What do you think is the most underrated Fire Emblem?

[Jedi]

I think if you view Radiant Dawn as purely an RPG then it's easy to view it like that, but if you view Radiant Dawn as an SRPG that's about efficient tactics then it's different. Especially when you consider the difference between endgame enemies and early game enemies, how massive it is and how growths can basically just screw you over. It's one of the reasons why I can't stand Lunatic mode, because I feel like being 2 or so points below my averages makes it almost impossible to beat.

I suppose when you put it that way, I'm not quite as annoyed with it.

[Radiant head]

I honestly feel they decrease the feeling of your army getting more powerful from experience. It's a slap in the face to an extent.

That's why I avoid using Royals (besides my first playthrough where I was terrible at raising characters).

But yeah, I can avoid them, so I don't see the problem.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Radiant head

[Florete]

The members of this site and the fire emblem subreddit love RD to pieces. I can't call it underrated. Also Red Fox, why would someone complain about the royals? They are optional endgame win buttons. Nothing wrong with that.

I legitimately don't know what you're seeing. Yeah, some people love RD. Every FE game has its fans. But to say this site "loves it to pieces" is totally not what I've seen in my years here. People always complain about how the story is crap, the balance is crap (this is where the problem with royals comes in), the characterization doesn't exist, part 4 is bloated...it's not been pretty.

That's probably because Path of Radiance doesn't have any extreme opinions one way or another when it comes to the gameplay and the plot just makes the game feel better. Radiant Dawn's system was inherently polarizing. This is not equivalent to underrated. I love playing Radiant Dawn, but I don't think it's underrated.

I never said RD was underrated. I don't care if its system being inherently polarizing is equivalent to underrated or not, I never made an argument like that. Really, are you paying attention to what I'm saying at all?

[Lord Raven]

Why are you posting in a thread about underrated FE games and vehemently defending RD? Isn't that off-topic?

Those are some pretty legitimate criticisms though (minus the balance - it really has some of the best balance in the series)

Edited March 11, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Florete]

Why are you posting in a thread about underrated FE games and vehemently defending RD? Isn't that off-topic?

What the actual fuck. Where have I defended RD in here? Point me to it, seriously. All I've done is point out that RD gets a lot of criticism. I have made no mention of whether I agree with it or think it's wrong, and I've mentioned this more than once. I can do the same thing for FE games I don't particularly like (mostly because those are actually my own criticisms). Would that mean I'm defending them?

The amount of criticism something gets is directly related to whether someone will think it's underrated or not. It's on topic. But if that's all you have to resort to, please just stop responding.

[Leinex]

I didn't like SD so much at first, but it grew on me despite lacking a bunch of things I was used to. It just leaves more to the imagination and it's pretty slick overall.

I vote for SD because I see people talk about it like it's total shit. What I consider a shitty game is one that's coded so badly that it doesn't even function. In other words, a shitty game for me is one that you can't even play.

[General Horace]

lol @ 2 & 6 being overhyped

maybe not fe2, but fe6 has definately been overhyped since dondon's run imo. There are numerous things wrong with it, starting with the godawful thrones and just characters being bad in general. I guess in contrast to before then where everyone just hated on it for being 30 or so run to the throne and seize maps and axe users sucking or whatever people didn't like about it, it's probably better in this way, it's not bad.

dondon just did a good job at highlighting the good parts of the game, which was cool.

I don't like the game because there are just so few ways to actually play it. Wanna kill Henning? Better bring Rutger. Wanna use less optimal units? Too bad for you, most often than not they're downright unusable since a good majority of the bad units in FE6 are bad because they can't actually hit anything. It's an issue with FE12 too (too many shitty units). I guess you could play normal mode, but ehhhhh.

As for what I think, I like many others don't really like the term underrated. It just ends up being what game gets the most heat, whether it's good or not. I have Shadow Dragon listed as my favourite FE game (not because I think it's the best, or enjoy playing it the most, but because it got me into the series). If I had to pick one I'd pick FE2 simply because so few people have played it. FE8 actually gets quite a bit of love (people mostly only really complain about the difficulty) and FE11 does have it's issues, they're just more prevelent than other games.

