances. To make matters worse, you actually get additional bonuses through high weapon ranks... but only when being on the right side of the Triangle. So Sword Fighters suffer a massive disadvantage all the time.

Again, this was no problem in the original because there was no Triangle.

And I'm pretty sure I could add the children system from FE13 to the list too. FE4 had a lot of mechanics to give meaning to the children.

Feel free to correct me but I can't yet see anything like this in FE13.

I would say they did a pretty bad job ever since FE6. The games before felt like they worked on a fundamental level, just that they felt rushed and lacked polishing. In the following games it kinda fells like they get tons of polishing for stuff that is fundamentally broken.

Edited December 11, 2012 by BrightBow

[Anouleth]

-The skills in FE9 and 10 were pretty much pointless for the most part, because most of them were random chance. This was also a problem in FE4/5 but there at least a few who were actually useful.

FE9 and FE10 skills were actually very useful. Celerity, Paragon, Savior, Smite, Nullify, Nihil, Blood Tide, White Pool, Adept, and various Masteries are all useful. I mean, imagine trying to beat Part 3 without Paragon, Beastfoe, or Resolve!

I think they're definitely more useful than skills in FE4/5 (aside from Pursuit, Elite and Dance, obviously). In FE5 it's generally easy enough to kill enemies that you don't need skills. I mean, it just goes to show how useless skills are in FE4, that the best character in the game doesn't have any!

-Leadership was also pointless in FE10. In FE4, it meant you had to effectively place your leader. And you could take out the enemy leader to deprive those sometimes very huge bonuses from the enemy.

You could do that in FE10 too?

In FE10, only the leader's stars count and they affect anyone on the map. That means, that there is no strategy involved. It's just a bonus which lasts from the first turn to the last. As for the enemy, all levels are so designed that the chapter is pretty much won when taking down the leader so it' exactly the same there.

It would be nice if other units could add their authority stars. It might actually give a good reason to use characters like Geoffrey, Lucia, or Renning.

[BrightBow]

FE9 and FE10 skills were actually very useful. Celerity, Paragon, Savior, Smite, Nullify, Nihil, Blood Tide, White Pool, Adept, and various Masteries are all useful. I mean, imagine trying to beat Part 3 without Paragon, Beastfoe, or Resolve!

I think they're definitely more useful than skills in FE4/5 (aside from Pursuit, Elite and Dance, obviously). In FE5 it's generally easy enough to kill enemies that you don't need skills. I mean, it just goes to show how useless skills are in FE4, that the best character in the game doesn't have any!

Well, Paragon, Nihil and Adept were from FE4/5 to begin with. Blood Tide and White Pool are good ideas in theory but they are only around in the final chapter. As for Smite, I don't see much use in it besides going for low-turns. Celerity is cool but technically it's nothing but removable boots. Resolve is only good because it was fixed during localization. Otherwise it would have just been another percentage based skill.

Similar to that, they made Vantage percentage based, so they made an already very situational skill effectively useless.

Still, I guess you do have a point.

I do need to heavily disagree on Masteries, though. Ignoring that they are nothing but flashier criticals, they simply are broken.

They do not make any sense whatsoever. I already stated how insane Eclipse is: 200 guaranteed damage with negated defense in a game where the final boss has 120 HP max. And the most insane part about this is that it's a boasted version of Luna.

Nobody could survive Luna in the first place: 120 Damage and no defense. And I assume that the Caped Crusader is fighting bar handed for that calculation.

Similar insanity can be found with Rend, Tear and Roar. They increase Strength x3 and x5 respectively but it still has a status effect attached to it. If those skills activate, there will simply be nothing left that could theoretically move another turn or suffer from having it's speed halved. They could have just given any Third Tier unit Lethality and call it a day, except that this would actually be a downgrade because Lethality doesn't work on bosses since that would make it overpowered apparently.

You could do that in FE10 too?

I addressed that in the part you quoted. Technically it's possible but by the time the enemy leader is dead, the map is essentially already won because you have to get past all their underlings to get to them in the first place.

