If You Were Head of Intelligent Systems, What Changes Would You Make to FE?

[Gradivus.]

It's not even hard to defend, I gave a whole bunch of arguments as to why it's fine and DLuna is just not going to accept any of it, he didn't even pay any concrete responses to the parts that are inconvenient for him to argue against, which was literally like 90-95% of my posts. I can well deal with not convincing that one dude, and will probably stop spending my time on any extensive arguments although I'll add a small part:

D) If your first attacks misses then you get a chance to kill them again (relevant when the enemy is really low)

E) Double WEXP.

These don't contribute to huuuuge for obvious reasons, B is highly situational and C is game-dependent, tends to be minor and also pretty situational. That leaves us with A, which I explained not to be a big deal because ORKOing is not a bad thing, in fact a good one unless it's just too easy to achieve.

Fates increasing the speed threshold is good. Removing doubling on certain weapons is good. Are you arguing they should not have done that? Or can't go a bit further with it?

Because I'm partially defending IS's decision.

I don't think you can really expect the majority to judge fates' game design before it's legally marketed on the whole world. While I don't doubt that these kinds of nerfs have partially positive consequences, I'm still skeptical about it being good as a whole due to not having experienced it. I never claimed that there should be no changes and in fact I agree that improvements are welcome, but man, if you argue so vocally that it's terrible then you shouldn't be surprised about getting different responses from people who think that it works out decently at worst, which appears to be the majority, especially when there has yet to post anyone here who supports your notion aside from yourself.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Gradivus.

[Irysa]

It doesn't, no. Doesn't matter how 'long' it takes.

I don't think you understand what growth bracketing is. It forcibly stops stat gains from falling under or exceeding whatever the bracketed stat range is for that stat. It basically stops units from being too far under or too far over their average stat gains.

Say a Cavalier has a 30% growth rate in Speed. His growth bracket is 2. His base Speed is 7. This means on the 10th level, if it hasn't raised at all, the Cavalier's Speed must increase to 8. It also means that after 10 levels, the Cavalier's speed cannot exceed 12. We can easily adjust the bracketing of stats depending on the type of unit we're looking at.

Do you really fundamentally think that being able to raise a unit to a point they achieve doubling is broken fundamentally?

Edited January 8, 2016 by Irysa

[NekoKnight]

I don't think you can really expect the majority to judge fates' game design before it's legally marketed on the whole world. While I don't doubt that these kinds of nerfs have partially positive consequences, I'm still skeptical about it being good as a whole due to not having experienced it. I never claimed that there should be no changes and in fact I agree that improvements are welcome, but man, if you argue so vocally that it's terrible then you shouldn't be surprised about getting different responses from people who think that it works out decently at worst, which appears to be the majority, especially when there has yet to post anyone here who supports your notion aside from yourself.

I've played it but the changes are just tweaks to the old system. Weapons that can't double in Fates are like that to make them more situational (javelins, hand axes, Nosferatu etc) and have nothing to do with specific class niches/that class' ability to reliably double. In my opinion, adjusting attack speed based on weapon choice for some weapons is a positive balancing mechanic, but I'd disagree that the speed stat itself needs reworking.

[Gradivus.]

Yeah, removing it isn't what I'd interpret as an improvement either, I did mean tweaks > fundamental changes to it.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Gradivus.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

While dragons are involved in the plot, Nergal is still the primary antagonist and major instigator of most of Balzing Sword's conflicts. I wouldn't call the game very dragon centric.

Unless you just liked him for aesthetic reasons, would it really have made a difference if the Demon King was a dragon? He's basically just Grima. What Fire Emblem needs is well written antagonists. No more "I'm gonna destroy the world for shits and giggles" whether it's a dragon or otherwise.

What is Nergal's intention? To open the Dragon's Gate. To do what? Summon dragons and claim their quintessence. Plus, Ninain and Nils (who are heavily implied to be Nergal's children) are dragons. The game is dragon-centric.

I think it would matter yeah, I think the story probably would have been different if he was a dragon.

