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

[eclipse]

Since a bunch of you seem to think that being the head of Intelligence Systems is cool, this topic can stay open for now.

[Locke087]

Well I have them make a console Paper Mario as well and rehire/make head writer whoever wrote the first three Paper Marios, also fire the gameplay director of sticker star

Then I would get to Fire Emblem

First fire the art director rehire the one from the tellius or GBA games

Second fire all their writers and hire good ones that how to write for video games, along side whoever whoever wrote the characters for 7-9

Bring back weight, weapon durability (which also making resources low so there is a actually point to having it) , light magic, magic triangle, and unit balance (i.e. Make everyone useful and relevant to the story).

Then I would make a new advanced wars.

Then I would remake FE 4 and 5,

Then I would remake FE 6

[Enaluxeme]

I would reintroduce dismounting, stop to use avatars and kids in every game and go back to a more european style for the art. Also try to balance the classes.

Oh, and I would remake FE 4 and 5. The difference is that I think IS should do the above, but a remake of FE 4 is better left in the hands of fans IMO.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Enaluxeme

[solrocknroll]

I'd start production on a new Advance Wars instead

I'd probably do away with children, but I like marriage and MUs as it is. MUs have gotten the wonders that are Robin and Corrin in Smash, and I like their personalities a lot. Kris is too much of a self insert for me though.

I'd probably get contract Shu Takumi to help work on the story. He gets convoluted sometimes, but his work is excellent. I'd keep Kozaki for certain, but I'd probably get a better armor design.

Lastly, I'd make the Lord a Bow user, while the MU would have Sword/Staff because I like the combination. I would like the MU to take a little of a backseat though. While I'd allow the MU to marry anyone with quite a few more gay marriage options than Fates (though maybe not everyone because that probably wouldn't mesh with their personalities). However, I would limit everyone else's supports. Maybe two marriages max. Due to no kids, there'd probably be characters who can marry other characters of the same gender. Ex - Severa/Kjelle or Inigo/Owain

[Fire Emblem Fan]

To add on to my previous list, I would also make many games without gay characters and relationships, because the "hur dur every game needz gayz guyz" need to see that not every game needs gay characters and relationships.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Fire Emblem Fan

[solrocknroll]

To add on to my previous list, I would also make many games without gay characters and relationships, because the "hur dur every game needz gayz guyz" need to see that not every game needs gay characters and relationships.

That's insanely hateful but this isn't my place to comment about anything because I'm working on making better posts.

But I will ask this: what about all the people who would like to have something for them. Awakening has every trope in the book: cute clumsy girl, tsundere, yandere, dashing prince, sheltered man trying to make women safe by avoiding them. Your personal feelings seem to not really take anyone but yourself into account. Especially with that quote. Seems to fall under ad hominem by using poor grammar.

[-Cynthia-]

As head of Intelligent Systems, I'd probably be inclined to keep many aspects of the series the same since how the games are selling would become significantly more important to me.

I'll add that most games don't have gay characters and relationships.

Edited January 6, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[IceBrand]

I would create a crossover series with Advance Wars. This way my dream of having Marth riding on top of a tank with no pants will come true.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

Seems to fall under ad hominem by using poor grammar.

Any hope for an actual reply from me you may have had can be forgotten because of this. Don't talk about others being insanely hateful and then throw in things like that.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Fire Emblem Fan

[solrocknroll]

Any hope for an actual reply from me you may have had can be forgotten because of this. Don't talk about others being insanely hateful and then throw in things like that.

Talking about the "hur dur every game needs gayz guyz" portion, which I specified by pointing out that quote. Not a fallacy expert, but generalizing the opposition is ad hominem iirc.

Your grammar is fine. The portion is quotes however is not. That is the issue here.

[angienessyo]

To add on to my previous list, I would also make many games without gay characters and relationships, because the "hur dur every game needz gayz guyz" need to see that not every game needs gay characters and relationships.

You'll be happy to see I have a list of games without gay characters http://pastebin.com/EuxZMbWTvs the games that have them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_characters_in_video_games you also have every Fire Emblem that isn't RD or Fates that didn't have any LGBT characters. I don't think us LGBT people are crazy for wanting a few gay characters out of the tons of games released every year.