EDIT: one thing people never mention about FE11 is it's fantastic interface. It's one of if not the easiest game to play in the series, merging weapons, highlighting enemy ranges (IIRC that was removed in RD HM for some brilliant reason) and just having two screens helped to see what was going on so much easier than the gba titles (which also had a good interface, but it was only bettered).

Edited March 11, 2015 by General Horace

[Irysa]

Regardless, let's not go off on a tangent; I don't feel most NES games have aged well at all even though there are many people playing the old school platformers. FE11 felt like it tried to dress up FE1's faults - and FE1 had a lot of awkward and congested maps everywhere. It tried to do this weird mix of modern FE and classic FE that just didn't mesh well, and while reclassing was cool and they did make the interface better the maps were just very awkwardly designed.

Using the phrase "feel as developed as a fucking NES game" as a negative doesn't make any sense though. The best NES games (like the ones I listed) had tight controls, great music and an attention to detail, that's why people care about them to this day. Even the NES Super Mario Bros owes a lot of it's success and legend to just how well designed the game is. Gaming academia has essays upon essays about design in games like that. Bad games are in every generation and whilst there were a lot of pretty shitty NES games there were a lot of shitty Genesis games, lots of shitty N64 games, etc. You're trying to draw an equivilant between games being bad or poorly designed and the system they were on which doesn't make any sense. I mean for christ's sake, there's a NES version of Ultima III, how in any respects can games like that be seen as underdeveloped?

If your complaint was related to the actual computational limitations of graphical fidelity and audio of NES games it would hold more weight, but being a remake on the DS, FE11 can't fit into that! What you actually seem to want to criticise is the map design not being up to snuff with the later games, and I'd challenge you to bring up actual solid examples of that that don't boil down to "well you can ridersbane a lot of enemies".

I don't like the game because there are just so few ways to actually play it. Wanna kill Henning? Better bring Rutger. Wanna use less optimal units? Too bad for you, most often than not they're downright unusable since a good majority of the bad units in FE6 are bad because they can't actually hit anything.

There are only a few ways to play it efficiently (which is a complaint that can be levered at many of the games), but on the whole that's just totally wrong. Anyone who can use a killing edge has a fair chance of dealing with Henning, and how far down the list of "less optimal" units do you need to go? HM presses you to use good units and make use of resources because that's what HM is supposed to do. I agree the game could have better balance, but it is not wholly unrealistic to be fielding some bad units and training them as you go along, I did a playthrough without any of the HM awesomeface trio and wasn't slowed down too much. I've done others where I was training a bunch of other otherwise trashy units like Lilina and Sophia, somebody did a bottom tiers only playthrough or something last year.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Irysa

[Lord Raven]

What the actual fuck. Where have I defended RD in here? Point me to it, seriously. All I've done is point out that RD gets a lot of criticism. I have made no mention of whether I agree with it or think it's wrong, and I've mentioned this more than once. I can do the same thing for FE games I don't particularly like (mostly because those are actually my own criticisms). Would that mean I'm defending them?

The amount of criticism something gets is directly related to whether someone will think it's underrated or not. It's on topic. But if that's all you have to resort to, please just stop responding.

No, I refuse to stop responding, because I don't see what the point of your arguments are then. Radiant Dawn, as of the past 2-3 years, has probably been the least criticized FE outside of the plot which was actually a catastrophe starting in Part 3.

The only thing that even supports your argument is some IGN review from way back in 2007.

Using the phrase "feel as developed as a fucking NES game" as a negative doesn't make any sense though. The best NES games (like the ones I listed) had tight controls, great music and an attention to detail, that's why people care about them to this day. Even the NES Super Mario Bros owes a lot of it's success and legend to just how well designed the game is. Gaming academia has essays upon essays about design in games like that. Bad games are in every generation and whilst there were a lot of pretty shitty NES games there were a lot of shitty Genesis games, lots of shitty N64 games, etc. You're trying to draw an equivilant between games being bad or poorly designed and the system they were on which doesn't make any sense. I mean for christ's sake, there's a NES version of Ultima III, how in any respects can games like that be seen as underdeveloped?

