The Marth games...

[GrySun]

So, I've played through nearly all of the Fire Emblem games now. I went in no particular order, and just went with what I felt like. This interestingly enough had me play everything but the Marth games, which there are 4 of I believe. 1,3,11 and 12.

So my question is, how should I go about playing them? From what I know, 1 is included in 3, and they're remade as 11 and 12. So should I skip 1 and 3 and go with 11 and 12? Or skip 1, 11 and 12 and go with 3? But then again, even if it's a remake it is probably different in many aspects, such as mechanics, maps, text, growths etc. so maybe play them all? Which way should I play them to get the best and most fulfilling Akaneia experience?

[Phantom037]

The general consensus is 11>1 and 3>12. 3 is a partial remake of 1, but it's stripped a few characters and maps because of the system limits at the time. I'd say play 11, 3, and 12, preferably in that order. 1 is pretty archaic and outclassed by 11, so it's the only one I'd consider skipping.

[secondworld]

I'd hardly say that 3>12 is the general consensus. It's story has gotten a lot of flak as time has gone by but I feel confident saying that most people consider it better than FE3.

As for the topic, Shadow Dragon is the best version of the original game and is ultimately very similar to it(to a fault by many). Don't bother with FE1 unless you just really want to see where the series started. FE3 book 1 is completely obsolete.

[maybe]

The general consensus is 11>1 and 3>12. 3 is a partial remake of 1, but it's stripped a few characters and maps because of the system limits at the time. I'd say play 11, 3, and 12, preferably in that order. 1 is pretty archaic and outclassed by 11, so it's the only one I'd consider skipping.

I wouldn't quite call 3>12 the "general consensus". There are plenty of people who prefer 3 to 12, but that's mainly just because people hate Chris (myself included, although I have a few other reasons). There's probably just as many, if not more people who prefer 12.

I recommend playing 11 to start with, since it's a great remake of 1. 1 doesn't have much worth going back to so you might as well skip it. 3 also has a remake of 1 but it has plenty of cut content and is generally not worth playing over 11.

12 is better than 3 in most ways, but I can also recommend going back to 3 since 12... changes a lot, narratively. If you can stand 3's rather archaic and slow gameplay (it's not that bad, just slow), then I recommend going with that before 12. If you find it boring and bad and not fun, just play 12 anyway because 12 is significantly more fun, despite having numerous issues in writing.

[Robert Stewart]

The general consensus is 11>1 and 3>12. 3 is a partial remake of 1, but it's stripped a few characters and maps because of the system limits at the time.

I don't see how we can know if this is the case. And the cut content isn't a big deal anyhow.

I love FE3, but I can't deny the interface is quite clunky even compared to its immediate successors.

IMO all versions of the Akaneia games have things to make them worth playing. FE11 and 12 have better interfaces, but FE3 has stuff like dismounting and the Star Shards, and everything about FE1 is broken which can be fun(or so I've heard I've not actually played it myself).

also, if you play FE11 you should totally use that Gaidens patch that one guy made HINT HINT

[Jedi]

FE 3 and 12 are both good in their own ways.

3 has alot of fun broken stuff to mess with and just flows well, 12 is really fun and has an actually challenging lunatic mode while not being BS.

[maybe]

everything about FE1 is broken which can be fun(or so I've heard I've not actually played it myself).

it's broken but not really in a fun way

it's slow and dull and there's no way to fix that

well you can fast forward an emulator but still not very fun

Edited November 18, 2015 by maybe

[Baldrick]

You should play them all. But if you were to play only one:

In terms of interface, the DS games are better.

In terms of plot, FE12 is better if you liked Robin, FE3 is better otherwise. In general, the DS games have more elaborate translations.

In terms of gameplay, the DS games have forging and reclassing, FE3 has better class balance and Star Shards which work like scrolls in Thracia. If you want a challenge, play the DS games. If you want to mess around, play the earlier games.

[Dandragon]

why the heck do people think 3 is better than 12 i still dont get this

[maybe]

why the heck do people think 3 is better than 12 i still dont get this

because chris is annoying and dumb

[Shadow Mir]

I'd skip 1 if I were you, and possibly pass over 11 as well for being much too similar. 3 does have both parts of Marth's saga in one game. so there's that.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Levant Colthearts

[Knight Falchion]

Play the DS games first and if they really bother you for whatever reason(like Kris and the assassin gaidens do for some people), try out 3 since it's still pretty fun if a bit dated in terms of UI. So nothing new had been said.

[Gradivus.]

I'd skip 1 if I were you

Because it's like, outclassed by its other versions right?

pass over 11 as well for being much too similar

Because the "same experience" can be obtained by playing its original version that you recommended against right?

and because you have the same UI, same mechanics and same gameplay (difficulty, for example) with FE3B1 right?

Maybe you should stop spreading your double standards, lol. I doubt they're taken seriously anyway by anyone except people who specifically dislike FE11.

FE3 has better class balance and Star Shards which work like scrolls in Thracia.

I want to note that FE12 also puts a lot of value into various classes, so it's probably more about unit balance, and I agree it isn't one of FE12's strengths.

