Is it wrong to over analyze Fire Emblem Awakening?

[ClassyWolf]

(INSERT QUOTE FROM THAT ONE PERSON ABOVE ME ABOUT DEFENDING SOMETHING THAT THEY LIKE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS)

... yeah I know I can sound like an ass... and I'm sorry if I come off as inssulting.

if you actual do like something, then talk about its own merits, other then trying to compare it to others, likewise if you actually hate something, don't compare it to others, explain why by itself, its a bad game.

One, if I come off as I just hate for the sake of hatting... I don't, I went into awakening really wanting to like it, and it's hard to just take the game on it's own merits since it's so heavely tied to the earlier games (beeing a sequel), if it would be it's own thing it probably wouldn't be half bad, unfortunetely they didn't do it like that.

except your not, because i'm that guy who tells others "stop overanlyzing SAO, its an average anime with a gary stu protag and a idiot plot for the second half of it with a forced love triangle that undermines the romance in the first half" for example.

...if this is directed at me... yeah I know I can be the guy who goes way to deeply into things (granted not SAO... I haven't relly watched it).

Alltough this depends on the game, like for example the elder scrolls, I'm far more interrested in the lore and the world than story and characters.

to be fair, FE games never really focus on the story anyways.

hell i'm not gonna criticize a mario platformer for the story cause there's never any real focus on it.

Really? your comparing Mario to fe when it comes to story? I don't know how to respond to this...

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

ok that one guy i think we're having a misunderstanding, the first part is referring to how i screwed up with my post so i had to use that to replace your quote i mean no ill will. also its more directed to the people who don't desire to discuss why they enjoy something but would always love to go into detail about stuff they hate.

the second part your talking about is more directed towards the OP

the third part was directed to ranger jack about how i'm the guy who tells people to stop over praising something by over analyzing it.

the 4th part i'm not sure where i was going with that entirely,

also i said a mario PLATFORMER the rpg's actually have a good story that had work put into it on some level, which is a whole lot more then awakening but that's not the point.

Edited May 1, 2014 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Jotari]

I can't really hold Awakening's bad writing against it. I mean where they missed out on quality they certainly covered a lot of ground in quantity. With all the supports and altered conversations they had a hell of a lot of text to right. Sure that doesn't mean they can do a half assed story but they had to create a new gameplay engine on top of that with 3D fight sequences. They had a lot to do in this game, inevitably something was going to lag behind on quality. And while the story isn't stellar it isn't so bad that it detracts from everything else that makes the game enjoyable (and if you happen to think it does, look you have a start button that can skip all cutscenes). And I think this shows with the writing in the DLC chapters is much better because they weren't faced with an overwhelming work load.

[ClassyWolf]

I can't really hold Awakening's bad writing against it. I mean where they missed out on quality they certainly covered a lot of ground in quantity. With all the supports and altered conversations they had a hell of a lot of text to right. Sure that doesn't mean they can do a half assed story but they had to create a new gameplay engine on top of that with 3D fight sequences. They had a lot to do in this game, inevitably something was going to lag behind on quality. And while the story isn't stellar it isn't so bad that it detracts from everything else that makes the game enjoyable (and if you happen to think it does, look you have a start button that can skip all cutscenes). And I think this shows with the writing in the DLC chapters is much better because they weren't faced with an overwhelming work load.

I would wan't to say this is true, but quantity over quality isn't nececarilly good (most of the time, it isn't), and the exscuse that "they had to experiment with a new console" would work better, if it wouldn't be for the fact that fe is fairly old of a series and has been on a number of consoles allready, the major change that I could have understood this reasoning for would have been path of radiance, the jump reom 2D -> 3D, and speaking of path of radiance, it's a game that has changing dialoge in the supports for some characters depending on the parts you have played.

And about "a lot of text to write", awakening doesen't have that much of exposition, something I was sorely lacking, while awakening does have a lot of support conversations, a lot of them are generic, the child father conversations, and a lot of them are very same-y.

And the gameplay, with the exeption of pair-up, a lot of it was recycled from earlier games (genealogy generations, ss braching promotions).

And again, the dlc having good writing I can't count as a +, because it shows that they can do better but didn't for wathever reason and now you have to pay more to get said better writing.