If your complaint was related to the actual computational limitations of graphical fidelity and audio of NES games it would hold more weight, but being a remake on the DS, FE11 can't fit into that! What you actually seem to want to criticise is the map design not being up to snuff with the later games, and I'd challenge you to bring up actual solid examples of that that don't boil down to "well you can ridersbane a lot of enemies".

I'd say the two are definitely correlated though, because even though there's a market for retro games I still don't think the retro games market is really that big outside of people with rose tints. There are people who did not grow up in the area that appreciates those games, whereas I cannot stand them and I doubt I am alone in this. Just because other NES games have aged well doesn't mean they all have, especially when you take into consideration that FE11 feels like a flat and boring game to many people.

As for bad design, I'm not holding the Ridersbane against it at all because forging and moving around weaponry is a boon. However, the warp staff breaks the game, and a ton of characters are actually unusable in harder modes. When you're not warp skipping there's a good number of characters that just aren't good and cannot make up for bad luck that you see in games. That is my primary gripe against warpskip-free FE11. Each playthrough feels relatively flat and contingent on getting decent games or else you're kinda screwed which many other FE games have given you a way to get past.

Now, warp skip is almost another issue entirely, and whether it's bad design or overlooked it's very close to the game handing you a win at some points. Closer than most games.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Florete]

No, I refuse to stop responding, because I don't see what the point of your arguments are then. Radiant Dawn, as of the past 2-3 years, has probably been the least criticized FE outside of the plot which was actually a catastrophe starting in Part 3.

The only thing that even supports your argument is some IGN review from way back in 2007.

The point is that RD gets criticism, plenty enough to be worth being considered underrated. That's what I was saying in my first post that you responded to when this charade started.

[Nobody]

I dislike 'underrated' as a term, but I'd say Shadow Dragon has been the victim of unwarranted animosity to the greatest extent.

This.

I also dislike the term underrated, because it implies my opinions is better than everyone else's, but the fire emblem that I like the most compared to the rest of the fanbase is Shadow Dragon.

[Radiant head]

This.

I also dislike the term underrated, because it implies my opinions is better than everyone else's, but the fire emblem that I like the most compared to the rest of the fanbase is Shadow Dragon.

Yeah, the whole overrated/underrated concept on the internet basically leads to "Well this is what most people seem to think, but they're all wrong and I know better" kind of thinking that just feels pointless ultimately.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Radiant head

[Lord Raven]

The point is that RD gets criticism, plenty enough to be worth being considered underrated. That's what I was saying in my first post that you responded to when this charade started.

So do you or do you not think it's underrated? Because RD has seriously not gotten "plenty of criticism" in recent memory, and there have been numerous FE10 drafts and playlogs over the past few years. It's definitely been rated fairly, with the majority of the criticisms being brought up seeming to come about due to personal preference (read: Jedi's opinion) than calling it a bad game.

Underrated is really a stupid term because when you declare a game underrated, then you'll get people coming out and pointing out flaws in the game which do exist. Others just have a personal preference towards things that the game didn't fulfill. I have not heard anyone call RD a bad game since like 2008.

[Anacybele]

...Wow, is there some drama in here? That doesn't involve me? I am legit surprised. :P

Anyway, I have to side with Red Fox here, seeing as I already stated before that I think RD is underrated.

[Florete]

Radiant Dawn has always gotten plenty of criticism. It's largely the story (which is, of course, still part of the game), but it's there. Drafts and playlogs? What does that have to do with it? All FE games have those.

I'm not a fan of the modern-day usage of the terms underrated and overrated, either, but I do think Radiant Dawn (its story, if I must be so specific) is underrated.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

...Wow, is there some drama in here? That doesn't involve me? I am legit surprised. :P

Anyway, I have to side with Red Fox here, seeing as I already stated before that I think RD is underrated.

rennac is underrated will forever be the most hilarious drama starter i've seen.

as i said earlier in the thread, 10 isn't given alot of love compaired to some of the other entrys.

[Lord Raven]

I cannot recall for the life of me the last time Radiant Dawn's gameplay has been so widely criticized outside of someone just not liking it. The plot definitely has a lot of problems with it, so I don't see how it's really all that underrated.

