Did Fire Emblem move in the wrong direction?

[dondon151]

@Axie, I'd say that weapon weight would be too easy to trivialize by body ring, rally speed, occasional rally con, rally spectrum, pairup bonuses, occasional con+2 skill, occasional con tonic, spd tonic, forging weight down and so on by now.

not like how weapon ranks are already too easy to trivialize by arms scrolls or by just grinding (with discipline)? come on, guys, try harder.

[Nicolas]

I'm surprised that FE13 mess is so high.

[Gradivus.]

the existence of grinding can be trivialized by doing a no-grind run and ingame grinding can be trivialized by doing (semi-) efficiency runs and surprisingly, you get 2 arms scrolls, while Silvers in Awakening sit at C rank oh wait so you can reach them with those 2 arms scrolls, while 2 arms scrolls are enough for 3 units that want to get 9 total weapon rank buffs for silvers each. but really, nearly nobody uses a scroll just for silvers, so wpn ranks don't get trivialized by them right?

Edited January 18, 2015 by Gradivus.

[XeKr]

Someone clarify the argument for me, because it seems to be claimed Con/Weight is simultaneously mostly irrelevant/trivial (generally characters are better/worse irrespective of it) yet also really important to have again (presumably for non-nostalgia related reasons also). Is it a strategic/flavor mechanic or not?

And surely the same could be claimed for any arbitrary mechanic? As it's apparent a certain design philosophy for Awakening is casualification accessibility, it makes sense to (continue to) streamline the more extraneous/inconsistent mechanics (iirc Shadow Dragon was the first to do away with it?). [edit: apparently and interestingly, FE12?]

Edited January 18, 2015 by XeKr

[Nobody]

As much as I like awakening, I wish they'd bring back the GBA style of gameplay, that is, way less skills, rescue instead of pair up and even weapon weight, someone that I used to dislike, but realized is actually really clever, and adds to the strategy.

Like, older FE games feel more like strategic games, while awakening feels more like a JRPG with strategic elements (the exception being FE4, which I'd say is a lot like awakening)

Thing is, higher con doesn't instantly mean better unit. Isadora's got 8 con but she is still doing more than shit units like Bartre.

How about the other side of the coin where higher con usually means lower Spd/Spd growth. This isn't a black and white issue. A lot of factors play into what makes a unit good.

I wish Isadora had 8 con. I really wish.

[Gradivus.]

Heroes of Light and Shadow disposed of it the first @XeKr, I personally think that it IS a strategic mechanic, some players appreciate it for adding more realism to fe (which fits the flavor mechanic thing), which I consider false. I mean, a well-trained knight wouldn't fail to wield a steel lance well because they sit on a pegasus, while being fine with their armor. It definitely is supposed to affect gameplay, but I think it doesn't do so by a large enough margin to make the devs be bothered to keep integrating it.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Gradivus.

[BBM]

@Ownage- I don't think you understand how to prove the effect of one variable. You vary only that variable, not three other things simultaneously. You could make the argument that CON is irrelevant because it doesn't counterbalance all the other advantages Isadora has, but I would argue that if CON was so important as to outweigh 3 other advantages all by itself, it would be those advantages that were irrelevant. Nobody's arguing that CON is so gamebreaking that it's the only thing that matters.

@Eclipse- well, Wyvern Rider has mostly always been a better class than Pegasus Knight. The trade-off has been that PKs almost always have more availability than WRs. Sometimes this availability is enough to make that unit better (eg Vanessa vs Cormag, Florina vs Heath) and sometimes it isn't (Shanna vs Miledy). The only real exception is FE10, which was probably more for plot reasons than anything else (they already introduced a bunch of peg knights in FE9 and didn't have room to add more to the DB, plus IIRC Daein doesn't have pegasi?).