I also think that most FE protagonists are already well-written. Just because some are in it "for s***s and giggles" doesn't mean they're poorly-written.

[Dunal]

It's not even hard to defend, I gave a whole bunch of arguments as to why it's fine and DLuna is just not going to accept any of it, he didn't even pay any concrete responses to the parts that are inconvenient for him to argue against, which was literally like 90-95% of my posts. I can well deal with not convincing that one dude, and will probably stop spending my time on any extensive arguments although I'll add a small part:

Cheers for being slightly condescending. But I don't think I was given concrete arguments either. I genuinely waiting for responses such as:

"But doubling uses up twice the weapon uses"

"Doubling doesn't protect you from a retaliation attack after your first strike, unlike a brave weapon".

"Doubling may or may not be balanced around skill/luck hit rates meaning that there's a good chance one attack will miss and therefore negate it".

The only arguments I actually have from yourself weren't very concrete or in depth. Rather "It's fine because I say so". You haven't actually argued why multiple thresholds hold importance in unit usage. You're kinda escaping the points and make the overall impression that you think "well it's okay because it's always been that way and hasn't compromised the series in any way. Why change it?" Which is not a good attitude when it comes to discussing game design and weighing the pros and cons. Challenging things and thinking about the pros and cons makes for an argument. I can at least admit that doubling and the mechanic have their place (it's works with certain classes and certian can working under multiple statistics or requirements rather than just lolspeed, or that systems like CON can balance it better etc...), but not as it stands pre-fates (at the very least). it's not a terrible mechanic, it just needs improvement.

A lot of game designers also have the attitude of "it's perfectly fine, let's leave it" which isn't the best perspective to have.

These don't contribute to huuuuge for obvious reasons, B is highly situational and C is game-dependent, tends to be minor and also pretty situational. That leaves us with A, which I explained not to be a big deal because ORKOing is not a bad thing, in fact a good one unless it's just too easy to achieve.

You missed my point again. What's the point of singling those out when all five of of things matter when in combination? There's no need to cherry pick things out just to make a point. WEXP means very little by itself. Thanks for that info? But again, it's more to do with putting everything together.

I don't think you can really expect the majority to judge fates' game design before it's legally marketed on the whole world. While I don't doubt that these kinds of nerfs have partially positive consequences, I'm still skeptical about it being good as a whole due to not having experienced it. I never claimed that there should be no changes and in fact I agree that improvements are welcome, but man, if you argue so vocally that it's terrible then you shouldn't be surprised about getting different responses from people who think that it works out decently at worst, which appears to be the majority, especially when there has yet to post anyone here who supports your notion aside from yourself.

Being that I'm a game designer and have played Fates, I can make a fair evaluation. Fates still has its flaws but some of the gameplay design decisions have been very good. In fact, it's clear to me that the game designers have all likely changed quite a bit from Awakening, simply based on the decisions made. Either that or they've put further priority on certain members of staff.

I don't think you understand what growth bracketing is. It forcibly stops stat gains from falling under or exceeding whatever the bracketed stat range is for that stat. It basically stops units from being too far under or too far over their average stat gains.

Say a Cavalier has a 30% growth rate in Speed. His growth bracket is 2. His base Speed is 7. This means on the 10th level, if it hasn't raised at all, the Cavalier's Speed must increase to 8. It also means that after 10 levels, the Cavalier's speed cannot exceed 12. We can easily adjust the bracketing of stats depending on the type of unit we're looking at.

Do you really fundamentally think that being able to raise a unit to a point they achieve doubling is broken fundamentally?

Forgive me but I did misinterpret your point. Caps are a decent way to hinder doubling and speed in general. However, that really has zero difference than just limiting consistent doubling to certain classes in practicality.

Of course, it depends of enemy stats as well. If enemies are pathetic then caps won't matter. But a combination of good enemies and strict caps would essentially do the same thing I am suggesting -- locking consistent doubling to faster classes.

Edited January 9, 2016 by DLuna

[Dunal]

EDIT: Multi post error. Apologies.