Drafts and playlogs? What does that have to do with it? All FE games have those.

There were definitely a lot more for Radiant Dawn compared to like FE6/7 when I used to lurk the draft board.

[Florete]

I cannot recall for the life of me the last time Radiant Dawn's gameplay has been so widely criticized outside of someone just not liking it. The plot definitely has a lot of problems with it, so I don't see how it's really all that underrated.

I just said it's largely the story. I've pointed out that the gameplay gets some criticisms, but I also said it's the highlight for most people, not "widely criticized." And I find the story underrated. If you don't, okay.

There were definitely a lot more for Radiant Dawn compared to like FE6/7 when I used to lurk the draft board.

One thing I've noticed is that fans of RD tend to really like it. That might be part of the reason here, but it could also be due to the Tellius games being good for drafting (bonus exp helping weak characters keep up and RD in particular having a large and varied cast that can change things up).

[Irysa]

I'd say the two are definitely correlated though, because even though there's a market for retro games I still don't think the retro games market is really that big outside of people with rose tints.

Anecodotal, and the fact that it's so prominent in the indie scene would say otherwise.

There are people who did not grow up in the area that appreciates those games, whereas I cannot stand them and I doubt I am alone in this.

Sure but lots of people can't stand Fire Emblem as a whole either. Subjective criticism isn't the problem, it's the specific criticism that you chose to use being illogical. I don't care if you dislike FE11 (although I'm happy to debate it), but there is no correlation between NES game = being bad.

Just because other NES games have aged well doesn't mean they all have, especially when you take into consideration that FE11 feels like a flat and boring game to many people.

Yeah and not all games period have aged well. This is my point, you're using "NES game" to equal "Bad game" (or at least some extension of that) using the reasoning "there are bad NES games". This is ridiculous because there are bad games every generation, and frankly when we examine the actual user input required to clear a standard AAA title these days, there is a very strong argument to say that older games have greater depth than many modern games.

As for bad design, I'm not holding the Ridersbane against it at all because forging and moving around weaponry is a boon. However, the warp staff breaks the game, and a ton of characters are actually unusable in harder modes. When you're not warp skipping there's a good number of characters that just aren't good and cannot make up for bad luck that you see in games. That is my primary gripe against warpskip-free FE11. Each playthrough feels relatively flat and contingent on getting decent games or else you're kinda screwed which many other FE games have given you a way to get past.

Warp staff does break the game but as Gradivus has pointed out to you in previous arguments, you can't blatantly warpskip the game for quite a while due to a lack of dual Warp users, so the more traditional methods are your main fallback. You have to wait till Wendell gets to C Staves as a Bishop to start pulling off proper Warpskips (or grind wrys to C staves lol), and that's largely inefficient and and requires grinding of staves to actually be reached in a quick timeframe (relative to chapter count), so it's as legitimate a complaint as complaining that boss abuse breaks any FE game.

There are a lot of pretty shitty characters in FE11, you are correct. Class B units in particular are all pretty bad except for Ogma and Barst (and the former really isnt that good), but again, this is not new to FE. Could it be better? Yes. Is there a tiny pool of viable characters? Not at all. Folk like Darros and Bord aside though, unusable is something I'd disagree with since technically any Class A unit can be a staffbot, because the nature of forging, the insane amount of money the game gives you and the abundance of statboosters mean it isn't really too hard to make some bad units usable. Plus you can just pull enemies forever General!Sedgar/Wolf and then have your weaker units feed off them if you need to.

I don't think each playthrough in FE11 relies much on good growths at all even without warpskip. The chances of Caeda getting speed screwed to the point where she can't double the enemies you have to double are astronomically low, and a majority of enemies in the game can be oneshot with appropriately forged weapons by units with bases + promo gains.

Now, warp skip is almost another issue entirely, and whether it's bad design or overlooked it's very close to the game handing you a win at some points. Closer than most games.

Yeah it's not like an FE game ever gave you I win buttons that casual playthroughs tended to prefer not to use right?