[IceBrand]

to be fair, FE games never really focus on the story anyways.

hell i'm not gonna criticize a mario platformer for the story cause there's never any real focus on it.

but on the other hand, you can tell they put lot of work into awakening's story(cause they didn't recycle FE1's/3's plot like FE6 did, which is why i give 6's a story a break), and its kinda bad, i have a hard time ignoring that.

also to this, you have a very good point, and your almost correct.

except your not, because i'm that guy who tells others "stop overanlyzing SAO, its an average anime with a gary stu protag and a idiot plot for the second half of it with a forced love triangle that undermines the romance in the first half" for example.

sure i'm just one guy, but there are a very few minority that do tell others that they are over analyzing stuff

(INSERT QUOTE FROM THAT ONE PERSON ABOVE ME ABOUT DEFENDING SOMETHING THAT THEY LIKE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS)

I'm gonna hate myself for saying this, but its something i picked up on 4chan that others have pointed out while on there.

some people do exist that think that all they have to do is say 'its fun" or "i like it" without going into details as to why they like it, then turning around and giving a full page essay on any "FF7 sucks" or 'why Lucina is the worst waifu".

this is obviously hypocritical, if you truly love something, despite its flaws, you should be able to give a detailed explanation as to why you like it, that's how they detect trolls on 4chan.

saying that "hilter did nothing wrong" labels you as a troll ASAP and you get told to go back to /pol/, on the other hand, actually giving reasons why you liked Halo 4 or something, you might get called a retard, but its hard to argue that you actually do care about it.

whats going on in the OP's post is that he's dispite "being a fan of awakening' and having it listed as his favorite game, he can't seem to defend it by its own merits and keeps comparing it to other games in the series while implying that "the other games are just as bad as awakening with this"

if you actual do like something, then talk about its own merits, other then trying to compare it to others, likewise if you actually hate something, don't compare it to others, explain why by itself, its a bad game.

this guy can not be a true fan of fire emblem, he must either be a troll or a half hearted casual who doesn't care about the series other then waifu simulator: will you marry me sempai?~.

i hate this game so damn much, it brought in a flood of casuals who dare have the nerve to talk smack to the actual fans about their underaged pantsu rpg.

i don't care if it saved the series, i'd rather it be dead if this is what i'm gonna have to deal with.

While I agree with you and understand what you are saying, you're mistaken on others. Let me correct them. One, I have on several occasion commented on the flaws of the game. Characters, story, writing, check. Even so, I still like the game even with the glaring flaws. The game does shine in other areas such as music. Is that a problem? Second, I played all of the localized Fire Emblems with Path of Radiance being my first. POR is my favorite FE but the reason why Awakening is taking the spot is because it saved a series I enjoy so much. Also what's with this "True Fan" card you're pulling? Is a true fan only someone that likes any other FE besides 13? If so what about those that started with Awakening and what to see the rest of series thanks to it? Too bad since they're not "True Fans". Not cool dude, not cool at all. You seem like a nice guy, stop acting like an elitist.

Edited May 1, 2014 by AllAroundGamer9

[Jotari]

I would wan't to say this is true, but quantity over quality isn't nececarilly good (most of the time, it isn't), and the exscuse that "they had to experiment with a new console" would work better, if it wouldn't be for the fact that fe is fairly old of a series and has been on a number of consoles allready, the major change that I could have understood this reasoning for would have been path of radiance, the jump reom 2D -> 3D, and speaking of path of radiance, it's a game that has changing dialoge in the supports for some characters depending on the parts you have played.

And about "a lot of text to write", awakening doesen't have that much of exposition, something I was sorely lacking, while awakening does have a lot of support conversations, a lot of them are generic, the child father conversations, and a lot of them are very same-y.

And the gameplay, with the exeption of pair-up, a lot of it was recycled from earlier games (genealogy generations, ss braching promotions).

And again, the dlc having good writing I can't count as a +, because it shows that they can do better but didn't for wathever reason and now you have to pay more to get said better writing.

I never claimed quantity over quality was a good thing. When it came to deciding what they we're going to do with Awakening they obviously choose to focus on the gameplay aspect of things. They decided every character could support with almost every other character. They choose to have a quantity of writing over a quality of writing because it supported their gameplay design.

What you say about Path of Radiance is true and the jump 3D was something they were apprehensive about for a long time. It's the reason we didn't see a fire Emblem on the Nintendo 64 and when Path of Radiance came out pretty late in the Gamecube's life span. They worked long and hard on Path of Radiance (if I recall correctly it was already in prodduction before they started making Sacred Stones). As a result of their effort they made a good game. But as I was recently reading in this topic http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47525#entry3071070 it is among the more meh games in the fan base.