Edited January 9, 2016 by DLuna

[NekoKnight]

What is Nergal's intention? To open the Dragon's Gate. To do what? Summon dragons and claim their quintessence. Plus, Ninain and Nils (who are heavily implied to be Nergal's children) are dragons. The game is dragon-centric.

I think it would matter yeah, I think the story probably would have been different if he was a dragon.

I also think that most FE protagonists are already well-written. Just because some are in it "for s***s and giggles" doesn't mean they're poorly-written.

His end goal is to summon dragons and drain them of their quintessence but most of the plot doesn't actually concern dragons. Nergal isn't a dragon or serve dragons. His plot is just to become all powerful. The antagonists are Nergal, his morphs and the Black Fang. You only encounter dragons 3 times in the story and you only fight one of them. Lyn's story is to reunite with her grandfather. Eliwood's starts as a mission to find his father and transitions into stopping Nergal and the Black Fang, all while dealing with political intrigue and human ambition. It would be a serious misunderstanding of the plot to say FE7 was focused on dragons.

FE8 would be identical if you switched out the Demon King for Grima. What would be different?

I wasn't saying all antagonists were poorly written just that recent ones are uninteresting. Awakening and Fates had underwhelming antagonists. Tellius and Elibe had antagonists that I liked.

[Magical Glace]

What is Nergal's intention? To open the Dragon's Gate. To do what? Summon dragons and claim their quintessence. Plus, Ninain and Nils (who are heavily implied to be Nergal's children) are dragons. The game is dragon-centric.

I think it would matter yeah, I think the story probably would have been different if he was a dragon.

I also think that most FE protagonists are already well-written. Just because some are in it "for s***s and giggles" doesn't mean they're poorly-written.

I think you mean antagonists with the last statement, but yeah. Only game (of the ones I've played) that lacks a good villain is FE13... The antagonists there just kinda exist and have no depth.

FE6 had Zephiel, 7 Nergal, 8 Lyon, 9/10 Sephiran, and in 11 I kinda liked Medeus...

But how would FE8's plot change if Fortmortiis was a dragon? It's still a giant scary thing trying to destroy the world.

[Topaz Light]

Kozaki as the official/promotional artist can stay (or be replaced, I'm largely indifferent), but get a better costume designer. Lots of the outfits in FE3DS are pretty garbage.

[spoiler=Fates-related things, no plot spoilers]Somehow ban skinshipping, the Brigand weapons, and the dress-up mechanic from ever appearing in another Fire Emblem game ever again. ...Alright, I guess the dress-up mechanic can stay if they don't get take it in too raunchy a direction, but the other stuff has to go.

[spoiler=Fates-related things, plot spoilers]No more being able to marry siblings to each other. I don't care if they're blood siblings or adoptive siblings or step-siblings. The incestuous relationships worked in Jugdral because they were for fixed plot purposes and they never really touted it as anything to celebrate. The way it's done in Fates is just gross, blatant fanservice. At the very least, if incestuous relationships are to be used again, handle it with a lot more care than Fates' "Oh no we accidentally made someone related to you hot, now we have to make them not actually genetically related to you so you can still marry the hot person".

I really, really don't care for the idea of a GoT-esque Fire Emblem game, honestly, but I do think that IS needs to start putting more effort into worldbuilding again, as opposed to Awakening's "Directly Plot Relevant Nations Numbers 1 through 4, plus passing mentions of some other territories we guess". To go with that, put also put more focus into building the characters as people in their world, like how they felt in the earlier games. Honestly, Awakening's characters really just felt to me like they were made to be "your party" rather than the "people who live in this world and just happen to join you" vibe I got from earlier Fire Emblem games. I hope the distinction I'm trying to make there makes sense.

Bring back antagonists actually being characters as opposed to mustache-twirling Saturday morning cartoon villains.

Bring the scaling of stats back down to around the level of FE6~9. This is really more of a personal preference thing than anything that I feel is really crucial; I just like it more when individual stat points carry more weight.

Keep skills. Never un-keep skills. But make them more like in the Jugdral and Tellius games, where they're by and large a lot more character-based than class-based. It adds another interesting level on which to differentiate multiple characters of the same class line in addition to varying bases and growth rates.

