The Genius of Two Versions

[Giratina]

In Pokemon the difference between two versions is usually only legendary Pokemon, a few random Pokemon and maybe if you're lucky some different characters or areas. Whereas in this game (or games I guess...), you're getting a whole different side of the story, not just a few differences here and there. It just gives more variety to what your play style is and I don't see any reason to complain about it unless you're just worried about how expensive it is, which it is but at least you're getting a deal if you're buying all of them together. The more they appeal and get a bigger audience, the more Fire Emblem we will get.

[Anacybele]

People bring up the Pokemon comparison, but what about Zelda: Oracle of Seasons /Oracle of Ages? No one complained about that game being split into two, but that's because it was never marketed as a single game.

Those are different because they contain two entirely different settings, plots, and casts of characters besides Link. Both versions of this new FE game have the same cast of characters and setting, the difference is only which characters you side with.

[ckc22]

Calling it cashgrab is a bit too much I think.What if they didnt advertise it that way and said nothing about choices?Would it still be a cashgrab?I obviously understand why you are dissapointed though.Sure hope each path has each own individual choices which result in different endings.

If the NA direct delivered on 4/1 had mentioned it at the same time as the JP one I wouldn't have a problem with it. I feel like Nintendo is trying to avoid some backlash by being disingenuous/misleading despite how stupid that idea is in 2015 when they should know well enough that people will know what happened in the JP direct.

In Pokemon the difference between two versions is usually only legendary Pokemon, a few random Pokemon and maybe if you're lucky some different characters or areas. Whereas in this game (or games I guess...), you're getting a whole different side of the story, not just a few differences here and there. It just gives more variety to what your play style is and I don't see any reason to complain about it unless you're just worried about how expensive it is, which it is but at least you're getting a deal if you're buying all of them together. The more they appeal and get a bigger audience, the more Fire Emblem we will get.

You're saying this like it's a defense of the games split when in reality it just makes it worse.

[DualMix]

Those are different because they contain two entirely different settings, plots, and casts of characters besides Link. Both versions of this new FE game have the same cast of characters and setting, the difference is only which characters you side with.

Not necessarily. I mean, it looks like it but who knows? It's a bit quick to judge both of them like that right away, no? Well, I am being hypocritical just by saying that so maybe it isn't.

[NoirCore]

I wonder if the distant English release date is partially so they can fuse the games into one for overseas releases? Just a guess.

[JayTheKing]

If the NA direct delivered on 4/1 had mentioned it at the same time as the JP one I wouldn't have a problem with it. I feel like Nintendo is trying to avoid some backlash by being disingenuous/misleading despite how stupid that idea is in 2015 when they should know well enough that people will know what happened in the JP direct.

FE is not as big here as it is in Japan though.Probably they have different plans for us(Europe and USA).We might be getting one version with a bigger price?

[NeonZ]

Those are different because they contain two entirely different settings, plots, and casts of characters besides Link. Both versions of this new FE game have the same cast of characters and setting, the difference is only which characters you side with.

As far as we know the plot is different though (reforming Nohr while also subduing Hoshido vs resistance battle against Nohr) and that'd likely lead to different maps/setting. They've also suggested that even the game progression and balance are fairly different too. The Oracle games also had some shared characters and events (like the prologue cutscene being identical in both, also the meeting with Zelda in the 2nd game).

Edited April 6, 2015 by NeonZ

[Rawkstar]

Like everyone else, I was really pissed when I figured out that there would be two versions of the game, but now that I really think about it, I can't be mad at them. If I'm willing to purchase both version of a game, that means that I preemptively think that it's going to be a great game, and that I know it will be worth it. What's more is they are willing to cut the price of the second version in half, how can you be mad at that? This isn't Pokemon where the only difference is the Legendary you get, these are two different games altogether. They very well could have gotten away with releasing one game one year, and one the next year, but they're giving both of them to us. It is unfortunate that the game will cost more, but we're basically getting two games.

[Party Moth]

They could actually incorporate some of those elements here though. What if each army has its own exclusive classes, and in order to use classes from one army with another you need to get a guest avatar or bonus character from other players? It wouldn't be hard to improve on Awakening's connectivity features.

Anyway, I don't think this game will be split in NA or have any odd restriction because nothing was announced in the NA Direct. Waiting closer to release to reveal the split would just create a backlash. People bring up the Pokemon comparison, but what about Zelda: Oracle of Seasons /Oracle of Ages? No one complained about that game being split into two, but that's because it was never marketed as a single game.