[dondon151]

the existence of grinding can be trivialized by doing a no-grind run and ingame grinding can be trivialized by doing (semi-) efficiency runs and surprisingly, you get 2 arms scrolls, while Silvers in Awakening sit at C rank oh wait so you can reach them with those 2 arms scrolls, while 2 arms scrolls are enough for 3 units that want to get 9 total weapon rank buffs for silvers each. but really, nearly nobody uses a scroll just for silvers, so wpn ranks don't get trivialized by them right?

you literally made up 4 different mechanics to try to show that weapon weight can be trivialized.

look, i can make up mechanics too - rally wlv, wlv tonic, pair up bonus to wlv, etc.

some of you are missing the point. i'm not saying that weapon rank should be done away with, i'm just illustrating that weapon rank is a restrictive mechanic in the game that unfairly hinders certain units in the same way that con and weapon weight does.

Edited January 18, 2015 by dondon151

[Gradivus.]

you can technically do it for the sake of comparison, those things I mentioned as occasional are more of a prediction of what would come if weight @ con system would return. still, even with any of those predicted mechanics that'd influence con directly, all those ways to increase speed alone would make weight a rather slight difference after earlygame (or by say, C15 or something at least). also, by pairup bonuses I meant speed pairup bonuses.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Gradivus.

[arvilino]

Someone clarify the argument for me, because it seems to be claimed Con/Weight is simultaneously mostly irrelevant/trivial (generally characters are better/worse irrespective of it) yet also really important to have again (presumably for non-nostalgia related reasons also). Is it a strategic/flavor mechanic or not?

And surely the same could be claimed for any arbitrary mechanic? As it's apparent a certain design philosophy for Awakening is casualification accessibility, it makes sense to (continue to) streamline the more extraneous/inconsistent mechanics (iirc Shadow Dragon was the first to do away with it?). [edit: apparently and interestingly, FE12?]

It tries to be both a strategic and flavour mechanic at the same time and that's largely why it's rubbish. In it's GBA form it just exists largely to weigh down characters with certain weapons sometimes because the weapons have a powerful special effect(but with exceptions of powerful light weapons) other times just because of the name of the weapon suggests it would be heavy or the sex or age of the character suggests they should have a really low con stat.

Edited January 18, 2015 by arvilino

[dondon151]

It tries to be both a strategic and flavour mechanic at the same time and that's largely why it's rubbish.

so are rescue and pair up?

[arvilino]

so are rescue and pair up?

Some of biggest unecessary hindrances of rescue came from flavour reasons(like the movement reduction in Thracia or being unable to carry characters based on both the carried and carriers con/build).

[dondon151]

those are approximately as unnecessary as halving a rescuer's skl and spd stats.

Edited January 19, 2015 by dondon151

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

if anyone knows me, then you know that i believe FE10 is the high point of the game's mechanics in terms of being complex,also that I've been upset with how the series has turned into "Random Skills: Frederick Edition: with required DLC! so give us greedy jews more money so you can beat it" or "map designs flatter then Lucina's chest and character AND waifu dating simulator, where you can even fuck children if your sick enough" depending on the difficulty.

i'm hoping FE14 improves on what FE13 introduced and has much better map designs.

Edited January 19, 2015 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

I repeat: some people are supposed to be disadvantaged by weight. You know, because choosing a weapon for those units becomes a strategic decision? Didn't you say FE is losing strategic elements when you opened the thread? Why do you want so many of them to return (including the utterly pointless magic triangle) but not the one mechanic that happens to take away a few AS points from girls in GBAFE (it doesn't mean they'd be affected the same way if weight returned)?

And, to go a bit off topic and play devil's advocate a bit, why is it about girls losing some AS that bothers you so much? Do you plan on specifically using girls over guys? Perhaps cute girls such as Tana? And didn't you want less waifu stuff and fanservice? :P

Pegasus Knights and Wyvern Knights are my favourite classes because of their excellent mobility. And Tana is one of the best units (statwise) for me to play LTCs in FE8 after getting the delphi shield. I like most Peg. Knights because of their cheerful and cute character design and nothing else.