In contrast, in FE4 enemy leaders would accompany the army when charging you, so it was possible to target them first. In Thracia, this also happened a few times and the game also had Cyas who had authority as a super power.

Edited December 11, 2012 by BrightBow

[Anouleth]

Well, Paragon, Nihil and Adept were from FE4/5 to begin with. Blood Tide and White Pool are good ideas in theory but they are only around in the final chapter. As for Smite, I don't see much use in it besides going for low-turns.

Most skills are only useful if you plan to beat the chapter, though. How is Smite any different?

Similar to that, they made Vantage percentage based, so they made an already very situational skill effectively useless.

Vantage was a really good skill. Sure, it might not be always useful, but isn't that true of every skill? Are you saying that Ambush wasn't useful, because it was even more situational than Vantage?

I do need to heavily disagree on Masteries, though. Ignoring that they are nothing but flashier criticals, they simply are broken.

I don't get why you say Masteries are broken. Was PCC broken, when it was much more powerful than masteries (with it being quite easy to get a 100% chance to crit even against enemies with high luck)? I might wish that IntSys had put more thought into Masteries and created a varied set of skills that produced clear roles among your units, but not because they're broken as they stand. As you said, all they do is give a ridiculously high number for your damage. In practice, they're no different from the high critical chances in FE5, or the sword skills in FE4 (in fact, Astra is exactly the same in both games. But that doesn't make Swordmasters broken!)

I addressed that in the part you quoted. Technically it's possible but by the time the enemy leader is dead, the map is essentially already won because you have to get past all their underlings to get to them in the first place.

In contrast, in FE4 enemy leaders would accompany the army when charging you, so it was possible to target them first. In Thracia, this also happened a few times and the game also had Cyas who had authority as a super power.

Doesn't it make more sense, though, that the leader would hold back instead of charging in? I mean, if I had ten authority stars, I wouldn't go anywhere near the front lines.

[BrightBow]

Most skills are only useful if you plan to beat the chapter, though. How is Smite any different?

Well, what I had in mind were those flashy two or three turn strategies that revolve around pushing units over half the map and stuff like that. In all other situations, personally I would say that Shove works well enough.

Vantage was a really good skill. Sure, it might not be always useful, but isn't that true of every skill? Are you saying that Ambush wasn't useful, because it was even more situational than Vantage?

Wait, what? I didn't say anything about Ambush. What do you mean by Ambush anyway? Ambush is Vantage. It just got another name when localized.

Anyway, Vantage is only useful if it can kill enemy in one blow. Otherwise the round will end the exact same way as if it had not been active. I'm not that big expert but I would say that's pretty situational otherwise double attacking wouldn't be considered so important. Making it percentage based means that you can't rely on it in the few situations where it might actually come in handy.

I don't get why you say Masteries are broken. Was PCC broken, when it was much more powerful than masteries (with it being quite easy to get a 100% chance to crit even against enemies with high luck)? I might wish that IntSys had put more thought into Masteries and created a varied set of skills that produced clear roles among your units, but not because they're broken as they stand. As you said, all they do is give a ridiculously high number for your damage. In practice, they're no different from the high critical chances in FE5, or the sword skills in FE4 (in fact, Astra is exactly the same in both games. But that doesn't make Swordmasters broken!)

I meant broken I did not mean broken in the sense that they are overpowered. Death is death. Whether you kill an 50HP enemy with 50 damage or 200 damage doesn't really imbalance the game. Otherwise Marita would be the Queen of Thracia. No, I meant broken in the sense that something is not working properly or is simply badly designed.

And Masteries most certainly are. They involve completely nonsensical numbers.

Doesn't it make more sense, though, that the leader would hold back instead of charging in? I mean, if I had ten authority stars, I wouldn't go anywhere near the front lines.

But we were talking about the effect that the mechanics has on the gameplay. As it is, it doesn't open the strategical option of removing the leader first. So as I said when we started: Leadership is nothing more but a bonus for the duration of the chapter. A very far cry from it's previous appearances.

