What fire emblem should I play next?

[Shadow Mir]

Personal opinion. I think FE4 is a masterpiece partially because of its wonderful, beautiful map design. I don't throw around my personal opinion as if it's true. I'm not that obnoxious. In my opinion, FE13 has the most boring and pathetic map design out of any FE game.

This is a trivial point which is true in most FE games. FE4 has bigger maps, which does admittedly make the problem worse, but FE4 also has Rafiel-style dancing to help make up for that.

How do you define what "arbitrary backtracking" even is?

That's horrible!!!

Perhaps. That being said, my issues with FE4 aren't SOLELY because of its maps. . .

Still, I'd say being able to refresh up to 4 units at once isn't enough to make up for that, to say nothing of the part where I'd generally have to go out of my way to set it up such that I'd get more than one or two units in position to be refreshed (of course, it isn't any different for Rafiel in RD in that regard, to be fair). Hell, I'd say that it can potentially MAKE THE PROBLEM EVEN WORSE.

Basically, look at, say, chapter 2.

Look where the second castle you have to capture is. Then look where the last 2 castles are. I'm sorry, but I should never, never, EVER have to do that much backtracking just to get to my next objective.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Levant Caprice

[dondon151]

This is a trivial point which is true in most FE games. FE4 has bigger maps, which does admittedly make the problem worse, but FE4 also has Rafiel-style dancing to help make up for that.

i don't think 4-unit dancing alleviates this problem at all, since you can just dance a quadrangle of mounted units to leave foot units even further behind in the dust.

there are mechanics that more effectively alleviate this problem. rescuing and pair up deserve a mention. forced indoor dismounting is probably the most effective mechanic in the series.

[Xator Nova]

fe2 maps

i don't think you can argue fe4's are worse in any way

you forgot fe2 magnum opus

best map design ever 10/10

slightly on-topic:

I think FE4 is enjoyable if you care about production values and the storyline. However, from a gameplay standpoint, it might feel uncomfortable to play.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Xator Nova

[Chiki]

Ok, so 4 unit dancing may not alleviate the problem. But the game designers knowingly put a lot of horse units in FE4 to make up for this fact:

For the sake of this analysis I'm going to assume that the units a person uses is completely arbitrary (no LTC, no nothing involved) to be representative of normal gameplay.

FE4 gen 1:

Horse (8): Sigurd, Noish, Alec, Lex, Cuan, Fin, Midir, Fury

No horse (12): Arden, Dew, Ayra, Aideen, Diadora, Jamka, Holyn, Levin, Sylvia, Tiltyu, Claude, Briggid

Horse upon promotion (2): Azel, Lachesis

8:12:2 = 4:6:1 ratio. With the third category included in the first, 5:6 ratio.

FE4 gen 2 (children assumed):

Horse (8): Oifey, Delmud, Lester, Johan, Nanna, Fin, Aless, Altenna

No horse (13): Rana, Lakche, Skasaha, Julia, Johalva, Shanan, Patty, Leen, Tinny, Faval, Sety, Hannibal, Corple

Horse upon promotion (3): Celice, Arthur, Leaf

8:13:3 ratio. With the third category included in the first, 11:13 ratio.

Take another game where foot units have this issue, but to a lesser extent since the maps aren't so big:

FE6:

Horse (17): Marcus, Alan, Lance, Thany, Clarine, Sue, Zealot, Treck, Noah, Shin, Tate, Miledy, Percival, Cecilia, Zeiss, Dayan, Juno

No horse (34): Roy, Wolt, Bors, Ellen, Dick, Wade, Lott, Chad, Lugh, Rutger, Saul, Dorothy, Astol, Lilina, Wendy, Barth, Oujay, Fir, Gonzales,

Geese, Klein, Lalum, Echidna, Bartre, Ray, Cath, Sophia, Garret, Fa, Hugh, Douglas, Niime, Yodel, Karel

Ratio: 17:34 or 1:2

What we see here is that in FE4, there's not as many units that have to catch up and more horse units that have to be caught up to. So foot units aren't as needed in FE4. On the other hand in FE6, there's relatively fewer horse units compared to how many foot units there are.