[eclipse]

Two things:

1. The formatting on your post went weird.

2. I see a list of every video game ever? Is that the correct list?

[angienessyo]

Yeah, I couldn't figure out what went wrong with the formatting even after going in and trying to edit it haha and yes, it's a list of every game ever. To be fair a handful on the list do have LGBT characters, but my point was that almost every game ever made doesn't. So it's not really asking much for a few extra gay characters here and there.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

LISA's on there right? cause the LISA series totally has some.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

The reason for my post is I see many people saying that FE needs to have a gay character and relationships in every future game or it won't be a great game. This is ridiculous, it's ludicrous. Not every game needs to push a gay agenda, not every game needs gay characters and relationships, it's not going to make it a bad game.

[solrocknroll]

The reason for my post is I see many people saying that FE needs to have a gay character and relationships in every future game or it won't be a great game. This is ridiculous, it's ludicrous. Not every game needs to push a gay agenda, not every game needs gay characters and relationships, it's not going to make it a bad game.

Ok

Just know that using terms like "pushing the gay agenda" really makes you seem hateful and intolerant.

And if they're options like Shara and Zero, how does it affect you in any way? Let people have their options since you already have yours.

[spoiler=Child spoiler]I mean, they're already sacrificing child units. One's they'd probably love to father/mother: Kanna and Eponiné

Above all, I think you should know that this mindset won't work in the world today. People are finding themselves and who they really are, yet other people want to hold them down. Think from their perspective, not the heterosexual male perspective.

[Tolvir]

The reason for my post is I see many people saying that FE needs to have a gay character and relationships in every future game or it won't be a great game. This is ridiculous, it's ludicrous. Not every game needs to push a gay agenda, not every game needs gay characters and relationships, it's not going to make it a bad game.

I understand what you are saying, but a few characters really isn't hurting anything. They are 2 characters, and they aren't in your face with LOOK AT ME, I'M A HOMOSEXUAL, and they aren't pushing you to S support them either. My problem will come in if they make it to where everyone is essentially bi, where you can S support someone regardless of gender. At that point it goes too far, and just wouldn't make any sense. Mass Effect I think did it perfectly. There were 2 bi, 1 gay character. None of them were shoved in your face as gay, and where a completely optional choice, just like all the other options in the game.

Anyway, can we move back on topic?

[Dunal]

Disable doubling on enemy phase.

Suddenly, player phase more important. Archers better. Slower classes better. Speed is less important.

People complain about things like Pair up, unit balance, other mechanics etc... But speed and the concept of doubling is truly the most broken thing to have existed in FE that everyone just seems to accept.

And no, it shouldn't RNG either like FE4.

Either that or doubling just does 50% damage on the second hit. Then give Myrmidons/Pegs a skill that negates that or something.

Thing is, a lot of people will argue against this just because the concept of doubling is SO integrated in Fire Emblem as it stands. Most people don't know any different.

This would also make STR less important too since you would not gain 2 points of damage for each point of STR in every instance.

What I also would do is vastly inflate HP numbers but reduce DEF/RES across the board. This also makes STR/DEF less important and makes staves more sustained healing. As well as removing tinking (zero or low-digit damage values). This makes durability across your team far tighter/similar.

This would also benefit unit balance in a huge way since high core stats will no longer be a requirement to be good. High SPD? Great, you have some nice avoid but your offense won't always benefit from it. Huge STR? Cool, but since damage values are high by default, it's merely a nice bonus on top of weapon MT. High DEF? Good to have, but it's not going to make you invincible.

Thus, the value of these stats come closer to SKL/LCK etc... As in, benefiting the unit but not being essential past a certain threshold.

Edited January 7, 2016 by DLuna

[BrightBow]

For one thing, getting the writer more involved in the actual game making process. They shouldn't use a script like a mere asset, as if it was a model or texture. The people who actually thought up the story should have a voice about what parts of their draft is important and how it should be expressed in the game.