Come on, there's no more shame in FE11's warp staff than FE7 Marcus or FE8 Seth going to town in their respective games. Or BEXP dumping Marcia or Jill in FE9, or spamming Haar/Royals in FE10.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Irysa

[Loki Laufeyson]

...Wow, is there some drama in here? That doesn't involve me? I am legit surprised. :P

Anyway, I have to side with Red Fox here, seeing as I already stated before that I think RD is underrated.

Hue! I actually disagree with her, considering i lurk tumblr and Tellius in general gets a lot of love. But FE4 also gets huge amounts of love on tumblr. I really havent seen people bitch about RD's actual game mechanics in like almost two years. Most of the complaining is about its plot. I mean, she isnt wrong entirely considering people used to bitch about RD to hell and back. Its not...not so much now?

Thing about Shadow Dragon: Its not a bad game. Its a bad Fire Emblem game for as so many people know the series. For guys who are really into bare bones FE, its like, the favorite. For those of us spoiled by mechanics that came later, it plays like ass. I guess objectively, it would be the underrated child of the Western FEs.

[RJWalker]

Shadow Dragon easily.

[feplus]

If we're focusing on the "Fire Emblem community," both Blazing Sword and Awakening are underrated. They're the two most popular games in the series, so it's not a big surprise that they suffer from popularity backlash. I've seen plenty of silly, spurious criticisms against both games on this forum, and they draw a disproportionate amount of ire.

Still, I've gotta vote for Binding Blade. It's one of my two favorite games so I'm a bit biased, but its gets hated on for the silliest reasons imaginable. Roy being a balanced lord is a good thing; same-turn spawn points are all obvious and not particularly threatening; issues with low hit rates are overblown; gaiden unlock requirements are made super clear; its story is engaging even with the obvious Akaneia inspirations; and while seize-only objectives is a bit of a drag, seize is the most interesting objective anyway. I mean, there are problems with Binding Blade, mainly how ranked play is neutered by generous turn totals and the difficulty curve is all over the place- why is Chapter 7 HM the toughest map in the game?- but it's somehow earned a reputation as a bland game with a badly designed lord, cheap same-turn reinforcements, and units who can't hit anything. This is very wrong.

edit: saw Horace made some good criticisms against FE6. I'd want to repeat Irysa's point that issues with hit rates and limited options only apply to efficiency or low-turn-count runs; some people enjoy those and that's fine, but Fire Emblem isn't designed with them in mind and I don't think it's fair to criticize games for not catering to optional challenge playthroughs.

Edited March 11, 2015 by feplus

[Julius Nepos]

For me it depends on how 'underrated' is meant.

I could say FE11 because, while the game has its flaws, it gets more hate than it deserves, in my opinion.

I could also say FE2 because it is such a unique entry in the series, but attracts only few fans.

I could also say FE1 because barely anyone plays it at all, while it's not that bad (once you get used to the UI at least, which can be one of the hardest parts of the game).

FE1 and FE3 are underrated in the sense that every time they're brought up most people think "just play FE11/FE12".

FE13 is very popular in general, but gets a lot of hate from the community, for which reason I could say it's underrated, within the community.

My choice is Shadow Dragon. It was a good attempt at bringing back the classic FE1 game modernized with the classic FE experience. People often say that it tries too hard to stay as close as possible to FE1, but that's not true. Compared to FE1, FE11 saw a lot of new classes, more weapons, battle preparations (including the armory, forging, merging weapons), most notably reclassing. The mix of classic FE1 and modern FE was certainly flawed in many ways, but it's by no means such a bad game as it's sometimes made out to be.

[Yojinbo]

General Horace, on 11 Mar 2015 - 04:03 AM, said:

maybe not fe2, but fe6 has definately been overhyped since dondon's run imo. There are numerous things wrong with it, starting with the godawful thrones and just characters being bad in general. I guess in contrast to before then where everyone just hated on it for being 30 or so run to the throne and seize maps and axe users sucking or whatever people didn't like about it, it's probably better in this way, it's not bad.

dondon just did a good job at highlighting the good parts of the game, which was cool.

I don't like the game because there are just so few ways to actually play it. Wanna kill Henning? Better bring Rutger. Wanna use less optimal units? Too bad for you, most often than not they're downright unusable since a good majority of the bad units in FE6 are bad because they can't actually hit anything. It's an issue with FE12 too (too many shitty units).