Assume that units are picked arbitrarily. What we can see here is that horse units are statistically more likely to make up a bigger portion of your army in FE4 than in FE6 and so catching up is not that big of a deal. In FE6, it is statistically more likely that your team will have relatively more foot units. So there's fewer units on horses charging and more units have to catch up. This should help make the "catching up problem" in FE4 seem like not a very big deal compared to other FE games.

[Icon of Sin]

how useful is enemy diversity when the two most important characters in the game generally don't care?

i'm not actually certain about this either. the majority of the customization affects the second generation, and the effect of the customization is to create unit permutations. but this is just compensating for what FE4 lacks relative to other FE games, which is a deep character roster. when FE4 offers a variety of parent combinations, most of which are awful, it gets praised for customization. when FE12 offers the largest character roster of any FE game to date (at least, relative to game length; i'm not sure if FE10's roster is larger) on top of reclassing, of which most choices are still awful, it gets blasted for being redundant. i can't help but to see the inconsistency here.

Personal taste. While I sense that you don't care when you bulldoze (if that when using staves) through units in your endeavors to play those games as fast as possible, I would argue it gives flavor and lore to the game. FE4 brings commanders/sub-bosses and their underlings, along with a few guards that help with the castle leaders. While I do agree the enemy density is terrible, I find that bringing army formations such as this make the game more fun, though the very open maps in FE4 make it less strategic than FE12 Lunatic for example. We haven't seen many sub-bosses since FE5 which I find pretty bad. Bottom line is, we're different players and we don't agree on what makes the game fun.

The FE12 comparaison has some merit, but consider that there's a humongous fourteen year gap between both games that only Duke Nukem Forever outlasted. Tastes and trends have evolved over time, and while the limitations of a game in 1996 on a 16 bit console are understandable, would you really consider that FE really went forward in those fourteen long years? I'll admit a lot of customization doesn't equal quality, but that goes for both games really.

Furthermore, FE4's item system is unique since it made the weapons and rings themselves feel different in the way you managed them since they were finite, and this works for both generations. It's a little detail, but it does create a sense of customization since you can decide on who gets that Hero Sword you get in Chapter 3. Sure, you may just go with Sigurd because it goes faster, but some people may want Noish, Holyn, Ayra or even Arden with it.

[Shadow Mir]

Personal taste. While I sense that you don't care when you bulldoze (if that when using staves) through units in your endeavors to play those games as fast as possible, I would argue it gives flavor and lore to the game. FE4 brings commanders/sub-bosses and their underlings, along with a few guards that help with the castle leaders. While I do agree the enemy density is terrible, I find that bringing army formations such as this make the game more fun, though the very open maps in FE4 make it less strategic than FE12 Lunatic for example. We haven't seen many sub-bosses since FE5 which I find pretty bad. Bottom line is, we're different players and we don't agree on what makes the game fun.

The FE12 comparaison has some merit, but consider that there's a humongous fourteen year gap between both games that only Duke Nukem Forever outlasted. Tastes and trends have evolved over time, and while the limitations of a game in 1996 on a 16 bit console are understandable, would you really consider that FE really went forward in those fourteen long years? I'll admit a lot of customization doesn't equal quality, but that goes for both games really.

Furthermore, FE4's item system is unique since it made the weapons and rings themselves feel different in the way you managed them since they were finite, and this works for both generations. It's a little detail, but it does create a sense of customization since you can decide on who gets that Hero Sword you get in Chapter 3. Sure, you may just go with Sigurd because it goes faster, but some people may want Noish, Holyn, Ayra or even Arden with it.

My two cents on this is as follows: While FE4 did make drastic changes to FE, I'm not very inclined to believe many of those changes were for the better - sure, I appreciate skills and the weapon triangle, but stuff like the magic triangle could've been done without, on the other hand.

[dondon151]

Ok, so 4 unit dancing may not alleviate the problem. But the game designers knowingly put a lot of horse units in FE4 to make up for this fact:

i don't think the difference is large enough to have a substantial impact on the problem, but i otherwise agree with the point you brought up.