Edit: Changed a pretty important Typo about how I used "broken".

Edited December 11, 2012 by BrightBow

[CT075]

Well, what I had in mind were those flashy two or three turn strategies that revolve around pushing units over half the map and stuff like that. In all other situations, personally I would say that Shove works well enough.

i'm pretty sure that most skills are only useful if you intend to beat the map

Wait, what? I didn't say anything about Ambush. What do you mean by Ambush anyway? Ambush is Vantage. It just got another name when localized.

Anyway, Vantage is only useful if it can kill enemy in one blow. Otherwise the round will end the exact same way as if it had not been active. I'm not that big expert but I would say that's pretty situational otherwise double attacking wouldn't be considered so important. Making it percentage based means that you can't rely on it in the few situations where it might actually come in handy.

ambush is not vantage

ambush is like vantage with the key exception of it only working when you're in the same hp range as wrath

either way his point flew completely over your head

the fact that some things are only situational is a not bad thing

I meant broken I did not mean broken in the sense that they are overpowered. Death is death. Whether you kill an 50HP enemy with 50 damage or 200 damage doesn't really imbalance the game. Otherwise Marita would be the Queen of Thracia. No, I meant broken in the sense that something is not working properly or is simply badly designed.

And Masteries most certainly are. They involve completely nonsensical numbers.

so... what is your point

what makes masteries any less poorly designed than pcc, which has a far more profound effect on gameplay/character balance

[BrightBow]

ambush is not vantage

ambush is like vantage with the key exception of it only working when you're in the same hp range as wrath

either way his point flew completely over your head.

the fact that some things are only situational is a not bad thing

You might want to take a look at this site's page about localization changes. Also, I think that my point went also over your head as well.

Which would be that situational is fine and all but making the skill percentage based means that you can't take advantage of it in the few opportunities where it might actually be useful and that it therefore is rendered useless.

so... what is your point

what makes masteries any less poorly designed than pcc, which has a far more profound effect on gameplay/character balance

Anouleth brought up the PCC in the context of them being a overpowered gameplay mechanic then Masteries and that therefore the latter aren't broken. The quote in question:

Was PCC broken, when it was much more powerful than masteries (with it being quite easy to get a 100% chance to crit even against enemies with high luck)?

It had nothing to do with what I meant since I didn't mean "broken" in the sense of something being "more powerful". So I simply clarified that.

Edited December 11, 2012 by BrightBow

[Anouleth]

You might want to take a look at this site's page about localization changes. Also, I think that my point went also over your head as well.

Which would be that situational is fine and all but making the skill percentage based means that you can't take advantage of it in the few opportunities where it might actually be useful and that it therefore is rendered useless.

While I can see why they changed it (leaving Vantage with 100% activation rate would have made the game very broken with masteries, Adept, Cancel, Wrath, and Resolve all being things too), Vantage in FE10 ended up being a bit too niche. But Vantage in FE9 is very useful.

Anouleth brought up the PCC in the context of them being a overpowered gameplay mechanic then Masteries and that therefore the latter aren't broken. The quote in question:

It had nothing to do with what I meant since I didn't mean "broken" in the sense of something being "more powerful". So I simply clarified that.

But Masteries do work properly! I don't know about badly designed. I don't try to guess about the quality of the design process that IntSys use. All that matters for me is what the game is like, not the way in which it was designed.

[arvilino]

And I'm pretty sure I could add the children system from FE13 to the list too. FE4 had a lot of mechanics to give meaning to the children.

Feel free to correct me but I can't yet see anything like this in FE13.

Actually I'd say in FE13 the kids where handled better. Obviously with FE4 they where more meaningful because you have to use a new set of characters from chapter 6 onwards regardless. but in FE4 you can easily unknowingly screw yourself over based entirely on who you wanted to pair together. Holsety can end up in the hands of more kids that can't use it than those that can. Valkyrie can end up in the hands of someone who can't use it even if you pair Claude up with a Magic User. The fact the game demands certain pairings to make certain items even available to use doesn't strike me as a good feature unless you know beforehand which child can use it. In addition having characters stand next to each other for several turns didn't really flow well with a system based around traversing huge maps, as it only had any advantages(Lovers crit,Sibling Crit) after a support from 1st gen has been fully built.