And honestly, Fire Emblem just plain creeps me out these days. Who wrote the RobinxTharja support and thought that a rape fantasy fits into a game that is supposed to be about comrade and friendship and treats these subject with the maturity level of My Little Pony? Who thought that having the player avatar casually burn thousands of people to death with no story significance other then to have yet another excuse to kiss the Avatar's ass wouldn't be horrifying to at least some people? And the KamuixSolei support is probably the worst of the bunch simply because of the sheer quantity of things that I would have expected are meant to be there to make me dislike Kamui if I didn't know any better by now. It's baffling how Kamui just doesn't stop at some point and just keeps revealing new disturbing facets of his character throughout the whole thing.

How ridiculous is this kind of anti-sexuality attitude of Kamui anyway in a game that is designed in such a juvenile fashion that you have a girl hit on her own mother? I mean, this stuff isn't limited to the art direction and My Room.

Also, wanting to have sex all the time but still wanting to fuck a virgin on their wedding night is one thing, but do they have to be so hypocritical that a woman who doesn't care about being a virgin is not just inadequate to be their wife but also isn't "treasuring herself"? And why would these people be so confident that the audience universally shares these values, that they would insert them into the mouth of the freaking player avatar?

These are all things that I just can't comprehend. I mean, having one weirdo wouldn't be any special but multiple people must have approved of these things.

So yeah, there would be quite a bit of company restructuring going on in order to create a game that is perfectly willing to cross lines but at least it would do it on purpose and on the assumption that the audience actually cares and won't just ignore everything that they personally can't jerk off to.

Beyond that, it's hard to say. I am a pragmatist so I would be perfectly willing to make all kinds of concessions in order to make sure that the franchise stays profitable.

With that said, if that attitude means that there would need to be something like a impregnable child character or incest, the implications of these things would be actually explored. Necessities would be turned into opportunities whenever possible.

Edited January 7, 2016 by BrightBow

[Fire Emblem Fan]

Ok

Just know that using terms like "pushing the gay agenda" really makes you seem hateful and intolerant.

And if they're options like Shara and Zero, how does it affect you in any way? Let people have their options since you already have yours.

[spoiler=Child spoiler]I mean, they're already sacrificing child units. One's they'd probably love to father/mother: Kanna and Eponiné

Above all, I think you should know that this mindset won't work in the world today. People are finding themselves and who they really are, yet other people want to hold them down. Think from their perspective, not the heterosexual male perspective.

Stop replying to me about this. I already told you I'm not replying to your arguments. You don't get to talk to me about being "intolerant" and "hateful" with the way you've treated me and others in other topics, you've been nothing but hateful and intolerant. If you're really trying to turn your posts around, then congratulations and good for you, I encourage you to keep it up and hope you really do turn it around. Until I see more of that though, don't talk down to me about being hateful and intolerant.

Moving back to the topic. Another thing I'd do is encourage more villains besides dragons and people obsessed/possessed by dragons. You have Gharnef and Medeus. You have Manfroy, Julius and Loptry. Zephiel, Jahn and Idoun, Nergal and the fire dragons, Validar and Grima,

and from what I hear, Fates has dragon-centric villains as well.

The Sacred Stones, Gaiden, and the Tellius games are the only ones that aren't centered around dragons (Thracia as well, but that's a midquel of a game that is centered on dragons, so I'm not sure if I'd count it). I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more dragon-centric villains, I think there should be! It's ingrained in the DNA of the series. But I'd like to see more villains like Fomortiis and Ashnard.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Fire Emblem Fan

[Gradivus.]

FE12 has

Suddenly, player phase more important. Archers better. Slower classes better. Speed is less important.

without

Disable doubling on enemy phase.

More or less all broken characters have the trait of doubling easily on EP, but they wouldn't be nearly as broken if they wouldn't have the same kind of def, str, HP and/or weapons. In games where doubling seems to be universally easy and thus broken, the enemy stats (and maps, depending on the context) just tend to be poorly designed more than doubling posing the direct issue. It's difficult to find a happy medium, but I don't buy removing doubling on EP being closer to an ideal solution and I don't buy the type of "balance" you're proposing being necessarily positive since from my experience most people find the current doubling system fun as is.

Maybe I could agree with FE5-style skills (probably just allow them to be assigned like in RD, but nothing like %based skills) getting reintroduced and there would be one that negates doubling altogether, and maybe some bosses or special enemies would receive it.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Gradivus.

[Dunal]

In the case of FE12, that's only really because enemies are so strong (compared to pretty much any other FE) to the point where even your fastest units can often have problems doubling.