The FE12 comparaison has some merit, but consider that there's a humongous fourteen year gap between both games that only Duke Nukem Forever outlasted. Tastes and trends have evolved over time, and while the limitations of a game in 1996 on a 16 bit console are understandable, would you really consider that FE really went forward in those fourteen long years? I'll admit a lot of customization doesn't equal quality, but that goes for both games really.

i can't see how the release date gap is relevant. people today claim to love FE4 (and FE13) while they hate FE12. change of tastes over time is irrelevant because we are looking at one point in time.

Furthermore, FE4's item system is unique since it made the weapons and rings themselves feel different in the way you managed them since they were finite, and this works for both generations. It's a little detail, but it does create a sense of customization since you can decide on who gets that Hero Sword you get in Chapter 3. Sure, you may just go with Sigurd because it goes faster, but some people may want Noish, Holyn, Ayra or even Arden with it.

are you implying that true customization only exists if it creates an opportunity for a player to regret a decision?

[Icon of Sin]

i can't see how the release date gap is relevant. people today claim to love FE4 (and FE13) while they hate FE12. change of tastes over time is irrelevant because we are looking at one point in time.

are you implying that true customization only exists if it creates an opportunity for a player to regret a decision?

I frankly see a lot less love of FE4 these days, but I suppose there's a certain nostalgia to it that FE12 doesn't really have yet. Some people love it because of more than the gameplay, such as the pairing system that was atrophied at best until FE13 (and that FE12 barely had), or the story.

To each his playstyle. Some people genuinely love using Arden enough to give him favoritism and we can't really do anything about it. So what if they use inferior units if it pleases them.

[Klokinator]

FE4 has great map design. Remember chapter 7?

[General Horace]

the only real horrendous part is crossing the desert, the rest of the chapter really only takes like, 12-15 turns

I will give you the fact that crossing the desert with Celice is stupid

Edited September 18, 2014 by General Horace

[dondon151]

To each his playstyle. Some people genuinely love using Arden enough to give him favoritism and we can't really do anything about it. So what if they use inferior units if it pleases them.

i never disputed this; i think if you were responding to my quip about customization and regret, you probably missed my point altogether. that's my fault; i was trying to be clever.

what i was suggesting was that the process of item allocation, performed without a second thought in every other FE game, suddenly takes on the identity of "customization" the moment that units have to leap an extra hurdle in order to move an item around.

Edited September 18, 2014 by dondon151

[BrightBow]

It's not just the extra hurdle but more the fact that trading around items costs money and money is limited. (Well, technically it's "even less infinite then in other Fire Emblem games" but since you can't visit the arena indefinitly, you have to go very far out of the way for this.) So consequently items cannot be traded around infinitly either. As a result the player will quickly start making decisions on who should actually hold on to an item.

And of course it is important that weapons can be repraired so that you can actually keep using it as long as you can affort to maintain the weapon.

Trading limitations, weapon repairs and seperate money stashes are all connected. If one of them were missing, it would drag the rest of those mechanics down.

[sirmola]

To the OP/anyone else just reading this for the advice: Weather fe4 is good or not is a flame bait topic. Sufice to say that it is extremely polarizing, and the only way to know how you feel about it is to try it. You really want to go into options and set all speed chioses to max. You might want to try some of the other games mentioned first, like fe9, (fe12 is aperently good and most like awakening, but is also a sequal to the ok fe11) due to how different fe4 is.

[Icon of Sin]

what i was suggesting was that the process of item allocation, performed without a second thought in every other FE game, suddenly takes on the identity of "customization" the moment that units have to leap an extra hurdle in order to move an item around.

On that point I'll admit that item trading does feel convulted, not unlike the very first game, while also spending more money in order to promote ressource management which is behind the idea of item customization. Considering FE3 (didn't play 2 so I can't say anything about it) had trading, it does feel peculiar for FE4 to go back to its roots while most of the game went on its own (to each its own if it is forward or backward).