FE13's system ties into the new combat mechanics(double,dual attacks,adjacent support bonuses from any character)and support conversations a whole lot better because the support and combat system are more smoothly interlinked. Apart from one the children stats and skills don't have to be determined with a deadline until you start playing the Gaiden Chapter(you can even go there to check their stats and come back later with higher stats or different skills and they'll change) they come from allows you flexibility of when to recruit the child and what skills they'll inherit and from which parent.

[Renall]

what makes masteries any less poorly designed than pcc, which has a far more profound effect on gameplay/character balance

PCC is fairly simple, consistent between units (inasmuch as every unit has some PCC value, though it could be zero), and uses a mechanic that already exists (critical hit rate). FE10 Masteries essentially do the same thing PCC does, but with inconsistent mechanics (sometimes modding the base stat, sometimes the damage) and pointless secondary effects (oh no the Resistance of that totally dead unit is going to be halved for the turn it won't live through!).

PCC is in most respects better (in no small part because it's free), but the fact that it's better doesn't necessarily mean it was worse-designed. Sigurd is a better Lord than Roy and game-breakingly strong, but I think everyone would agree that Sigurd is well-designed for the game he's in and Roy is not. FE10 Masteries essentially amount to "the target dies" just like PCC activation, but at least with PCC activation it's relatively simple: "I got x% more crit and rolled a crit," which applies to every unit. "My Hawk rolled Speed/2% and then tripled his Strength for an attack" vs. "my Sentinel rolled Skill/2% and quadrupled her damage for an attack" vs. "my Trueblade rolled Skill/2% and attacked five times" is a stupid amount of pointless information to bear in mind because the net result for all four of these examples is "and then the enemy died." Consequently there's really no point to the various secondary effects of the Masteries, almost none of which are meaningful in the first place.

You would never say "man, I should've brought a Marksman along for Deadeye, the sleep proc would be useful." Effectively any unit with any Mastery would be about as useful. At least in FE5 differences in PCC and weapon access mean there are certain units you can pick if you want a reliable counter-critter. It's a distinguishing feature of Asvel for example. About the only time I've cared about the specific Mastery in FE10 is Luna on Meg for 3-13 Ike-slaying shenanigans. And even then I put him to sleep first.

[dondon151]

i don't even understand the topic title

what are FE mechanics effective at

[Anouleth]

Actually I'd say in FE13 the kids where handled better. Obviously with FE4 they where more meaningful because you have to use a new set of characters from chapter 6 onwards regardless. but in FE4 you can easily unknowingly screw yourself over based entirely on who you wanted to pair together. Holsety can end up in the hands of more kids that can't use it than those that can. Valkyrie can end up in the hands of someone who can't use it even if you pair Claude up with a Magic User. The fact the game demands certain pairings to make certain items even available to use doesn't strike me as a good feature unless you know beforehand which child can use it. In addition having characters stand next to each other for several turns didn't really flow well with a system based around traversing huge maps, as it only had any advantages(Lovers crit,Sibling Crit) after a support from 1st gen has been fully built.

I think you exaggerate. The good pairings in FE4 are usually the easiest and most obvious to form, such as Jamka or Midayle with Aideen, Beowolf with Lachesis, Levin with Fury, or Azel with Tiltyu. Some children are very impossible to screw up: like Ira or Sety, who, unless you go out of your way to give them the worst possible pairings, are very usable. Most of the best 2nd Gen characters are handed to you for free anyway.

And the flipside is that if you want to experiment with bad pairings or sub children, you can. I understand such things are quite popular...

[Ike-Mike]

Fire Emblem is fundamentally broken.

Shadow Dragon had the right idea but it's like putting band-aid over lacerations.