I don't know how long they spent making Awakening, maybe it was shorter, maybe it was longer than Path of Radiance but regardless it is clear a lot of thought and effort went into the game. Perhaps they did have a bigger workload when making Path of Radiance but even if they did it doesn't mitigate the workload they had when they were making Awakening. I study Computer Games Development and have done so for the past three years and I can tell that even before they touched a line of code they put a lot of work into making the game they had in mind. And I believe they have pulled it off. Awakening is a very good game. The gameplay is solid, there is a lot of content, nice music and a reasonable amount of challenge. As a result of these points the story suffered. They had a lot to do and only so much time to do it so they decided to prioritize making an enjoyable story over making an epic narrative. Am I happy they did this? Well yes, because I like the game we got. Of course I would have been happier if Awakening had a better story so long as it didn't detract from the gameplay aspect of it. A good story is not the sole focus of a game, if you want that then check out a book or a visual novel. Awakening is a game and they decided to make it a fun game and evidently it is as I know many of us, myself included, have sunk hundreds of hours into it.

And I think it was less of a case that you have to pay more to get better writing and more of a case, when making DLC they had the entire gameplay aspect done so they could actually focus on the writing.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Jotari

[ClassyWolf]

I don't know how long they spent making Awakening, maybe it was shorter, maybe it was longer than Path of Radiance but regardless it is clear a lot of thought and effort went into the game. Perhaps they did have a bigger workload when making Path of Radiance but even if they did it doesn't mitigate the workload they had when they were making Awakening. I study Computer Games Development and have done so for the past three years and I can tell that even before they touched a line of code they put a lot of work into making the game they had in mind. And I believe they have pulled it off. Awakening is a very good game. The gameplay is solid, there is a lot of content, nice music and a reasonable amount of challenge. As a result of these points the story suffered. They had a lot to do and only so much time to do it so they decided to prioritize making an enjoyable story over making an epic narrative. Am I happy they did this? Well yes, because I like the game we got. Of course I would have been happier if Awakening had a better story so long as it didn't detract from the gameplay aspect of it. A good story is not the sole focus of a game, if you want that then check out a book or a visual novel. Awakening is a game and they decided to make it a fun game and evidently it is as I know many of us, myself included, have sunk hundreds of hours into it.

...It's impossible for you to know so I'm not going all "didn't you know", but in the civil (I'm in the military currently, since military service is compullsory in Finland I had to momentarily leave my studies) I study computer programing and assemblying, and I know it can be very slow work and it can take even longer to find fuckups that has been made.

And in awakening, I'll give it to you, the core gameplay in awakening is solid, it is a lot of fun to play with class change, the pairings add some more variety covering weaknesses (yes the pair up system is broken in the easier difficulties but is better done on the harder ones)... alltough if I would still complain about something it would be horrible and random enemy placement... and the bum rushes...

[IceBrand]

...It's impossible for you to know so I'm not going all "didn't you know", but in the civil (I'm in the military currently, since military service is compullsory in Finland I had to momentarily leave my studies) I study computer programing and assemblying, and I know it can be very slow work and it can take even longer to find fuckups that has been made.

And in awakening, I'll give it to you, the core gameplay in awakening is solid, it is a lot of fun to play with class change, the pairings add some more variety covering weaknesses (yes the pair up system is broken in the easier difficulties but is better done on the harder ones)... alltough if I would still complain about something it would be horrible and random enemy placement... and the bum rushes...

But don't the Valm forces attack in a fixed order?

[ClassyWolf]

But don't the Valm forces attack in a fixed order?

While I still would argue that all the enmies just rush you, I see your point, I could also mention that in if I remember right, in chapter three the enemies across the bridge will not attack untill you've crossed a certain point, then they rush you.

[IceBrand]

While I still would argue that all the enmies just rush you, I see your point, I could also mention that in if I remember right, in chapter three the enemies across the bridge will not attack untill you've crossed a certain point, then they rush you.

They still zerg rush regardless. Even the boss joins in(Lunatic mode only). But wouldn't it make more sense for the enemy to overwhelm you?

Edited May 1, 2014 by AllAroundGamer9

[Jotari]

Why are rushes a bad thing?

[ClassyWolf]

Why are rushes a bad thing?

In awakening, they probably aren't (other than makeing chapters feel more like endurance rounds), but if I repeat myself, what anoys me even more is the enemy placement, this isn't a problem with undead, after all, they don't think, they're dead, or bandits that might not be that organised, but when different millitary troops are as unorganised as they are in awakening, that anoys me.