In total I use male and female units equally. In the GBA games I prefer using males just becuase of their better con and better variety of weapons.

In FE6 I don't like to train any Pegasus Knights, because Thany does no damage anymore with her slim lance after a few chapters and the iron lance reduces her AS dramatically and the hit rate of the iron lance is shitty anyway in this game.

Tate comes underleveled (but has at least hard mode boosts) and has the same problem as Thany that her damage output with the slim lance is way too low. On my HM run I used and could promote Tate, but it brought me more pain than it was worth. Benched her nonetheless in the final maps.

Edited January 19, 2015 by The Taninator

[ClassyWolf]

If I can put something into the weapon weight discussion, I'd like to something like they did in tearring saga, yeah I know it's not really an fe game, but it was done fairly well there I thought, like early game iron bow vs bowgun, yes you might double with the bow, but you'r quite sure to hit if you use the bowgun, there was a reason to use the heavier weapon since it was more accurate.

[Kysafen]

The series began to move in the wrong direction ever since Shouzou Kaga left.

I repeat: FE5 did not have any shred of balance

Wow, going on the "my opinion is stronger so people can listen to it" tone, huh? You can say that until you're blue in the face; it won't change the fact that levelling up in a stat made WAY more of a difference than in a game where the max for stats is 50, stat-boosters were far more valuable (imagine if Awakening's boosters increased stats by 5; that's how valuable they are in 776), and you actually had a greater incentive to promote units before level 20 not only as a result of having a shorter path to maxing out your stats, but for some units as a result of wanting to gain weapon proficiency.

And by designing the levels to force you to choose your units based off of "what can my units do based on their strengths" and less about "which ones can kill the best?", coupled with that you can't just spam one unit on account of the fatigue system, coupled with that staff users had low HP growths in tandem with the fatigue system, along with the Crusader Scrolls being able to compensate for lower growths, I can conclude Thracia 776 had the best unit balance in the series, and it had the best template for balancing units.

And then Shouzou Kaga left. Then

"IMMA USE LANCE/DIECK/RUTGER-CLARINE/MILEDY/OsWIN/SETH/WOLF/SEDGAR/CHRIS/ROBIN EVERY CHAPTERAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

No, if you wanna talk "not a shred of balance," go talk about Seisen no Keifu.

[RJWalker]

I don't like the direction the series has taken with Awakening. Not the gameplay, not the art style, not the story telling style and not even the soundtrack style. I don't like it.

Also, fuck Paragon, Iote's Shield, Silver Card, etc being DLC exclusive you money grubbing bastards.

[TFJ]

I'm just going to comment on people saying that Awakening had actual good designed difficulty.

So, so wrong. There's not one difficulty level that provides a fair, balanced and challenging experience.

First, Normal basically plays by itself.

Hard is the "best" one, but it's still poorly designed. From the moment you use pair-up, you win. The game just becomes a matter of sending your units forward and watching things die. Oh, and don't bother saying "just don't use pair-up".

Lunatic and Lunatic+ are also poorly designed, but for the opposite reason. They are hard for the wrong reasons, i.e., they are hard because enemies have broken skills and broken stats. It becomes just a number's game. From the moment your paired up units have better stats and skills than enemies, it's over. Also, in Lunatic+, initial maps are simply unwinnable if enemies get a certain combinations of skills, and you are forced to reset. Are you really telling me this is good game design?

But the core problem is that there is barely any strategical challenge in the game. Awakening is basically Fire Emblem: Disgaea edition, a sandboxish SRPG where you just mess around, grind, create broken units and watch things die. There's very little decision making. Most levels just boil down to creating overpowering groups of pair units and sending them forward. I mean, let's see how I beat the last level in Lunatic.

Turn 1: Group 6 units with maxed stats in 3 pair up units with S rank and move them forward.

Turn 2: Move them forward again.