[Constable Reggie]

In response to the original question, I feel that that permadeath needs to stay. Permanently. You can add a casual mode, but if this mechanic is taken away, then it's not Fire Emblem anymore. This is the one thing that can't be removed, new players who can't deal with this mechanic be damned.

As for other things, I feel that the series needs to take more risks in the name of innovation. So far, from the gba games and onward, the games feel too similar (mayyybe with exception to 8, but I feel it could have done more to differentiate itself from 6 and 7, because as it stands, it's basically just those with zombies and a map). Generally, you're a rising group of superheroes that eventually overcome a big bad boss in the end. There's variations to this, but there's not enough gameplay changes to differentiate them (for example, Fe7 could have added much more personal weapons to emphasize the fact that you're controlling a ragtag team of allies, instead of Fe6's huge army), which probably happened cause Shouzou Kaga left. The dude made Tearring and Berwick Saga which push those innovations even more (unfortunately BS is ps2 japan only, really wish I could play it). I haven't played or read much about Fe13, but I've heard they added a pretty cool dual attack system and brought back the great love/child system. It needs to go farther. It needs to follow the footsteps of Fe4 and 5, and not the 6-12. But it needs to do it as tastefully as 4 and 5 did. Fe4 gave you the feeling that what you were doing was on a huge, grand scale. You were literally taking over parts of the continent each chapter, and this is reflected in the gameplay. You fight what are represented to be full armies, not mishmashed random enemies. Holy weapons and blood are insanely powerful storywise, and this is reflected in the gameplay, to the point where even the subs themselves acknowledge that they're pretty much useless (Fe6/7 doesn't even touch on descendants of the legendary heroes). In Fe5, you get the feeling that your army is riding the line between minor successes and major failures. Everything you do is for survival, not heroic victory. This is reflected in the gameplay. You're put in extremely disadvantageous situations (where the game's able to throw cool challenges at you NOT in the form of raw enemy stats) and there's a fatigue system that enforces the fact that your army's not too great. Need some money to buy some items? Hahaha, you're shit out of luck. Go steal the enemies' weapons like the pathetic army you are.

I'm hoping that they'll do this for Fe14 and onward titles. The least they could do is make a spiritual successor to Fe4 or 5, and basically copy-paste those games' mechanics and expand on them. But it'd be great to see if they could do something different, but comparable to those two gems of games.

[Tamanoir]

FE5 has one major problem linked wit a less important one.

This is dismounting and Weapon Level. Weapon Level is pretty hard to level up in this game.

This causes all mountain units who are not Forrest Knight, Bow Knight, Mage Knight or Paladin to be completely useless for the final Chapter.

And this is where there is my main complaint : There is no good Lance user indoor. There is in fact only 2 Lance user usable : Dalsin and Xaver.

Dalsin come early, but begin with Axe and is not really easy to train. Xavier begin with a E Rank in Lance. 7 Level before the final chapter.

And should I remember how hard he was to recruit ? That' IS trolling us here.

They are both pretty slow and easily doubled.

Annd none of them can use the special Lance. ...wich included the Hero Lace who would be quite useful for these relatively slow.

Especially because the Sword user here are relatively strong and fast. Being able to avoid Zwolf attck would be pretty nice.

Dismounting is an interresting strategy, but it's completely broken here...

Comparatively, there's an overabundance of sword users...

This is really the game who would have neededan Hallebardier...

EDIT : @Constable Reggie : I would say that breakable weapons is as important as permadeath, maybe even more.

Why there often was way to avoid Permadeath (Aum and Valkyrie, mainly). Breakanble weapons were avoided only once in FE2,

or situationally, with the Falchion. It's another level of strategy, especially with game with no main maps.

It's kinda avoided in FE12, with all the weapons they throw at you.

Even in FE4, with reaparable weapons, you won't abuse your legendary weapons for small fries.

Having Powerfull, but limited weapons allow you to not break the game and stock less powerfull but more durable weapons for

the easy fights. Permadeath shoud stay an option for hardcore fan and add more dimension to the game

(FE5 without Permadeath would be... pretty pointless) (and even if I enjoy Casual, it sure not feel the same...).