I'd really like to see a return of weapon weight as a mechanic, but I'm not really sure how it would be done. They've tried three different formulas for it so far, and each one brought with it its own set of balance issues. Maybe introduce a stat that deals exclusively with counteracting weapon weight? It'd probably need to have a pretty low growth rate, if it even had one at all, but it seems like a good way to handle it without tying it to either the unit's physical attack power or their ability to Rescue and be Rescued. If nothing else, it'd help keep purely-magical classes- especially characters who start purely-magical and then gain access to physical weapons later- from being screwed over in that department.

I'm actually pro-branching promotions, although I don't really mind not having them, either. I just think that branching promotions are a nice, tasteful way of adding more player input to how their characters progress while still keeping each character within a set of classes that generally makes sense for them.

On that note, I think Reclassing is actually a neat mechanic from a gameplay standpoint, but ideally you should not be able to reset a character's level within a class tier. Reclass sets should definitely continue to work as they do in Awakening and Fates, being small and character-based rather than a fixed, generic set based on the character's initial class. I can't decide whether I prefer requiring the use of an item for it (making the ability to Reclass more of a commodity and lending more weight to the player's decisions in regards to it, but coming at the cost of freedom), or doing it FEDS-style (allowing more freedom, but decreasing the sort of cool, novel feeling of Reclassing a character and removing the ability to use Second/Change Seals as a gameplay commodity).

Basically, any promoting or other class-changing that goes on should be restricted to a set of classes that makes sense for the character in question to be or have access to.

Bring back variable chapter goals in full force.

I'm fine with the Avatar staying as long as they either A: embrace the "this is your character" part of it and allow you to make frequent choices in dialogue instead of having MU be essentially a fixed character for the purposes of the story, or B: make them be basically "just another unit" in just about every way except that you get to customize their appearance, name, class, stats, growths, supposed backstory, etc.

[Topaz Light]

EDIT: Double post glitch oops.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Topaz Light

[Gradivus.]

"But doubling uses up twice the weapon uses"

This is completely trivial with very few exceptions where you'd really prefer not to double to conserve the weapon, I can't even think of any off the top of my head. Please don't expect me to think it matters enough to include it into my argument.

"Doubling doesn't protect you from a retaliation attack after your first strike, unlike a brave weapon".

True, but why am I expected to bring it up? Brave weapons weren't discussed here at all, and in comparison to single strikes the difference is merely not there instead of doubling having a downside on this regard.

"Doubling may or may not be balanced around skill/luck hit rates meaning that there's a good chance one attack will miss and therefore negate it".

The difference compared to a single strike is strictly positive because you have a second chance to recover from a miss. If you only have one attack, it's much more likely that you hit 0 times than with two chances.

It's an overexpectation in general, most of the content of these assumptions is literally "combat rounds aren't wholly flawless and insta-win because of doubling alone", which is more or less self-explanatory and pretty insubstantial against the qualities doubling has.

You missed my point again. What's the point of singling those out when all five of of things matter when in combination? There's no need to cherry pick things out just to make a point. WEXP means very little by itself. Thanks for that info? But again, it's more to do with putting everything together.

It has more to do with my perception that you're way exaggerating the problem and are making the fact that there are five points look like they justify calling it huge more than less examples would. If it wasn't then I misunderstood, but adding such extremely minor things does distract from the core point so you shouldn't be surprised I tried to correct you on these.

You haven't actually argued why multiple thresholds hold importance in unit usage.

Okay stop for a second. You're demanding explanations from me on things that you very certainly understand and once I bother to bring a correct and complete one, you'll just ignore it. That's frankly wasting my time.