The Oracle games were not built around a moral dilemma, though. There was gameplay incentive to choose one over the other, yes, but the Oracle games were not marketed as if you were to become invested between the oracles Din and Nayru and then had to make a choice whether to save one or the other. The Oracle games, not unlike Pokemon, were also based around the password system on the Game Boy.

Really, it's not even a gameplay/content issue here primarily. It's an issue with story, player input, and creator vision. The Direct markets it as if you have an in-game choice, but that might not be the case. They claim that your decisions will matter on how the game plays out: Is that decision whether to spend $40 or $80? Do they want us to take their plot seriously? They even had to subtly apologize for Awakening's plot by announcing their new writer in a previous Direct, so I assume they want us to take their plot seriously. If so, then why does gameplay and marketing contradict the story instead of the three coinciding like, well, any well-made video game?

It's just insulting to me to be promised moral choices and then instead be presented with fiscal ones.

[Dandragon]

I think, while your rage is justified we should wait. Considering I feel this will be 2 full games with very different stories and units with a shared universe.

With a 3rd whole new story coming later that may have a whole new take and more units unique to itself, but who knows.

I personally think it's gonna be the exact opposite, and the games will be barely different at all.

[Jedi]

I personally think it's gonna be the exact opposite, and the games will be barely different at all.

Oh ye of little faith I hope you are wrong. (no offense)

[goodperson707]

The Oracle games were not built around a moral dilemma, though. There was gameplay incentive to choose one over the other, yes, but the Oracle games were not marketed as if you were to become invested between the oracles Din and Nayru and then had to make a choice whether to save one or the other. The Oracle games, not unlike Pokemon, were also based around the password system on the Game Boy.

Really, it's not even a gameplay/content issue here primarily. It's an issue with story, player input, and creator vision. The Direct markets it as if you have an in-game choice, but that might not be the case. They claim that your decisions will matter on how the game plays out: Is that decision whether to spend $40 or $80? Do they want us to take their plot seriously? They even had to subtly apologize for Awakening's plot by announcing their new writer in a previous Direct, so I assume they want us to take their plot seriously. If so, then why does gameplay and marketing contradict the story instead of the three coinciding like, well, any well-made video game?

It's just insulting to me to be promised moral choices and then instead be presented with fiscal ones.

Not going to tackle your argument but its 42$ or 59$ with dlc actually. But i find this outrage weird as i slept in then checked the main site so i knew there were two versions before i heard that the nintendo directs were different. And i didn't feel mislead by the first trailer

And we most likely will get choices. Form the main site

"The keyword for this new Fire Emblem is “if”. With Hoshido and Nohr as the backdrops, the player must make choices, which will affect the story, battles, recruitable characters, while progressing two very contrasting stories."

[NeonZ]

The Oracle games were not built around a moral dilemma, though. There was gameplay incentive to choose one over the other, yes, but the Oracle games were not marketed as if you were to become invested between the oracles Din and Nayru and then had to make a choice whether to save one or the other. The Oracle games, not unlike Pokemon, were also based around the password system on the Game Boy.

It's a matter of marketing like I said, and that's also why I can't see them suddenly revealing two versions for NA now. The first trailer mentioned that the player would make choices, but it never made it clear what would be those choices. In the new Japanese trailer, we learn that there are two stories, and in each one the hero joins a different kingdom. Meanwhile, in the NA Direct you just get a speech about player choice changing the story. The Japanese Direct doesn't market it as an in-game choice, unlike the NA one. If they step back and suddenly reveal two choices now, there'll be an understandable backlash due to this presentation arranged by NOA, but this entire scenario and frustration will then have been created by NOA and their extremely misleading presentation.

Also, regarding the first trailer, which also mentioned chocies, if choosing either kingdom is the only choice in the game, it'd be misleading either way. However, there easily could be more choices that actually have some impact, unlike Awakening's.

I personally think it's gonna be the exact opposite, and the games will be barely different at all.

Well, at least the Direct presented fairly different examples while showing the routes, with the Hoshido side some mission dealing with the Nohr invasion, while the Norh scene showed the main character investigating a "Nosferatu" monster.

Edited April 7, 2015 by NeonZ

[Baldrick]

IMO the different plots, and the claim that only one side will have a world map, suggests that the chapters and gameplay will be different. Even if it's a similar case to FE8 where there's a mix of different maps/similar maps with different starting positions it will still be worth trying both paths once.

[ckc22]

The Oracle games were not built around a moral dilemma, though. There was gameplay incentive to choose one over the other, yes, but the Oracle games were not marketed as if you were to become invested between the oracles Din and Nayru and then had to make a choice whether to save one or the other. The Oracle games, not unlike Pokemon, were also based around the password system on the Game Boy.