..But breakable weapons is the thing that sould never be avoided.

...Wow, FE5 really had a strong effect on me...

Edited December 11, 2012 by TendaSlime

[Constable Reggie]

I personally think that Fe5's minor flaws (there are lots, probably from I'm assuming because it was a rushed game) are completely overshadowed by what it did right.

[Knight]

To comment on the children character thing, I like that I can choose who I want together without fearing the loss of one of the strongest weapons in the game. And that the game doesn't force me into certain pairings and I can still make an effective unit with anyone I pair. Say I want to play FE4 blind, and I think Azel and Ira would make a good couple, well, then I'm ******. But in 13, I can fix that with reclassing and they can still have access to holy weapons as well.

As for mastery skills, it took me several chapters to realize that Stun actually did its namesake.

Biorhythm was a bad idea, but I don't think the franchise was ruined after 6, a lot of games have useless things or mechanics but that doesn't make it a bad game, I mean, what the hell do I do with shears in Skyrim? Or any of those useless items in the Elder Scrolls? (except paintbrushes) Just because there are useless things in a game, doesn't mean it's broken, it's more like filling extra space.

[Integrity]

Biorhythm was a bad idea, but I don't think the franchise was ruined after 6, a lot of games have useless things or mechanics but that doesn't make it a bad game, I mean, what the hell do I do with shears in Skyrim? Or any of those useless items in the Elder Scrolls? (except paintbrushes) Just because there are useless things in a game, doesn't mean it's broken, it's more like filling extra space.

Uh, what? All that shit in Skyrim (/Morrowind/Oblivion) was there for flavor, to make the game world feel more like a world. How does Biorhythm even sort of attempt to accomplish that?

EDIT: And in Morrowind it was all vendor fodder - some of it pretty damn valuable.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Integrity

[Renall]

In response to the original question, I feel that that permadeath needs to stay. Permanently. You can add a casual mode, but if this mechanic is taken away, then it's not Fire Emblem anymore. This is the one thing that can't be removed, new players who can't deal with this mechanic be damned.

Here's my problem with permadeath in SRPGs, and it isn't one related to it as a gameplay mechanic (although there are many criticisms that can be raised about that very topic, I don't care to touch on them), though it reflects in what the mechanic does:

It can make the story very hard to properly invest in because most characters have to be accounted for as dead from the moment they join.

Examples of this. Everyone who joins in FE7 and is not plot-critical or Merlinus basically ceases to exist upon joining outside of supports. Same concept in a game like FFT, where Agrias ought to have things to say the entire run of the story but says not a goddamn word after she's permanently recruited. Or Suikoden Tactics, where characters who have had or will have important story lines cannot permanently die but everybody else can either be not recruited or just killed off and basically have no impact on anything and may as well not even exist. In Valkyria Chronicles the half-dozen primary story characters are literally the only people you ever see doing anything, and the allies have little development (something that was fixed in 2, and one of the few things 2 did well).

Now that's not to say you can't have permadeath and story importance. FE tries to do it through support conversations (well, it does in the good FEs). Tactics Ogre had in-battle conversations and character-dependent recruitment. But if you're going to do something like this, it requires a lot of work. I assume that's part of the reason support conversations were so lackluster in Radiant Dawn. You can also see elements of "cheating" creeping in around Path of Radiance, where characters like Titania and Soren won't actually die when killed because the story needs them (though they remain unplayable, which in itself doesn't entirely bother me). Basically, they try to throw something in there to flesh out the disposable characters, but those mechanics are generally poorly implemented, in part because they're inextricably tied mostly to gameplay mechanics which don't serve the story (and before FE13, very rarely did the story serve the game mechanics either).

It bothers me on a narrative level because you either have to go full out accounting for the intentional jerk who kills off every character ASAP just to see what happens or you have to head that off and not have permadeath. And almost no SRPG that chooses the former pulls it off fully and properly. For example, I can think of a whopping one support in FE where a character being dead alters the dialogue. There are probably others but they don't substantially change anything. And if the support features the deceased themselves, the relationship just... stops. There is no mourning. There is no change to the personal story of the other character from losing a friend or a lover. There are no new support options opened between characters who could both support the deceased but couldn't support each other until bonding over the death of a friend.