Enemies being stronger/more aggressive also makes player phase matter in of itself.

However, my suggestions certainly help balance when the game isn't extremely difficult or scaled up to massive levels.

The whole purpose of doubling is well, doubling your damage with very lenient requirements. For most other RPGs/games that concept is pretty absurd. And for the most part if a unit cannot double they are straight up mediocre or bad.

The "fun" argument is questionable since FE has rarely been any different. Who's to say that without the current system of 'doubling' it would be any less fun? Simple replace it with more interesting but balanced mechanics. A balanced pair up system (that Fates have certainly made an effort towards) is far more interesting (technically, fate's pair up system IS doubling when not combined as a unit).

Doubling as a concept is fine but not with the current requirements that are set. If Mrymidons/Pegs/Low magic magi etc.. have a skill that lets them double then that's cool, so long as their other stats are balanced accordingly.

But the whole concept of "unit borderline doubling/not doubling" is completely broken. A unit suddenly doubling their possibly huge base damage because of a single random level up? It's silly. A Speedwing/random level up can literally make a unit go from bad to even great? I'm not really behind that.

Granted, the GBA weight system, when balanced appropriately, does help this to some extent. And FE Fates have certainly made some kind of effort with their weapon balancing. Javelins/Handaxes not being able to double for instance is a great idea.

Edited January 7, 2016 by DLuna

[Tolvir]

I kind of liked the way Fire Emblem POR and Radiant Dawn felt, at least for me. The units often doubled, but I wasn't always going to kill them from this. The units had more defense, more hit points, damage was a bit lower, etc. It was actually a challenge, and unlike Awakening, I actually payed attention to the weapon triangle, and units weaknesses. Awakening was so easy with the high damage numbers and pairing up that I stopped using it, and have done 2 playthroughs now of no pairing up.

I think something that might make the archers and knights more useful are more indoor/defense levels. Awakening had very few indoor areas, where Knights and archers can do great. The 4th chapter in part 4 of Radiant Dawn is one of my favorite chapters because of the map design. defend maps were fun to because they took preparation and planning in order to do it successfully, and once again knights were great with this too.

[Dunal]

I kind of liked the way Fire Emblem POR and Radiant Dawn felt, at least for me. The units often doubled, but I wasn't always going to kill them from this. The units had more defense, more hit points, damage was a bit lower, etc

That... Doesn't change the fact that doubling is still double damage though. Surely with that logic then if you are not doubling then you are even more terrible? It really doesn't make any difference whatsoever as to whether doubling will or will not kill. Or if survival rate is high. The point is the difference between doubling and not doubling. If fact, if it's the norm to double, doesn't that make the issue even worse for the cases where your units do not double? If anything, doubling needs to be an outlier, not the norm.

Besides if the game is balanced around doubling all of the time anyway then what'sthe point? Aside from a chance to do 50% damage from missing one hit I suppose?

Those games aren't typically good examples anyway since as a Mage especially, if you weren't doubling you were not good, with some exceptions like Thani or effective damage.

Then you have units like Edward who is utter pants if he fails to arbitrarily gain speed in the early chapters since he actually stops doubling. Or units like Sigrun who's entire concept is "Is a decent unit... until she stops doubling -- then she's terrible). Both of those examples are the reverse, they can and will halve their damage for a silly reason. Sure, it can be satisfying see your units start doubling their damage output. The reserve situation is just terrible. But neither is healthy for the game.

It does help if enemy speed greatly varies though. However, Radiant Dawn is a terrible example for that as well since all enemies have very similar speed. Which means that if one of your units can double one thing, chances are they can double almost everything. This also means that your units who cannot double an enemy won't typically double anything else, so their usefulness is limited compared to other units.

Meanwhile, if enemy speed varies a lot, at least the thresholds of speed that your own units have is far less extreme, thus making the system more balanced as a result. Most FE games have slow enemies anyway as a whole, so most of your units will end up in the position to double everything anyway.

Edited January 7, 2016 by DLuna

[Gradivus.]

The "fun" argument is questionable since FE has rarely been any different. Who's to say that without the current system of 'doubling' it would be any less fun?