It also is fairly obvious overall and I don't see how you're expecting me to intuit that you need an explanation, but I'll grant a final one if you demand it that much. In fact, I stated this in my previous post:

Paladins [should] be capable of doubling Generals, Cavaliers and mages with heavy tomes[.] I mean you can just give the enemy snipers, paladins, myrmidons and falcoknights or whoever you don't want them to double the kind of stats that well, just make Paladins unlikely to double them without notable investments[, and then the player needs units of faster classes to get rid of them more easily]. It's highly arbitrary to assume that Paladins and Warriors shouldn't double anything just because they have stronger weapons and more strength as a stat - you're explaining the purpose of speed and trying to say "that's why speed shouldn't determine it".

Zeiss isn't designed to double consistently [...]. Nor are Gotoh, Jeigan and what examples I gave. [it's okay that he can] double enemies like archers, wyverns and druids that have pretty heavy weapons[.] He however doesn't double [faster classes, in all likelihood]. Other classes/units (e.g. Shanna, Sue, Shin, Rutger) are designed to double this sort of classes at the cost of not having the same level of strength and def.

So in short, I think I'll just use an example to show it because the differences in theory are more complicated than those in practice. I'll just assume Zeiss can't double anything except these slow classes. Let's account for swordmasters, generals, heroes and wyvern lords to keep the comparison simple.

- Zeiss can't double against heroes and wyvern lords and takes pretty long (3-4 rounds) to kill them due to their bulk. He however can make use of his high strength with killer or silver lance to deal with generals more efficiently than other units can, and he deals huge damage against swordmasters, killing them with much less assistance than other units do, and in addition he has the option to ORKO them with brave lance, while no one else can double and no one else can kill them that easily with braves.

- Shin, on the other hand, can double wyvern lords and has effective weaponry for them, making him a better choice for dealing with these threats. He also can put a strong bow to good use by dealing more damage to heroes because he doubles them. He however does more poorly against generals and can't retaliate nearly as well at melee range, so you'd rather have other units deal with generals or EP action in the open, for example Zeiss.

- It's always possible to have units take on suboptimal targets. For example, there are three wyvern lords around and you have a dancer that gets OHKOed, and you don't have enough manpower to kill them in one turn. Zeiss can however take two hits, so you can use him to help out using EP combat with his high attack and def so your other units are capable of cleaning up afterwards.

There definitely are a lot of caveats one can put to this, but I think this example should make it easy to see why doubling has an impact on how you use your units, and it also shows that units can contribute well even if they don't double.

Honestly though, I'm certain you understood this already and are just trying to present my arguments as less substantial because I didn't detail it here, which is why I didn't really try to make a complete explanation and only one that covers the most important aspects, because you can definitely understand the rest on your own.

The only arguments I actually have from yourself weren't very concrete or in depth. Rather "It's fine because I say so". You haven't actually argued why multiple thresholds hold importance in unit usage. You're kinda escaping the points and make the overall impression that you think "well it's okay because it's always been that way and hasn't compromised the series in any way. Why change it?" Which is not a good attitude when it comes to discussing game design and weighing the pros and cons. Challenging things and thinking about the pros and cons makes for an argument. I can at least admit that doubling and the mechanic have their place (it's works with certain classes and certian can working under multiple statistics or requirements rather than just lolspeed, or that systems like CON can balance it better etc...), but not as it stands pre-fates (at the very least). it's not a terrible mechanic, it just needs improvement.

Okay if the latter part is how you'd rephrase your arguments then I won't really argue with it because that's wholly valid.

However, let me point out that in the former part you're somehow getting accusatory because I countered your notion that doubling needs not to be based on thresholds, and you literally said it's bad in its current state. If I give detailed reasoning about why I think that's an exaggeration and not true, then there's nothing unjustified about that, and you can't blame my arguments for subjective parts because you're being equally subjective in the perception that it doesn't work out well. I made a case that reworking the concept is unnecessary. Look, every time a new concept, including the good ones, gets introduced, it has flaws. Mostly these don't prevent it from being good, but if you add a needless concept (like completely changing the doubling system), the flaws to it are likely to be perceived more strongly than its benefits, which ends up making the final product less enjoyable or feel arbitrarily changed. That's why I argue that improvements via tweaks are preferable to fundamental changes (maybe it was a tad too implicit in my previous wall of text), which you appear to find viable given your positive stance towards what fates altered, which mostly were just tweaks to the old system (the idea of weapons being unable to double existed already, except it was only used on ballistae and siege magic).