1.) I don't know anybody who suddenly grew fond of FE6 over watching dondon's run. It's pretty clear that most of the FE 'vets' already know which games they like and which not. Nobody who once thought FE6 isn't their cup of tea suddenly start loving the game - because, as you said yourself, the run highlights the good things about this and people understand that. So even if you personally dislike FE6 it's a pretty farfetched idea to call it 'overhyped'. It just got some more attention than usually for a while, that's it.

2.) Throne bonuses and BS bosses are legitimately a problem. Every FE game has them. It's not a bigger problem than the dumb defense chapters in FE7, stationary enemy units in FE10 rout chapters or Ch.1 and Ch.7 in FE4 though.

3.) People overrate how bad units are in FE6. You have Marcus, Alan, Lance, Dieck, Lugh, Zealot, Shin, Echidna, Miledy and Percival who are legitimately good combat units. Then you have a lot of useful utility units like Ellen, Thany, Clarine, Saul, Lalum/Elphin, Tate, Cecilia, Niime and Yodel. And then there's still a whole of very solid, [sometimes underappreciated] units as well as usable pre-promotes left: Sue, Noah, Fir, Gonzales, Klein, Ray, Igrene, Garret and Zeiss;

The Armors and Archers are terrible but they don't actually suck more than they do in other FE games.

4.) The only units that are axelocked in FE6 are Ward and Lott who simply aren't good units with or without axelock and Gonzales and Garret who aren't great but not bad either despite their axelock. It's one of those points that people like to blow out of proportion when it comes to criticizing FE6 tbqh.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Yojinbo

[Moishe Oofnik]

General Horace, on 11 Mar 2015 - 04:03 AM, said:

maybe not fe2, but fe6 has definately been overhyped since dondon's run imo. There are numerous things wrong with it, starting with the godawful thrones and just characters being bad in general. I guess in contrast to before then where everyone just hated on it for being 30 or so run to the throne and seize maps and axe users sucking or whatever people didn't like about it, it's probably better in this way, it's not bad.

dondon just did a good job at highlighting the good parts of the game, which was cool.

I don't like the game because there are just so few ways to actually play it. Wanna kill Henning? Better bring Rutger. Wanna use less optimal units? Too bad for you, most often than not they're downright unusable since a good majority of the bad units in FE6 are bad because they can't actually hit anything. It's an issue with FE12 too (too many shitty units).

1.) I don't know anybody who suddenly grew fond of FE6 over watching dondon's run. It's pretty clear that most of the FE 'vets' already know which games they like and which not. Nobody who once thought FE6 isn't their cup of tea suddenly start loving the game - because, as you said yourself, the run highlights the good things about this and people understand that. So even if you personally dislike FE6 it's a pretty farfetched idea to call it 'overhyped'. It just got some more attention than usually for a while, that's it.

2.) Throne bonuses and BS bosses are legitimately a problem. Every FE game has them. It's not a bigger problem than the dumb defense chapters in FE7, stationary enemy units in FE10 rout chapters or Ch.1 and Ch.7 in FE4 though.

3.) People overrate how bad units are in FE6. You have Marcus, Alan, Lance, Dieck, Lugh, Zealot, Shin, Echidna, Miledy,Rutger and Percival who are legitimately good combat units. Then you have a lot of useful utility units like Ellen, Thany, Clarine, Saul, Lalum/Elphin, Tate,Thany, Cecilia, Niime and Yodel. And then there's still a whole of very solid, [sometimes underappreciated] units as well as usable pre-promotes left: Sue, Noah, Fir, Gonzales, Klein, Ray, Igrene, Garret and Zeiss;

The Armors and Archers are terrible but they don't actually suck more than they do in other FE games.

4.) The only units that are axelocked in FE6 are Ward and Lott who simply aren't good units with or without axelock and Gonzales and Garret who aren't great but not bad either despite their axelock. It's one of those points that people like to blow out of proportion when it comes to criticizing FE6 tbqh.

you forgot rutger who you previously mentioned but other then that yea also thany is also good