What makes good and bad map designs in Fire Emblem?

[IceBrand]

I'm curious. Is it the freedom to allow you to tackle the map in any shape and form? Is it a clear cut path on what you should do and how to do it?

[MCProductions]

If a level's fun, I consider it good map design.

For example, my favorite map in the series actually comes from a game that is often rightfully so criticized for it's poor map design. Severa's paralouge in Awakening. I love that map to death, because of how much fun I have with it, along with it actually being a challenge.

Poor level design, I feel is when the level stops being fun for various reasons, like this for example

[Shadow Mir]

Poor map design, as I see it, is usually one of three things: being overly large, terrain abuse or gimmick abuse.

[Nobody]

I saw this video and I agree with what the guy says

From a gameplay point of view, I think a good map should be one in which in order to win you need strategical thinking and good positioning. A map in which all you need in order to win is to put a overpowered unit in the middle of it isn't good. I'd say chokepoints and tiles that can be used for your advantage also contribute in making a map good.

[Duff Ostrich]

False Friends, and its equivalent in Binding Blade, is a good map. It puts multiple points of pressure on the player. You're tasked with moving west while high move reinforcements eventually come from the east. Pirates spawn from the southeast and brigands (iirc) come from the northwest. Either version of the map has multiple villages to visit and allies to recruit. Maintaining a defensible position while continually progressing forward and fulfilling the objectives can be challenging for inexperienced players, and specifically it proves to be a considerable step up in challenge from previous chapters. In my view it serves as an example of a large, wide open map that is not at all tedious.

This is easily contrasted with, for instance, all of the haphazard empty spaces that the player is subjected to in Gaiden. The Book 2 example offered by MCProductions is likewise terrible, and on that note I have several bones to pick with Holy War's deserts.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[Cyas]

In my opinion, a map being fun to play is reason enough to consider it well designed.

There are many factors that can make a map entertaining:

Clever enemy/terrain positioning, a turn limit (Thieves/Bandits going for loot/Villages, Citizens that need to be protected etc.), different approach options, enough enemies to avoid turns that solely consist out of moving, a reasonable map size, a gimmick (as long as its not overused and adds something to the gameplay), action in the whole map and not just at one place at a time etc. Reinforcements can make a map more enjoyable too but only if used correctly.

Bad maps have very few, none or sometimes even the opposites of the traits listed above.

[Solkia]

I think balanced units are more important than the actual map

Doesn't matter how well designed the map is if I can just put a few units in the middle of an army and come out barely scathed

[Erdall]

I saw this video and I agree with what the guy says

Precious video, gonna add it in my library of videogaming knowledge.

Arigato!

Edited January 16, 2016 by Erdall

[Knight]

Maps with multiple paths and objectives (having chests, villages, multiple bosses, etc. are always fun. Part of the reason I don't like FE4's gameplay that much is because many parts have you pushing your units from point A to point B on a straight road to the next castle. At least sometimes they make it interesting like having to escort Dew around, and I guess there are individual chapters in some other games that are much worse.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Knight

[Shadow Mir]

Poor level design, I feel is when the level stops being fun for various reasons, like this for example

I'd agree that it's a pretty poorly designed map, but "dullest chapter in Fire Emblem history" is exaggerating imho.

Anyways, I'd also say a gimmick, depending on what it is, can take an otherwise okay map and make it a poorly designed one (Night of Farewells in FE7 and 14x in FE6 can go straight to hell without passing Go).

Edited January 16, 2016 by Levant Colthearts

[OakTree]

It has to be Demanding, Intuitive and Rewarding. If a map can be all three of those, it's a good map.

EDIT: Here's a good Reddit post about it.

Edited January 16, 2016 by OakTree

[Gradivus.]

I'd agree that it's a pretty poorly designed map, but "dullest chapter in Fire Emblem history" is exaggerating imho.

What's your point then? If the statement isn't far from the truth, the subjective judgement that it's an exaggeration doesn't make it less valid.

Anyway for me good map design includes:

- multiple ways to approach it

- no repetitive and/or long enemy phases

- challenging side objectives

- focus on positioning

- the right length and pace (i.e. stuff like FE4-long is arguably too long, enemies that take too long to kill can make a map feel tedious and repetitive, such as the auras in FE10 final)

- no reliance on unintuitive components

Edited January 16, 2016 by Gradivus.

[Shadow Mir]

What's your point then? If the statement isn't far from the truth, the subjective judgement that it's an exaggeration doesn't make it less valid.

It may not be far from the truth, but I wouldn't consider it the absolute dullest map in FE history when crap like FE4 chapters 2 and 7 exist.

[Gradivus.]

Why is anyone supposed to care, though? That's what I meant by asking what your point is, in case you didn't get that. I didn't have a lot of trouble understanding the comment itself.

The difference between "the dullest" and "almost the dullest" is so small that almost nobody is going to find it important. You don't need to try to make it look notable just to defend a game you're more biased towards or whatever your goal is with the nitpicks you generally make. Plus, imho is not a convincing argument.

If you want to say "it's not very dull" then that's a different story, but you don't appear to mean that. Even then, though, attempting to correct the title of an example video doesn't really contribute to the topic.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Gradivus.

[Jotari]

Multiple objectives is always nice. I think its bad if you can just sit at the starting point and turtle (unless it's specifically a defense map and even then there should be a boss to kill or a chest to reach). The map needs to give you some reason to press forward and achieve something more than just coming out on the other end with all your units in tact.