Edited January 9, 2016 by Gradivus.

[Dunal]

I will agree to disagree on this one, I suppose.

Worth mentioning there was an interesting discussion on Reddit a few days ago as well.

I think there's many methods in dealing with this issue. Some likely better than others.

[NewDisplayName]

- The first skill of healers is Safrice (FE: Radiant Dawn)

- Remake of FE4+FE5,FE6+FE7 and FE1+3

- Bring Shove Back!

- Fire Emblem Amiibo Cards!

- Bring base conversations back!

[Melissa]

OH, BOY...

1. Remake FE2 with Awakening's mechanincs

2. Localize all the pre-7 games and FE12

3. Put 7 and 8 on the 3DS VC

4. Get the art directors from the GBA and GC games

5. Release the artbooks in e-book form

[Tolvir]

Remove skinship, but find a better replacement. The entire reason Skinship was done was to find a way to use the 2d models, have a way to raise supports, and make you feel more connected to the characters. Unfortunately the result was a creation only the desperate Hikikomori could love. Something that should of been done is having the ability to take characters out on a date. Since skinship was something that is done between a character you want to S support anyway, this would make a lot more sense. It would use the live 2d models, but it would allow you to take a character on a date to something like the Tavern, Garden (Night or Day), Castle Wall (Night or Day), etc. It would act a lot like supports, but would be more interactive. Things like questions you could ask said character, for example more information on their background, where they grew up, what they plan on doing after the war, etc. Nothing too creepy. It would allow us to get more information on the characters we like, raise supports with them, and use the live 2d models. After the characters S support, it would unlock the ability to get various outfits for both them and the Avatar, stat boosts, etc.

[angienessyo]

Awww! I would love that! That'd be far more natural than "please, just let me touch your face. I need this."

[Thane]

Since I'm not the best player, I'd leave balance issues and new gameplay changes to the pros. However, I'd fire the writing staff on day one and then remove fan service, the avatar and nonsensical armor, remind the writers that including prepubescent boys and girls as fan service is fucking gross and that them being dragons is a poor excuse, stop the whole "everyone can marry everyone" and focus more on the quality of supports rather than the quantity.

I'd also make sure that the excuse for the entire plot being "lolz, crazy dragons/gods or some shit" was left behind forever, and focus more on political turmoil, maybe try to implement a faction/alliance system that could at least flavor text in the story (at the best change endings/open up new paths if we're being ambitious). I'd also humanize the villains so they're not moustache twirlers anymore.

[solrocknroll]

Since I'm not the best player, I'd leave balance issues and new gameplay changes to the pros. However, I'd fire the writing staff on day one and then remove fan service, the avatar and nonsensical armor, remind the writers that including prepubescent boys and girls as fan service is fucking gross and that them being dragons is a poor excuse, stop the whole "everyone can marry everyone" and focus more on the quality of supports rather than the quantity.

I'd also make sure that the excuse for the entire plot being "lolz, crazy dragons/gods or some shit" was left behind forever, and focus more on political turmoil, maybe try to implement a faction/alliance system that could at least flavor text in the story (at the best change endings/open up new paths if we're being ambitious). I'd also humanize the villains so they're not moustache twirlers anymore.

The way you talk makes me think you blame Fates and to a lesser extent Awakening for this.

Dragons/Deities out of nowhere is a series stable. Shadow Dragon did it. Gaiden did it. Mystery did. You'd be hard pressed to find a game without a plot like this.

Other stuff you talk about is way too game of thrones because no one expects political turmoil from the series about a young prince taking the entire world because why not and then dragons out of nowhere. Political turmoil and "human villains" are not for Fire Emblem. Even as far back as Gharnef, villains had flimsy excuses, but people loved it.

[Thane]

The way you talk makes me think you blame Fates and to a lesser extent Awakening for this.

Dragons/Deities out of nowhere is a series stable. Shadow Dragon did it. Gaiden did it. Mystery did. You'd be hard pressed to find a game without a plot like this.