Anyway FE12 > FE3 because the latter has a pretty bad UI from what I can judge (e.g. clunky, has untransparent battle previews) and while I can't really say if FE3B2 is challenging (I'm not that far into FE3 yet), I can assure you that one of FE12's modes will be on par with it, I'll bet normal mode. If you care about completion I won't advise you to pass it up, though.

Play FE12 after FE11 because it's the sequel and you may care about the story. It's also interesting to see how differently these two games went about remaking an old FE (FE12 added more extra content, whereas FE11 is very faithful to its original but still improved various things, as listed above).

Edited November 18, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Shadow Mir]

Because it's like, outclassed by its other versions right?

Because the "same experience" can be obtained by playing its original version that you recommended against right?

and because you have the same UI, same mechanics and same gameplay (difficulty, for example) with FE3B1 right?

Maybe you should stop spreading your double standards, lol. I doubt they're taken seriously anyway by anyone except people who specifically dislike FE11.

Exactly.

As to Shadow Dragon, I personally have expectations for a remake, especially if it's a remake of a game that's nearly 20 years old (relative to the release date of the game it's a remake of). I felt Shadow Dragon failed to live up to those in a big way, which is part of why I can't recommend it (the other part of it being that I consider it one of the worst games I've ever played). That being said, I agree that FE3B1 and SD are fundamentally different.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Levant Colthearts

[Gradivus.]

It still is a double standard and you ignored that point.

"FE1 is dated because FE3B1 and FE11 exist."

"FE11 isn't good because it did exactly what FE3B1 and FE1 did."

That's exactly what you implied and the latter is not true, since FE11 much improved the aspects I listed out. You're just not willing to accept it because it "failed to live up to your expectations" although by some at least slightly objective standards, FE3B1 and FE1 fail to be better than FE11 on the whole.

You may dislike FE11, but what in your view justifies FE3B1 being the better game in general, except for the fact that you're looking for excuses not to recommend FE11?

I felt Shadow Dragon failed to live up to those in a big way, which is part of why I can't recommend it (the other part of it being that I consider it one of the worst games I've ever played)

So yeah, if I'm wrong in assuming it's "nothing" correct me with something beyond "I don't feel like recommending SD"

Edited November 18, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Shadow Mir]

It still is a double standard and you ignored that point.

"FE1 is dated because FE3B1 and FE11 exist."

"FE11 isn't good because it did exactly what FE3B1 and FE1 did."

That's exactly what you implied and the latter is not true, since FE11 much improved the aspects I listed out. You're just not willing to accept it because it "failed to live up to your expectations" although by some at least slightly objective standards, FE3B1 and FE1 fail to be better than FE11 on the whole.

You may dislike FE11, but what in your view justifies FE3B1 being the better game in general, except for the fact that you're looking for excuses not to recommend FE11?

I'll bet that you implied "nothing" by saying this:

So yeah, if I'm wrong correct me with something beyond "I don't feel like recommending SD"

The changes to some maps, for starters (See: The Knorda Market map). Second, it just feels more balanced than SD did. Third, the story flows more smoothly imho.

As to the last part of your post, it's not that I don't feel like recommending SD - it's that I CAN'T. I'd see it as weird if someone who hated a certain game (like you do with RD) turned around and recommended the game they hated.

[Gradivus.]

As to the last part of your post, it's not that I don't feel like recommending SD - it's that I CAN'T

These are roughly equal in meaning, it's a slight difference I guess but the effect stays the same outside of the technicality that it is "possible" for me to recommend that game I dislike.

"I (strongly) don't feel like recommending it" = "(my personal experience tells me) I can't recommend it"

Anyway,

The changes to some maps, for starters (See: The Knorda Market map). Second, it just feels more balanced than SD did. Third, the story flows more smoothly imho.

Bolded: a very minor reason - I can make the counter argument that FE11 didn't arbitrarily cut out maps. I probably agree that the change to the Knorda map is for the better, though.

Italics: balance is a very iffy term in FE because there are multiple types of balance. FE3 may be more balanced in terms of unit usability, but falls flat in the comparison of player-enemy stat balance.

Underlined: subjective and, since we can generally expect a player to focus on gameplay more than on story, a minor point. Plus, SD's writing, while not covering the majority of the cast thoroughly, is commonly agreed to be good, so I would view it as a point in its favor.

You're listing out why you prefer it (the reasons for which are valid), but ultimately this doesn't render it better as a whole product. FE3 has so many downsides to it but I probably might aswell stop arguing about it since we've established that your reasons are personal and I needn't interfere with that any longer. Anyway, @OP I think it's obvious that SD is worth playing if FE3B1 is.

I guess I said in that one thread "RD isn't worth playing" and objectively that's probably not quite true since one can play part of it and judge on their own, so I'll concede that part. I would maintain that it isn't worth buying though.

EDIT: I also maintain that in a comparison with most other games, I would still choose not to recommend RD, but if the reasons for this are personal is a different matter that would derail the topic if determined here.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Katie]

I'd play 3, 11, and 12. All are different enough to be worth experiencing.