Most overhyped and Most Underappreciated FE games?

[Icon of Sin]

The maps are strong, it introduced supports

Only the conversations, since supports have been there since FE3. Besides, to even gain said support bonuses, you actually had to stick next to each other for a ton of turns, unlike FE3 and 5 where you could gain those from the start (and 4 with sibling bonuses).

The conversations are just the shiny reward you get after you obeyed whatever conditions were asked for said supports to happen in the first place.

[Integrity]

On the other hand, the conversations apparently meant so much that people are still crying that FE10 didn't have them.

[dondon151]

I found SoS's maps to be the worst in the entire series just after Gaiden and FE3 book 2.

yeah what do you know about map design anyway

[Icon of Sin]

On the other hand, the conversations apparently meant so much that people are still crying that FE10 didn't have them.

Some people really care about their random banter and gossip.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Doga Blockovich

[Constable Reggie]

yeah what do you know about map design anyway

You don't have to be an expert fe player to know that SoS's maps are unnecessarily huge and become a slog to go through.

[Shadow Mir]

You don't have to be an expert fe player to know that SoS's maps are unnecessarily huge and become a slog to go through.

Of course, the same could be said of FE4's maps.

[Constable Reggie]

I said unnecessarily. Fe4 has an extremely compelling reason for having large maps.

[Jedi]

I said unnecessarily. Fe4 has an extremely compelling reason for having large maps.

So in your logic, no other FE can have big maps. It's fe4's one thing that only it can do and if another one has it. It's terrible

[Constable Reggie]

I never implied that. Fe4 used large maps to it's advantage to strengthen the game. Fe6 did the opposite. Large maps sprinkled in with other sized maps is fine. Consecutive large maps (that aren't exactly complex or interesting either, unlike 7-8's) without any thought put into the reasoning is not.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Anacybele]

FE 10 is a great game but those of you who loved it why do people always keep ignoring the fact that the availability of alot of the characters are atrocious?

I don't ignore it, it's just that most of the characters with poor availability are characters I never cared for.

[Shadow Mir]

I never implied that. Fe4 used large maps to it's advantage to strengthen the game. Fe6 did the opposite. Large maps sprinkled in with other sized maps is fine. Consecutive large maps (that aren't exactly complex or interesting either, unlike 7-8's) without any thought put into the reasoning is not.

Bold: In your opinion, it did. FE4's large maps were detrimental to the game as a whole, as I see it.

[Constable Reggie]

It's mechanics are meant to bolster story design over gameplay. In that aspect, it greatly succeeds.

[Florete]

FE 10 is a great game but those of you who loved it why do people always keep ignoring the fact that the availability of alot of the characters are atrocious?

I don't know of anyone who actually "ignores" this. Probably because it doesn't come up often. The only problem people have with character availability in the game, to my knowledge, is where it really hurts units like Fiona and Pelleas. When you consider the average number of maps a character is in in RD, it isn't much different from normal.

[Samias]

Some of the charm of FE10 is because you're switching teams often. Some characters have seriously bad availability but it was something unique for FE to throw you into so many different situations with a different cast. Generally unit growth is pretty high and bexp exists so people can work in whoever they want into their teams despite a chunk of characters having so few chapters to work with. I don't really see people many people hyping it, though, if only because it's a sequel that is somewhat difficult to just jump into as a new player.

[NinjaMonkey]

really hurts units like Fiona and Pelleas.

Except Pelleas has 4-5, which has a crapton of EXP to be gained within it (as long as you are willing to take the time and effort that is needed).

Edited March 6, 2013 by NinjaMonkey

[Shadow Mir]

It's mechanics are meant to bolster story design over gameplay. In that aspect, it greatly succeeds.

So you're implying that it's OK to ignore the gameplay flaws because of this, is that it?

[Constable Reggie]

I'm saying that the mechanics greatly benefiting the story more than makes up for the small negative impacts on gameplay.

[Klokinator]

4 additional hours of gameplay, of which those hours are spent moving over a gigantic goddamn map, are not "small details". Besides, my version of FE4 had no translated story text, only translated gameplay text, and in that regard since I had no story I had to judge only the gameplay, which was sorely lacking.

[Constable Reggie]

I can't read the copy of Watchman I own because the text is in japanese, so I can only judge it based on the ugly pictures. Judging only on Watchmen's dated artistic drawings, it is shit.

I can't understand any of the themes, symbolism, or excellent use of game mechanics used in Spec Ops: the Line, so I can only judge it based on it's shooting gameplay. Judging only on Spec Op's gameplay, it is shit.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Just call me AL]

I honestly don't see why some people are saying FE7 is overhyped. The only common reason I'm seeing is the nostalgia factor. But even then, it's not enough for me to go on. From everyone that says it's overhyped, not one single reason was given to why it's "overhyped". Because really, I don't see many people praising it as much as they did in the past anymore. If anything, judging from what I'm seeing nowadays, FE8 seems to be the more overhyped game, and FE7 seems to be the more underappreciated game.

I'd probably throw FE10 into the overhyped pile too.

As far as more underappreciated games go. I'd say FE12. But that's more because of the lack of a localized release.

I might say FE6 is underappreciated too. Even if only for the fact that it introduced an interesting (but sadly unsung) antagonist. But that may be just me.

[CT075]

Judging only on Spec Op's gameplay, it is shit.

yep sounds about right

[Constable Reggie]

Yep, Spec Ops (Fe4) is known as a shitty Call of Duty knockoff/generic modern military shooter that did nothing special because it's shooting gameplay was not as refined as the regulars'. Medal of Honor: Warfighter (Fe6) is hailed as one of the best modern military shooters ever because it's gameplay is slightly above competent.

Disregarding absolutely everything else just to focus on enjoyment of gameplay is not how you judge games.

[Integrity]

Wasn't Spec Ops sort of based around its story, to the deliberate detriment of gameplay? I didn't get that feeling from FE4 at all, that it was actively trying to sacrifice gameplay to make a point. I felt like they were just trying something different (big maps) and it sort of worked. I don't really think Spec Ops (a deliberate experiment) and FE4 are comparable in that sense.

Then again, I wasn't sucked in by FE4's story at all, so the big maps that were apparently there to assist the story sometimes acted to its detriment for me. When I judge FE4 based on how I played it, I judge it based primarily (not entirely) on its gameplay and I can readily see where people would say it falls flat.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Integrity

[Rehab]

I'd call fe4 an experiment as well, but I can probably only get away with that because the huge maps were basically a one-off (as in they probably decided they were either a bad idea or they never figured out a safe way to do them better :smith:)

[Integrity]

Sure, but then FE4 isn't an experiment in the same way Spec Ops was an experiment. I don't think "let's make a super edgy game and deliberately retard the gameplay to make a point" is comparable to "let's try some new mechanics."

Edited March 7, 2013 by Integrity