Really, it's not even a gameplay/content issue here primarily. It's an issue with story, player input, and creator vision. The Direct markets it as if you have an in-game choice, but that might not be the case. They claim that your decisions will matter on how the game plays out: Is that decision whether to spend $40 or $80? Do they want us to take their plot seriously? They even had to subtly apologize for Awakening's plot by announcing their new writer in a previous Direct, so I assume they want us to take their plot seriously. If so, then why does gameplay and marketing contradict the story instead of the three coinciding like, well, any well-made video game?

It's just insulting to me to be promised moral choices and then instead be presented with fiscal ones.

It's a matter of marketing like I said, and that's also why I can't see them suddenly revealing two versions for NA now. The first trailer mentioned that the player would make choices, but it never made it clear what would be those choices. In the new Japanese trailer, we learn that there are two stories, and in each one the hero joins a different kingdom. Meanwhile, in the NA Direct you just get a speech about player choice changing the story. The Japanese Direct doesn't market it as an in-game choice, unlike the NA one. If they step back and suddenly reveal two choices now, there'll be an understandable backlash due to this presentation arranged by NOA, but this entire scenario and frustration will then have been created by NOA and their extremely misleading presentation.

This is pretty much my feeling 100%.

Nintendo had a big break with the last Fire Emblem doing much better than they expected, and they're searching for every way to milk that audience.

Edited April 7, 2015 by ckc22

[goodperson707]

This is pretty much my feeling 100%.

Nintendo had a big break with the last Fire Emblem doing much better than they expected, and they're searching for every way to milk that audience.

Wait you are using NeonZ's (correct me if im wrong NeonZ) argument that the games will be one version in north america due to the content of the NA direct as supporting evidence in your ongoing argument that Nintendo is attempting a cashgrab by making two versions? Edited April 7, 2015 by goodperson707

[Book Bro]

I feel that this is different from Pokémon and the Oracles.

You don't need to buy both versions of a Pokémon game to experience the full story. The story is the same. You are perfectly fine buying the version with the cooler Pokémon on the cover. You can't say the same for if as each version only contains half of the story. You don't have to pay extra or buy the other version of Pokémon to access exclusive content, you can trade with a friend or now over the internet. This is fine bc Pokémon is a monster collecting game with hundreds of creatures to collect. You can't replicate this with a strategy RPG. It makes no sense to have Pegasus knights only in the Hoshido version and making you trade to be able to reclass to it.

The Oracles have a completely different story, world, characters, levels, items, etc. They are two Zelda games that have similar titles and were released together. You get a full Zelda game if you buy only one. Again, you're getting half of if per version, regardless of how different each version is it's still one story. The only major bonus you get if you buy both Oracles is the full ending, though each game wraps up its own story and this is more of a bonus, comparable to the planned DLC for if which I think most people are actually fine with it being separate.

I just can't agree with it. If they really felt they had to offer two gameplay styles, they could've given the option to have a world map before starting the game or tied it to difficulty somehow.

[NekoKnight]

The issue with Fire Emblem: If is that when it comes down to it, the game was marketed as one where you are forced to make difficult choices in-game based on picking a side. It does not make sense to market it like Pokémon (hence why they just plain didn't in the English Direct) nor does the moral dilemma in If suit the two version release. It's damned by its own marketing and release strategy.

There's still no guarantee the Special Edition is going to release over here, but I hope some sort of physical copy releases in the 'States that at least delivers the moral choice the entire game and advertising hinges on. Otherwise this game is a joke. Sort of like Awakening's choice system on a larger scale: You can choose "yes" or "no" all you want, but that Exalt ain't gettin' down from that cliff safely.

The difference is in how Pokémon's core gameplay mechanics function. Two versions may be a cheap marketing ploy, but it does create player incentive to trade with others who have the version you don't, and trading/communication has been vital to the series since the first game. Pokémon uses the two-version split to advance its core gameplay mechanics/marketing, unlike If which contradicts itself.

This is my thought. You can't talk up choice as the game's selling point when the choice doesn't happen in game. I'll buy a combined version if it's fairly priced by I shouldn't have to commit to story altering choices before I even start playing.

Wait you are using NeonZ's (correct me if im wrong NeonZ) argument that the games will be one version in north america due to the content of the NA direct as supporting evidence in your ongoing argument that Nintendo is attempting a cashgrab by making two versions?

He thinks they are making a cashgrab on Japan. No one knows what's in store for the NA release but there is reason to be suspicious.