An again about rushes, the way they are made in awakening makes it feel more like an endurance round than a map you overcame because of your strategy.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Rushes: the main problem I have against them is that they combines with the broken exp formula to make the game much harder for every extra unit you train.

[IceBrand]

Rushes: the main problem I have against them is that they combines with the broken exp formula to make the game much harder for every extra unit you train.

What do you mean by broken exp formula?

[Czar_Yoshi]

The game gives way too much exp to high leveled units, and enemy's exp doesn't increase with their power as fast as it should, which makes the game far too friendly to overleveled units.

[Jotari]

In awakening, they probably aren't (other than makeing chapters feel more like endurance rounds), but if I repeat myself, what anoys me even more is the enemy placement, this isn't a problem with undead, after all, they don't think, they're dead, or bandits that might not be that organised, but when different millitary troops are as unorganised as they are in awakening, that anoys me.

An again about rushes, the way they are made in awakening makes it feel more like an endurance round than a map you overcame because of your strategy.

It's a different type of strategic thinking but endurance maps do require a lot of strategy too. Where to find you're choke points, who to hold off the enemy with, how to protect you're healer etc

The game gives way too much exp to high leveled units, and enemy's exp doesn't increase with their power as fast as it should, which makes the game far too friendly to overleveled units.

Pooling all your exp into very few units has long been a problem with Fire Emblem over all. IN Awakening in particular though you're thankfull of that high exp gain if you're grinding your characters for Apotheosis or if you just want a particular skill. The importance of EXP in Awakening is so radically different to other games in the series it's hard to even compare.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Jotari

[ClassyWolf]

It's a different type of strategic thinking but endurance maps do require a lot of strategy too. Where to find you're choke points, who to hold off the enemy with, how to protect you're healer etc

Your right, I rush map can be very interesting, but here you must combine three things: the rushes, enemy placement and the map design, and awakening has just really random enemy placement and maps that most of the time offer very little other choice than bilding a wall of units around your healer (there aree exeptions), it's these three combined that takes a lot of the strategy out, an example where awakening acctually has a good map design is chapter 17... and probably one of the worst offenders (next to endgame) has to be chapter 4.

[XeKr]

Passive enemies are fairly trivial to deal with (bait and fight them in small groups). Aggressive enemies are more threatening. Sure some (most?) people might not like this type of gameplay, but tactically it’s more challenging to deal with properly. The pressure forces more careful positioning out of the player if you want to do it reliably (see: Lunatic earlygame).

The aggro behavior of FE13 (in Lunatic at least) is quite clever and actually underrated imo. Even in chapter 4 they aggro in a particular order/schedule, and the interesting way the ranges overlap looks deliberate to me.

As mentioned, the “endurance round syndrome” is an artifact of lowmanning, which happens in other FEs too (with some few exceptions, FE has generally always been more enemy phase centric and subject to this phenomena). Sure here stuff like Veteran and Rescue Staves and the exp floor exacerbate the issue, but how much “strategy” does it take for Seth or Titania to leisurely roll through their games? etc

Edited May 2, 2014 by XeKr

[BrightBow]

Pooling all your exp into very few units has long been a problem with Fire Emblem over all. IN Awakening in particular though you're thankfull of that high exp gain if you're grinding your characters for Apotheosis or if you just want a particular skill. The importance of EXP in Awakening is so radically different to other games in the series it's hard to even compare.

How is that a good thing? It's not like the stats and caps of those enemies had to be as high as they are except for making grinding mandatory in the first place.

Just because IS could have made grinding even more tedious and boring as they already did, doesn't change the fact that they made it tedious and boring.

Edited May 2, 2014 by BrightBow

[dudedudedudeo]

Supports get mixed up when you get them in a certain order, which messes things up (EX Yarne)

[FrostyFireMage]

I think the story was trying to go the "emotional" route as opposed to the "logically coherent" route.

Too bad it's hard to get emotionally invested when the characters act like morons.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Pooling all your exp into very few units has long been a problem with Fire Emblem over all. IN Awakening in particular though you're thankfull of that high exp gain if you're grinding your characters for Apotheosis or if you just want a particular skill. The importance of EXP in Awakening is so radically different to other games in the series it's hard to even compare.

EXP gain doesn't need to be lower in general, strong units need to get less exp and give more exp. If a unit who is leveled around where they should be in the game gets a kill, they should get a normal amount of exp (~20-30), and a unit even a few levels (5 or so) above where they should be should be down to 10, and it should drop from there all the way to 1 if a unit is much stronger than they should be. However, enemy's EXP scales just as fast, so if you bench a unit who's getting 5 exp per kill (Frederick, for example) for 2-3 chapters, it'll be right back up to normal, and if your weaker or underleveled units make a kill, they'll get very large amounts of exp and can catch up easily, provided you can give them kills that don't get them killed on EP (the other problem of zerg rushes).