Turn 3: Move them forward and attack boss.

Turn 4: Repeat turn 3. End.

Yeah, lots of decision making here (sarcasm). Oh, and that was the last level, which is supposed to be the final challenge in the game. And just to reinforce on how bad the level design is in Awakening, think about this: the first level in FE7 Hector Mode (Another Journey) has better level design and more tactical depth than all maps in Awakening.

Just to end the post, I'm just going to quote part of someone's else blog (I wonder if that person posts here?) where he/she correctly summarizes Awakening:

"To briefly recap everything, FE:A has 1-dimensional characters, a lousy plot, extremely limiting map design, few mission objectives, fewer useful strategies, and an erratic difficulty curve that collectively make for a game that is at once, simple and monotonous. All in all, Fire Emblem: Awakening is a dumb game. Its story, characters, maps, enemies, classes, gameplay progression and difficulty are all designed to appeal to people who both don’t understand strategy games and have no interest in doing so. It is one of the worst games in this franchise on a number of different levels and is scarcely identifiable as a Fire Emblem game by any of its mechanical systems."

And what this has to do with the direction of the franchise?

"So, why am I talking about this? Why would I devote so much time and energy crudely drawing arrows, and ranting for 5600 words about a game I don’t like? Because this is the game that saved this franchise. This piece of shit is the game that won the hearts of consumers and is now the face of Fire Emblem. That. Is. Terrifying."

Yes, my friend, terrifying. Terrifying indeed.

[eclipse]

Complaining about skills/stats on enemies in Lunatic being "too broken"? Stats are half the point of FE! While the enemy skills range from meh to DEAR GOD WHY DID YOU DO THAT (can you guys tell I'm salty about Pavise/Aegis?), you can get most of them on your own guys, and unlike the enemies, you're not restricted to a single class set's worth of skills. The difficulty curve might not be fair to YOU, but IS isn't making games just for YOU. I think it's fine as-is, and I'm fresh off my second Lunatic run (which was done to prove that the final boss can be defeated in one turn with minimal experience outside of the main game).

Yes, you're free to complain, but putting that much spin on it isn't going to endear me to your arguments. Now, you have some options:

- Stick to the old games/explore some of the hacks (or make your own!)

- Rather than look for everything wrong with the newer games, try to figure out WHY they're so damn popular without being negative about people in general

- Do something more productive with your time. I hear animal shelters welcome volunteers.

Because I'd HOPE you have better things to do with your life than complain about something that is going in a direction that probably won't be changed. Not after Awakening's success.

EDIT: Man, Tryhard, why must you be so. . .amazing?!

Edited January 19, 2015 by eclipse

[Tryhard]

Move in the wrong direction? For me, yes. But I see that most people seem to think not and Fire Emblem has done excellently from Awakening, so I have to wonder if I'm the one that's out of touch.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Tryhard

[LeaderR Elliot]

@Kysafen: It gets tricky to defend thracia over any FE game balance, all you get in the end is masacring both FE and no one wins in the end. All of them have balance flaws.

@TFJ: Thats one way to play Awakening (grinding to win the game), I invite you to play it again and figure other ways to enjoy it. While the difficulty seems heavily unbalanced is mostly because, as other posters said before, the sheer amount of alternatives to play the game and game mechanics themselves which makes harder to balance the game. A game with less gameplay mehanics (FE11-12) Is definately easier to balance. I am confident that Int Sys will do it.

FE11 and 12 shows that a number game isn't exactly a bad thing when done right. People calling those two being "fake difficulty" is a thing in the past.

also:

EDIT: Man, Tryhard, why must you be so. . .amazing?!

[Kysafen]

Lunatic and Lunatic+ are also poorly designed, but for the opposite reason. They are hard for the wrong reasons, i.e., they are hard because enemies have broken skills and broken stats. It becomes just a number's game.

the first level in FE7 Hector Mode (Another Journey) has better level design and more tactical depth than all maps in Awakening.

