Jotari Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I'm sure I'm not the first one who before considering using a character, goes online and checks what their growths are. Growths are a large factor of the entire gameplay. It gives you a straight up indicator of where a units strengths and weakness lie and thus what you should be using them to focus on. Yet it's a facet of the game that has remained completely hidden from the player ever since the game first came out. They've even given us items and skills that modify our growths without actually telling us growths even exist or what these items do. The only reason I can think of as to why growths are hidden is to trick the player into using Jeigans or not using Ests. Am I alone in checking growths regularly? Personally, for me, very little would change if growths were available in game. It'd just mean one less trip online. What do you think? Do you have any idea why growths are hidden despite being affected by items like the Afa Drops or Crusader Scrolls and skills like Aptitude or Holy Blood? And would you like to see growths available to the player? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical Glace Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I think that yes, the game should tell you. We hack them out eventually. The problem is I have no idea how to work it into the current UI. Perhaps add a set "growth screen"? Idk. It would look weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 I think that yes, the game should tell you. We hack them out eventually. The problem is I have no idea how to work it into the current UI. Perhaps add a set "growth screen"? Idk. It would look weird. Funnily enough, our wonderful new AI since the DS games are a little too compact now. Adding any thing new to them would indeed look cluttered, especially if it's something you only need to see once. It would have worked in the old three screen style they had before. Maybe it could be something that is checked at base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterIceTeaPeach Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Actually I never felt like to check them out before I play a FE game. Growthrates are only an average value so I wouldn't focus too much on it. If an unit gets 2-3 bad level ups in a row in earlygame, I'll drop it immediately and will use the next best unit I get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSND Alter Dragon Boner Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Hidden numbers resulted in an encouraging factor to play the game In a way IMO showing them is basically a way that a game spoonfed a player. I mean if the game basically flat out tells that this new character is shit, whats the point of trying out stuff? Like IIRC there was a character in TRS that the game goes completely out of its way to say that he sucks balls and his characterization basically is telling himself that he sucks donkey balls. And then if the player actually tried to use him, he turns out to be the best character in the game. Thise kind of stuff are pretty brilliant way to use the hidden growth aspect of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 Rather than having the game tell you which characters are good and which ones are bad, I'd rather it made all characters usable to a certain extent by giving them balanced base stats or a gameplay niche to offset bad growths. Something the series actually has been doing a good job of ever since The Sacred Stones (discounting the remakes). Fe5 in particular had a cast where everyone could easily become a beast (except maybe Ronan but even he has his own odd niche). In general giving us trash units that can't be used for anything other than a sacrifice isn't indicative of good game design for me. A character should have something, be it availability or even plot focus that makes them worth using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ownagepuffs Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 To prevent player bias. Although it really would be cool if you unlocked them after your first play through under the Extras section. That's really important information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Horace Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 the first time I've played most FE's i've done so without looking at the growthrates, but I'd like for them to be known for future playthroughs. The first time I played FE13 I thought the avatar had awful growths to compensate for veteran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeaderR Elliot Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 We have SF for that. Growth rates are not the only thing that defines a unit. I think revealing growths while we still have RNG decide lv ups is pointless... not sure what Int sys may be thinking but last 2 games have the growth rates encrypted, ergo they do not want us to know the growth rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishi Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 They should most definetly remain hidden when I play a Fire Emblem game for the first time I enjoy seeing what units are good and what are bad take Ward for example in FE 6 my first time I used him up until chapter 14 before removing him, it adds so much more uniqueness to the game imagine how boring it would be if right from the start of your first play through you knew who was bad and who was good everyone would end up using the same characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical Glace Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I see a lot of argument about what is good/what is bad being told to you... But if IS actually manages to balance their game in the future, I don't see the problem. The view in extras post-game thing is a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 They're technically shown to you on statistical averages according to the class roll and class info in awakening. I think that's enough to give you a good idea of how their stats trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) I see a lot of argument about what is good/what is bad being told to you... But if IS actually manages to balance their game in the future, I don't see the problem. The view in extras post-game thing is a good idea. That's point I'm trying to make. Everyone is saying it'd ruin part of the experience because you'd find out what units are good and bad but really there shouldn't be trash units filling up space in the first place (and growths aren't even the only deciding factor on how good a unit is). Edited January 29, 2015 by Jotari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) I don't think the idea that having growths hidden is better than having them visible makes any sense whatsoever. Hidden growths wouldn't "encourage" me to play the game, personally, rather not knowing them would be more likely to leave me paralyzed. At the very least, it makes no sense to me when taking into consideration new players- how many games in the series even allude to the concept of "units with high bases, low growths," or vice versa? How many players have been confused when using a unit who the dialogue may describe as speedy, and of a class that's described as speedy by the game, and then had them not gain a single stat related to that class trait on levelup (perhaps for multiple consecutive levelups) and had no idea what to think? I definitely know a bunch of players who have done something like using Marcus their whole first playthrough, assuming he would grow proportionately enough, and then felt overwhelmed as the game went on. (give or take some "got weaker units killed and had no option to raise them" confusion in some of those situations, but the problems bleed into each other pretty easily) Units getting stat-screwed is statistically unlikely, sure, but if I didn't know the mechanics and that happened to me, my trust in the entirety of the game's systems would be shaken. I don't understand why the possibility for that to happen should be left open. The potential problem that having growths out there would "let the player know at first glance whether some units suck" seems like it has a very simple antidote to me, in just taking some pains to balance growths between units and