It's pretty subjective, but I think my argument stated what the majority thinks (someone correct me if that's not the case). From my personal point of view, FE4 is pretty damn unfun because being unable to double with some units is just super lame and reduced my enjoyment of the game a ton (to the tune of tedium quitting at chapter 1, although there are some more reasons). Putting that aside, I just think that people don't only like doubling because they're used to it, and equally mainly because their experiences tell them that it's a wholly acceptable feature that doesn't break the game unless it's easy one or the other way, part of the rationale being "why fix what isn't broken?".

Your idea of nerfing EP combat might help in some games if we'd just leave the map/stat designs as is, but it would be likely to have a variety of flaws in its execution, among others it wouldn't be unlikely to induce illusionary difficulty and artificial PP-centricness, which leads to more tedium than tension in the case of games with high enemy density, whereas those with low/mid density high quality enemies often achieve the right sort of PP emphasis with or without your system (in other words, the flaws to it would outweigh its advantages).

The whole purpose of doubling is well, doubling your damage with very lenient requirements.

Yeah except like, the doubling of the damage has proven not to be detrimental to the quality of difficult FE games.

For most other RPGs/games that concept is pretty absurd.

Other games don't allow for fair comparisons because they mostly work differently in many ways, don't throw them into the argument.

A Speedwing/random level up can literally make a unit go from bad to even great?

It can't really, outside of highly EP-centric games where the difference between doubling and not doubling every single mook in the vicinity is everything. In more PP-focused ones, units with high atk that don't double consistently (think Zeiss, Athos, Jagen, Gotoh, FE12!Arran, Sirius in a lance-using class, among many others) tend to be decent to good, and decent/good->great using a relatively rare resource isn't particularly silly. Unless the game typically is centered around curbstomping through the battlefield with very few units (which should be aimed against anyway), one great unit doesn't mean the game gets easy, and even then you definitely need high attack and defense in addition to speed to achieve OP status (or actually, this depends on the game and the mode, but it's mostly true for the higher difficulties).

In the case of FE12, that's only really because enemies are so strong (compared to pretty much any other FE) to the point where even your fastest units can often have problems doubling.

Enemies being stronger/more aggressive also makes player phase matter in of itself.

This is a good thing. Enemies don't have to be FE12 strong in every FE hard mode, but can still be designed such that you'll have difficulties ORKOing them and to encourage you to utilize both the PP and EP well. The core idea behind FE12's design choices would probably still have potential to do well for that purpose in future FEs.

I don't really care a lot to invalidate the system you're suggesting, I just don't think I can warrant saying yes to it because I prefer other alternatives and find it fine without any changes. I also highly disagree that a system like pursuit in FE4 would be a remotely good idea for subjective "blegh not fun" reasons.

That... Doesn't change the fact that doubling is still double damage though. Surely with that logic then if you are not doubling then you are even more terrible? It really doesn't make any difference whatsoever as to whether doubling will or will not kill. Or if survival rate is high. The point is the difference between doubling and not doubling. If fact, if it's the norm to double, doesn't that make the issue even worse for the cases where your units do not double? If anything, doubling needs to be an outlier, not the norm.

Besides if the game is balanced around doubling all of the time anyway then what'sthe point? Aside from a chance to do 50% damage from missing one hit I suppose?

Those games aren't typically good examples anyway since as a Mage especially, if you weren't doubling you were not good, with some exceptions like Thani or effective damage.

Then you have units like Edward who is utter pants if he fails to arbitrarily gain speed in the early chapters since he actually stops doubling. Or units like Sigrun who's entire concept is "Is a decent unit... until she stops doubling -- then she's terrible). Both of those examples are the reverse, they can and will halve their damage for a silly reason. Sure, it can be satisfying see your units start doubling their damage output. The reserve situation is just terrible. But neither is healthy for the game.

EDIT: I wouldn't really base any examples on RD, it has pretty poorly designed stats and didn't implement the concept of doubling particularly well. If doubling is the norm then the game/mode tends to be easy (although even that is subjective and varies between players - there are players that feel challenged by stuff like FE11 H3 or FE12 H1 which are generally intermediate at best) , that much is true, but it simply isn't always the norm. That's happens to be a discrepancy between FE games, but it can't really be rejected just because "FE12 stands out for being hard anyway".

Edited January 7, 2016 by Gradivus.