Let me add on to this:

FE11/12 H5/Lunatic boil down to just this, except nix the stats, dodging as a feasible and consistently reliable tactic, and a general sense of fun.

Hearing Fire Emblem 14 promising "challenges never before seen" in the series, after we had the past 3 Fire Emblem games define "challenge" as raising enemy stats/skills, is giving me warning signals.

My philosophy on gameplay challenge still stands: good challenge isn't raising enemy stats and calling it a day. It's designing a series of maps with diverse tactical potential, and defining player success not by battle strength, but from unconventional and ingenious incorporation of your resources. You guys who praise FE11/12/13's hardest modes can enjoy the raised stats like potato chips, but me? I prefer my levels like a nice beef wellington in the form of Thracia 776: finely-crafted, meticulously and laboriously made, and you've got to slow down and take your time to enjoy it.

Also, if Eliwood Mode is like regular NY-Style Cheesecake, then Hector Mode is like Chocolate-Espresso cheesecake topped with raspberries: yeah, the texture (maps and story) are same, but the flavor of the texture (the added/changed enemies, and enemy placement, along with starting player unit positions/deployable slots) and the added berries (chapters) make it a great spin on cheesecake (FE7) and arguably the more interesting dessert.

Or in other words: Hector mode was the best hard mode of the series, not because it raised enemy stats, but because it altered the level design to force players to rethink strategies that worked in Normal mode in ways that go beyond number-crunching.

If I had to make a hard mode for a Fire Emblem game, I wouldn't be so insulting and lazy to have it boil down to different numbers. I'd feel enough of a sense of duty to the players that would support me, to put forth my time and hours of thinking about the map design, enemy placement/equipment/stats, to make the mode different and fresh enough to have players walk out after playing it and have them say "...wow. That was so different from the normal mode." That's exactly what I want out of a hard mode for Fire Emblem. If that philosophy makes me wrong, then I don't want to be right.

[arvilino]

Lunatic and Lunatic+ are also poorly designed, but for the opposite reason. They are hard for the wrong reasons, i.e., they are hard because enemies have broken skills and broken stats. It becomes just a number's game. From the moment your paired up units have better stats and skills than enemies, it's over. Also, in Lunatic+, initial maps are simply unwinnable if enemies get a certain combinations of skills, and you are forced to reset. Are you really telling me this is good game design?

The only way a Fire Emblem could be challenging for all players is if the enemies have broken stats, skills and/or weapons on the highest difficulties. No matter how well a chapter is designed weaker enemies with standard weapons will rarely challenge a good player, Even Thracia 776 had enemies become glass cannons later on with Mages wielding Thoron with 18 might, 70 hit 20 critical(note this is the same stats of FE13's Mjonir outside the +5 skill in a game where caps are 20) with the obvious design goal of trying to kill atleast one character with a disproportionately high amount of offense on what would otherwise be weak unthreatening enemies, it's the exact same methodology.

I seriously don't see how this could be the wrong reason? Is it just because a certain group of long term players have been shown up by these difficulty modes providing a tougher challenge than they can legitimately handle?

Edited January 19, 2015 by arvilino

[MartyTheDemonSlayer]

I don't think raising stats is such a bad way of creating difficulty necessarily. High enemy stats can necessitate precise positioning, weapon use, and exploitation of skills/mechanics. What determines whether high enemy stats work well or not is how well the game encourages using a variety of units. FE12's harder difficulties had enemies with such high offense you needed to use a lot of units, whereas in FE13 skills like veteran and high growth rates encourage using a much smaller time, even on harder difficulties. The mark of good difficulty is enemy stats carefully designed such that they work discourage low manning and force the player to think carefully about their decisions. Other things such as map design and game mechanics add depth to the game, but the most interesting mechanics don't mean anything if several well trained juggernauts can breeze through the game.

Edited January 19, 2015 by MartyTheDemonSlayer