explaining it to the player better. I already tend to check ahead of time to make sure I don't use units that have god-awful growths and no other redeeming qualities, so those units would get benched anyway. I mean, we here all know not only how to find out the growth rates of a unit (not "how" as in "how to crack open the game's innards and get the data" necessarily, but "how to access your friendly neighborhood SF tables," at least), but that they exist at all. Try to imagine the perspective of somebody who doesn't know about SF, doesn't have internet access, no way to learn about growths without being told by the game, nothing. I'm failing to think of a game in the series that actually even explains the process of levelling a unit up to the extent that it reveals stat growth is random in any way. That's fucking inexplicable to me. Fire Emblem is to me a series whose excellence partly hinges on that it (at least gives the impression that it) shows you as much as possible about its gameplay ahead of time. Comparing it to other games in a JRPG-ish format, in Fire Emblem you'll never wonder what the likelihood of missing an attack or getting a critical or whatever would be (notwithstanding multiple RNs or any other wizardry, no offense intended to the wizards who make use of it), because all the math is right there in front of you. I've thought of that as one of its most accessible points for a long time. Stat growths being hidden, then, is a strange outlier. Edited January 29, 2015 by Rehab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ownagepuffs Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Why would IS make bad characters if they didn't want us to know they were bad? But seriously you know you've got to question what the fuck goes through their minds with characters like Meg, Sophia, Fiona, and Nino. Are they trying to actively punish any player that tries to use them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekkah Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I see a lot of argument about what is good/what is bad being told to you... But if IS actually manages to balance their game in the future, I don't see the problem. The view in extras post-game thing is a good idea. Fire Emblem characters are just too hard to balance. So few stats actually matter. There's an enormous gap between attacking power, speed and the rest. I would not count on them being able to balance them out any time soon, so making characters balanced while keeping statistical variety is a real challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daichi Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I think they should stay hidden. It's kind of fun to use characters if you don't know how they're going to turn out. Personally, when I first started playing Fire Emblem, I only paid attention to growths. I thought fucking Sigurd was bad when I was looking things up for FE4. Then I learned how to git gud and pay more attention to other things. But maybe I'm just weird, and literally no one else thought like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ownagepuffs Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Someone seriously has to explain to me why IS would make intentionally bad characters like Meg. Without SF, one would actually think Meg had appropriate growths for her class like Str and Def only to get fucked because she keeps growing Luck every level. Knowing growths wouldn't really be a problem. You all know the growths of characters of various FE games by now. Has it changed how you play? Anyway, if you don't want it to spoil the first time experience, why not unlock them as an extra? That's important information that many people would appreciate. They're technically shown to you on statistical averages according to the class roll and class info in awakening. I think that's enough to give you a good idea of how their stats trend. I personally think that represents caps more than growths because you have things like Wyvern Panne and even the local Wyvern Rider Cherche herself who are both surprisingly fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekkah Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Meg is confirmed to be an inside joke by the developers. Aside from hilarity factors, bad characters are needed to make good characters stand out. If everyone is good then the game gets kind of bland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunal Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Meg is confirmed to be an inside joke by the developers. Aside from hilarity factors, bad characters are needed to make good characters stand out. If everyone is good then the game gets kind of bland. I strongly disagree. All units should be 'good' in some respect. Just in different ways. What does the game gain from having someone like Matthis or Tomas? Would be better off if they had 'interesting' growths or something, at least. Meg on the other hand, is at least an interesting unit. But elements that make her 'interesting' aren't what make her bad. If she were level 10-12 with bases to match, she'd be a genuinely intriguing unit that could be put to use. And at least you'd have more option for units at that part of the game. The game would be better as a result. Your point doesn't really make sense for units in different classes especially. Meg being bad doesn't make Nolan stand out. In the same way, If they were exactly equal in usefulness then chances are it would be for completely different reasons. Edited February 1, 2015 by DLuna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Bad characters are actually kind of fun to use in some ways. Like...I used to be a crazy masochist and trained the hell out of Wendy in FE6, who is one of the worst units in the series because I loved that aspect of zero to hero. These days I don't have that kind of drive anymore but I don't think my experience is being negatively affected by Wendy existing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The importance of character balance (and by extension, knowledge of growths and such) depends on what your intention is. If it's to play efficiently, you need to take all the information into account, and units that don't have any niche might as well not exist. But if don't have any other goal in mind other than beating the game, (I try to avoid the word "casual" since it has certain connotations) I don't think it matters if there's a large imbalance between units or you don't know how they are expected to turn out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunal Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Bad characters are actually kind of fun to use in some ways. Like...I used to be a crazy masochist and trained the hell out of Wendy in FE6, who is one of the worst units in the series because I loved that aspect of zero to hero. These days I don't have that kind of drive anymore but I don't think my experience is being negatively affected by Wendy existing. There's a huge difference between 'bad from a tier perspective' and 'flat out bad with no redemption'. Wendy is terrible in every regard. Her growths aren't even good. Heck, Bors arguably has a better distribution. So training her has no satisfaction aside from the sake of using her. If Wendy had great growths she would likely still be low/bottom tier but at least she'd have some kind of appeal. Same goes for Sophia. On the other hand I feel that Nino is more or less fine. She's technically a bad unit but she at least has some kind of identity. And there is some appeal in using her. Not that I don't think she could use a few tweaks to further enforce her archetype but at least we know what IS was actually trying to do with her. Whilst with Wendy 'Zero to Hero' isn't even that accurate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) No, Wendy being bad is why I used her dude. That's compelling in itself too. Like seriously it was like FE8 General!Amelia all over again for that old me except even better since Wendy is in pink armor and even worse. Edited February 1, 2015 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ownagepuffs Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Meg and Wendy are proof that IS hates pink armor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.