[goodperson707]

^ then why does he always bring up that the NA direct misguided their fans, he has mentioned NoA making a cash grab several times, and he states that 2 versions in NA are not okay because we were promised one game with the same content as the two versions . I don't see a promise of whats in the game in the first JA direct just that it involves choices.

Anyway he is still using an argument against NoA releasing 2 versions, to say that nintendo is trying to milk every penny out of its new fans? See a problem with that?

Edited April 7, 2015 by goodperson707

[ckc22]

Wait you are using NeonZ's (correct me if im wrong NeonZ) argument that the games will be one version in north america due to the content of the NA direct as supporting evidence in your ongoing argument that Nintendo is attempting a cashgrab by making two versions?

No. I'm referring to his opinion that the NA direct will have been misleading if/when they reveal two games are being released and that the choice between armies is really splitting the game in half and that this will be entirely Nintendo's fault.

^ then why does he always bring up that the NA direct misguided their fans, he has mentioned NoA making a cash grab several times, and he states that 2 versions in NA are not okay because we were promised one game with the same content as the two versions . I don't see a promise of whats in the game in the first JA direct just that it involves choices.

Anyway he is still using an argument against NoA releasing 2 versions, to say that nintendo is trying to milk every penny out of its new fans? See a problem with that?

I haven't said that they misguided their fans ****yet****. I fully expect them to given Nintendo's current business practices.

If they release two versions in NA then it will be obvious that they were considering it/knew about it at the time it was announced in Japan and yet chose to hold back that info from NA fans purposefully - which will have a predictable backlash hence why I quoted NeonZ.

" If they step back and suddenly reveal two choices now, there'll be an understandable backlash due to this presentation arranged by NOA, but this entire scenario and frustration will then have been created by NOA and their extremely misleading presentation."

Edited April 7, 2015 by ckc22

[NekoKnight]

^ then why does he always bring up that the NA direct misguided their fans, he has mentioned NoA making a cash grab several times, and he states that 2 versions in NA are not okay because we were promised one game with the same content as the two versions . I don't see a promise of whats in the game in the first JA direct just that it involves choices.

Anyway he is still using an argument against NoA releasing 2 versions, to say that nintendo is trying to milk every penny out of its new fans? See a problem with that?

Okay, I agree. But like I said, the lack of mention in the NA direct is suspicious. If they think selling two versions in Japan is the best way to make a profit (and that's what businesses try to do; make as much money as they can from their fans), there's no reason to believe they wouldn't try that here. It's not proven that they will use the same tactic overseas but if they are, it's dirty of them to be hush hush about it, while hyping up the supposed choices in the game.

[goodperson707]

^^ Okay thats fine i just find it ironic. as i believe he said that NoA only "mislead" us because they are not misleading us at all and they are not going to release it here as two versions.

And kinda contrary to milking the cash of its new fanbase

Edited April 7, 2015 by goodperson707

[ckc22]

Okay thats fine i just find it ironic. as i believe he said that NoA only "mislead" us because they are not misleading us at all and they are not going to release it here as two versions.

And kinda contrary to milking the cash of its new fanbase

Your grammar is really confusing/nonsensical. Also you're talking about me as if I'm not in the thread.

Anyways - there's a small chance that they decide to be good guys... I just don't see it happening given their current DLC practices. You have no idea if the game is being released as one version here. You might be optimistic about it but you don't know. I take an opposite approach.

[goodperson707]

E

Your grammar is really confusing/nonsensical. Also you're talking about me as if I'm not in the thread.

Anyways - there's a small chance that they decide to be good guys... I just don't see it happening given their current DLC practices. You have no idea if the game is being released as one version here. You might be optimistic about it but you don't know. I take an opposite approach.

Edited version below

Okay thats fine i just find it ironic. as i believe NeonZ said that NoA only "mislead" us because NoA are not misleading us at all and that NoA are not going to release it here as two versions.

And it's kinda contrary to your stated opinion of Nintendo milking the cash of its new fan-base.

Edited April 7, 2015 by goodperson707

[NekoKnight]

Your grammar is really confusing/nonsensical. Also you're talking about me as if I'm not in the thread.

Anyways - there's a small chance that they decide to be good guys... I just don't see it happening given their current DLC practices. You have no idea if the game is being released as one version here. You might be optimistic about it but you don't know. I take an opposite approach.

He's responding to me, in regards to your viewpoints.

I'm excited for the possibility of a unified game in NA but am wary of corporate greed so I'm going to be cautiously optimistic.