Other stuff you talk about is way too game of thrones because no one expects political turmoil from the series about a young prince taking the entire world because why not and then dragons out of nowhere. Political turmoil and "human villains" are not for Fire Emblem. Even as far back as Gharnef, villains had flimsy excuses, but people loved it.

I criticize it BECAUSE it is a series staple. It removes the human element of conflict and the weight of two opposing factions, and the "let's team up to defeat the ultimate bad guy" is incredibly hard to pull off satisfactorily.

Again, I don't see why you can't suggest a different approach in a thread dedicated to that very hypothetical scenario, especially for a franchise that really doesn't have good writing. I haven't even watched Game of Thrones, so it's hard for me to comment on any similarities.

Nice profile picture, by the way. Have you played the game yet?

[Draxal]

I would love a fire emblem in the style of RoTK/Brigandine/Dragon Force/NA/Gemfire overworld/political system with battle scenes handled with traditional fire emblem gameplay

[Jotari]

The way you talk makes me think you blame Fates and to a lesser extent Awakening for this.

Dragons/Deities out of nowhere is a series stable. Shadow Dragon did it. Gaiden did it. Mystery did. You'd be hard pressed to find a game without a plot like this.

Other stuff you talk about is way too game of thrones because no one expects political turmoil from the series about a young prince taking the entire world because why not and then dragons out of nowhere. Political turmoil and "human villains" are not for Fire Emblem. Even as far back as Gharnef, villains had flimsy excuses, but people loved it.

Holy War is mega political based. And the rest of the games are too to a greater or lesser extent. Even Shadow Dragon still had some politics in it with Michailis and Gra's king. And Gaiden didn't have any dragons Ghoma looks a bit like a drgaon but he's only ever referred to as an evil god. Likewise Radiant Dawn features Dragon but they're far removed from being integral to the plot.

[Ema Skye]

I would make a political focused game drawing heavily on FE4 and FE10. Countries would go to war with each other and changing perspectives would allow for opportunities to flesh out the multiple factions. This is why I like FE10 a lot. The story sucks in terms of execution, but the idea behind it was really strong and reeks of potential. I love how the game isn't afraid to throw your own characters at you and 3-13 is honestly one of my favorite maps in franchise history for this reason alone.

Also I'd bring back a lot of mechanics from SNES FE, because I consider them to be the series highpoints, other than FE10. Rescue, capture, status staves, fog of war and diverse objectives. Maybe 20 caps all around also and the combined magic+res stat depending on the day.

Man, I wish I could figure out rom hacking...

[Alazen]

The way you talk makes me think you blame Fates and to a lesser extent Awakening for this.

Dragons/Deities out of nowhere is a series stable. Shadow Dragon did it. Gaiden did it. Mystery did. You'd be hard pressed to find a game without a plot like this.

Other stuff you talk about is way too game of thrones because no one expects political turmoil from the series about a young prince taking the entire world because why not and then dragons out of nowhere. Political turmoil and "human villains" are not for Fire Emblem. Even as far back as Gharnef, villains had flimsy excuses, but people loved it.

Have you considered whether or not some FE had better integrated ''dragons/deities'' than others? Or did better at keeping the otherworldly element in line with the human?

You bring up Shadow Dragon. Medeus and the other enemy dragonkin didn't come ''out of nowhere'' considering the limitations Kaga worked under. Medeus might be Marth's family enemy, but Gharnef is the man who revives him and keeps with him as an ally instead of a lackey.

Emperor Rigel was the man who figured the gods had to go. He approached Duma for his aid, not the other way around.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Alazen

[Jotari]

Really when it comes to dragons they're nothing but an aesthetic, especially in Fire Emblem where they have a human form. You could replace them with griffons, gods, demons, powerful tomes, or a tank and it'd make absolutely no difference to the story. It just needs to be a being that's part of a race or group of exceptionally powerful individuals. I can see how people can grow tired of the same thing over and over but personally I think dragons are freaking cool and a well established aspect of the series so keep em coming.