As for grinding later, there are three ways to fix it so it's not impossible under those rules (grinding is already fairly tedious as-is):

-Make Paragon halve or remove the effect of a unit's IL on EXP gain.

-Make postgame enemies give enough EXP to be useful even when your IL is capped.

-Scale the DLC maps so no grinding is needed.

The aggro behavior of FE13 (in Lunatic at least) is quite clever and actually underrated imo. Even in chapter 4 they aggro in a particular order/schedule, and the interesting way the ranges overlap looks deliberate to me.

It would be, if the game were more designed around taking sieges, but as-is you have limited strategies for actually dealing with rushes, which mainly involve throwing your strongest dude out there and letting him/her mop everyone up. Since enemies target the weakest unit in their range, if you try to maximize the damage you cause on Player Phase by using all your units, the enemy will just swarm your weakest unit in range and unless they can take the whole thing, they die. They could be safe if they're out of range, eg you defeat an entire pocket of enemies, but with the rushes enemies are packed too close together to do that.

[XeKr]

It would be, if the game were more designed around taking sieges, but as-is you have limited strategies for actually dealing with rushes, which mainly involve throwing your strongest dude out there and letting him/her mop everyone up. Since enemies target the weakest unit in their range, if you try to maximize the damage you cause on Player Phase by using all your units, the enemy will just swarm your weakest unit in range and unless they can take the whole thing, they die. They could be safe if they're out of range, eg you defeat an entire pocket of enemies, but with the rushes enemies are packed too close together to do that.

If there were numerous lenient ways to deal with the enemy, it wouldn’t be very challenging. More restrictive/challenging gameplay forces the player to find and use more optimal strategies (or try to brute force through it, if they don’t want to think. Surprisingly common >_>).

Essentially, most of what you said is a consequence of FE mechanics in general. If you have a single strong and durable enough combat unit, that unit can just beat everything on enemy phase (the result of allowing unit counterattacks at full capability, which FE is kinda rare regarding). You generally only need few (or 1) combat units, your best ones. Lowmanning is often an optimal strategy in FE, not unique to Awakening, because of how FE tends to work. Just that most previous games weren't hard enough to encourage the player enough toward this end. The fact that players feel that they are “forced” to low-man in FE13 in harder difficulties affirms this (even if they dislike doing so. Plus it’s not actually necessary.)

(Yes, it’s possible to design things differently, and IS knows too, as in FE5 and FE12 Lunatic, but eh)

EDIT: Basically this whole thing is a tangent, but my original point is that FE13's design is arguably quite perceptive from a streamlined strategic/tactical view. However, it seems that kind of thing doesn't have very wide appeal, even among FE's already generally niche fanbase. I see a lot of Lunatic/bumrush complaints, okay...

Edited May 2, 2014 by XeKr

[Czar_Yoshi]

A problem shared by the entire series is still a problem.

The reason it has no aesthetic appeal is because FE games in general have a large cast that at least have unique names, portraits, some statistics, and permadeath, and lowmanning means you don't use that cast and instead stick to one or two units. Awakening compounds the problem by having supports and a marriage/inheritance system with a greater aesthetic payload the more units you use. So while I can lowman past FEs (and make them easier) if I want to, I highly prefer to use a full team instead, simply because it's more fun playing with 10 unique characters than one unique character. Trying not to lowman with Awakening heavily scales up the difficulty/randomness in Lunatic(+), and that's something I have a problem with (granted, if I'm playing Lunatic(+) I'm not doing it for the characters).

[XeKr]

I didn’t deny it was a problem, I’m just drawing attention to the fact that it’s an artifact of FE game mechanics, not one unique to Awakening. I did note earlier that it’s exacerbated in FE13 by a variety of factors, and could have been mitigated by other design decisions if IS had chosen to do so.

I suppose my view is more glass-half full: that it makes it that much more rewarding when you overcome it and do train a large team. Or when you find reliable ways to deal with insane, seemingly impossible (initially) situations. As you said, Lunatic is for the challenge, so “scaling up the difficulty” is a good thing in my mind. (I won’t speak for Lunatic+, but mainly because I’m lazy wrt to checking enemy skills).

Also, note that grinding directly addresses this issue, but people apparently think grinding has to be all or nothing so… <_<