Basically with no permadeath the writers can write the story they want to write and involve all the characters to the extent that they wish. With permadeath there is the potential to write a much more complex story, but nobody actually does it. So either way falls somewhat flat. Given that, and especially in FE where a dead or "retreated" character is essentially cut off from their only form of character development (building supports), I'd rather just play on Casual since I'm not actually getting more or better or different story out of my failures... which is how you incentivize a person to not reset, by not just making the feature a punishment that cuts you off from good things. If you're going to feature such a critical mechanic in your game, it ought to encourage the player to not reset when somebody dies so that they can see a different story, one that is unique to the way they actually succeeded or failed. I suppose Shadow Dragon tried a form of "let folks die," but it did it in a way that's basically antithetical to good storytelling by demanding constant Aztec blood sacrifices for no particular reason. Still, it was an attempt, as were those occasional support conversations that bring something up in the series on the whole. I just desire more from the mechanic than the FE series tends to provide.

[Anouleth]

To comment on the children character thing, I like that I can choose who I want together without fearing the loss of one of the strongest weapons in the game.

That's only really true for Levin, though, since he's the only father with a holy weapon. And of the seven possible pairings for Levin, three of them let you use Holsety, and his most obvious pairings are both among them (Fury and Sylvia). And why should you be forced to take the best route? Some people like to use Levin!Patty.

And that the game doesn't force me into certain pairings and I can still make an effective unit with anyone I pair. Say I want to play FE4 blind, and I think Azel and Ira would make a good couple, well, then I'm ******.

You really aren't. Even with Azel as a father, Lakche and Skasaher are still decent units, and Azel is a pretty mediocre father anyway so it's not like you're losing out on any great pairings involving him.

[Tamanoir]

I personally think that Fe5's minor flaws (there are lots, probably from I'm assuming because it was a rushed game) are completely overshadowed by what it did right.

Well there's a thing it does awesomely (maybe even more than any others), it's ambiance. Running away against overpowered ennemies and risking your life at every moment until the fatigue finally beats you... I don't think a lot of others game have left me such a strong impression as FE5.

I also liked the fact that a lot of characters have unique weapons. That makes them more ...well, unique.

It's really hard, and not always fun, but it makes it stands out.

The contrast between FE5 and FE4 (another game with good ambiance, even if it's in a totally different level), makes it even more interresting.

I would like to see other games that works as well as these both.

(I haven't played FE9 and FE10. How do these games works together ?)

EDIT : @Renall : I think that support conversations are a good way to avoid this problem...

I remember having this problem with Valkyrie Profile : Convenant of the Plume, but here it causes less problem.

I mean, secret characters won't have a big game role either. Since there's only a few units you're forced to obtain,

the others won't have any role either way.

IN fact, I think it was made to have the exact opposite effects : every units can guy, so you have to be extra careful when using them... That's why I prefer Casual : I don't have to start a chapter entirely just because a character was killed at one step of the objective.

Edited December 12, 2012 by TendaSlime

[Rapier]

@Renall

You have a good point, but isn't it possible that permadeath influences people to let their characters live because they have an importance plot-wise? For example: Fin, on a FE4 second gen/FE5 setting. You know he's important to Leaf, and you know about his objective and how loyal he was to his father. Maybe seeing him guide his liege's son and help him, thus fulfilling his oath, would be a motive to let him stay alive for the duration of the game. All we need is to give him more plot importance and see how well he fares out so we can care about him.

It's hard to invest on a story where all the characters can die because they can't be plot important if they're dead already, I know it. But I still think they need more work on character development, even if it turns out as a wasted effort (for those who don't care about letting characters survive or isn't interested on them). Something that makes the characters have an impact on the plot, even if it's slightly. Something that gives them importance.