[Alastor15243]

The map that personally annoys me the most of the ones I've seen is probably chapter 3 from 3 and 12. It's absolutely terribly designed, and I can imagine before the days of save states and the save tiles in 12 it was the single most annoying level in existence. You have to pointlessly run around the map, which is rather large and worse still in a spiral formation, with few to no enemies in your way, only to face all the enemies collected in the middle, who intentionally avoid moving until you get deeper into their range. Basically it's a bunch of trial and error with pointless map navigation separating every attempt if you don't save scum.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Alastor15243

[solrocknroll]

What's your point then? If the statement isn't far from the truth, the subjective judgement that it's an exaggeration doesn't make it less valid.

Anyway for me good map design includes:

- multiple ways to approach it

- no repetitive and/or long enemy phases

- challenging side objectives

- focus on positioning

- the right length and pace (i.e. stuff like FE4-long is arguably too long, enemies that take too long to kill can make a map feel tedious and repetitive, such as the auras in FE10 final)

- no reliance on unintuitive components

Maybe I'm just good at RD, but I've never had difficulty with the Auras. I actually find them fun to strike down with Nihil/Parity and such. I can probably do 4-E-5 in like 3 turns with proper planning and attacking with the right type of attack, physical or magical, based on if they're on Cover or Wardwood.

[Gradivus.]

I don't find them particularly hard, just repetitive. Ashera's unpredictable attacks along with the Aurora skills do encourage overly careful play (instead of blitzing through) to an extent, which contributed to me finding it tedious, though.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Gradivus.

[Jotari]

Still better than a final boss your party can crowd around and 1 shot.

[Michelaar]

If the maps are TOO big and there are not enough Enemies!

[Tolvir]

I found the indoor maps to be my favorites. Especially in the Tellius series. The layout, the multiple levels, chests, etc. I think a lot of indoor maps have the best designs for a good map because they aren't too big, they have things to work towards other than the main objective like chests, or even prisoners and optional objectives. They have good enemy layout that actually requires me to think about what I am doing, and the reinforcements are difficult, but not annoying. My favorite of the indoor maps being chapter 4-4 in Radiant Dawn. In my opinion it had everything that made a good map. I had to be careful even with units like Ike and Nailah (I think thats how it is spelled) because there were the priests with sleep staves, and a good bit of units that could pose a threat. The reinforcements were fun to deal with, and overall it was one of the best maps in the game (In my opinion).

On the other hand I think Awakening had some really bad map designs like the last fight with Gangrel. It was too big, reinforcements were nothing but an annoyance, the chests made no sense for being there, and the actual fight with gangrel was easy. I think overall most outside maps fall short because they don't have a good layout, and are just too open. Most of the time in an open map I don't come up with a strategy, I just kill whatever approaches.

Overall I think a good map needs to be a medium size, a nice layout that requires splitting up units, or requires you to think about placement, good enemy placement, and optional objectives other than defeat end boss or route. A difficult boss is nice too. A bad map has too many enemies to where it just becomes a grind, too wide open, reinforcements are only an annoyance, and the end boss is just lackluster.

[Gradivus.]

Still better than a final boss your party can crowd around and 1 shot.

I mean yeah stuff like FE5-7's final bosses are pathetic, but they can be excused over the maps they're in, I find 4-E-5 very unintuitive and as said, repetitive, so I'd rank FE5's and FE7's final maps above FE10's despite the bosses being easily killed. Let alone the final chapters that don't have weak bosses.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Gradivus.

[X-Naut]

My criteria:

1. The gameplay and map should suit the situation. This is by far the most important, and while the other criteria can be flexible they should be bent with this in mind. If you're under heavy siege and can blitzkrieg it, then they're doing it wrong.

2. The map should encourage you to complete all objectives and side objectives with proper effort.

3. Map size and length needs to be appropriate for both the setting and point in the game. Avoid overly large maps in the earlygame, but be careful with maps that are too small in the lategame. Being able to move your army effectively is also a concern.

4. Ideally, there should not be any simple cheese tactics. Granted this is limited by the RNG and enemy AI, but try to avoid glaring loopholes that make it all fall apart.

5. Elements of randomness or map events should not create instant-death scenarios or drag out the map for several turns.

[Dunal]

I mean yeah stuff like FE5-7's final bosses are pathetic, but they can be excused over the maps they're in, I find 4-E-5 very unintuitive and as said, repetitive, so I'd rank FE5's and FE7's final maps above FE10's despite the bosses being easily killed. Let alone the final chapters that don't have weak bosses.

Only reason it could be considered unintuitive/repetitive IMO is because aside from Ashera herself there is no real threat to be aware of, so slowly taking down the auras doesn't feel very rewarding and there's little urgency in doing so. But the actual Aura mechanic itself is fine.

I've tried making the spirits that spawn a large threat + plus hard to kill but removed their ridiculous movement. As well as Ashera's actions/threat being affected by aura count. So there's a big sense of urgency in progressing the battle because otherwise you'll likely lose. With that fixed, it's a good map.

So it's not a matter of map design in a literal sense. In fact, the huge terrain bonuses on RD's endgame maps are really cool after some tuning.

But then, this is an execution vs. concept debate depending on what you're referring to.

Edited January 24, 2016 by DLuna

[Jotari]

Only reason it could be considered unintuitive/repetitive IMO is because aside from Ashera herself there is no real threat to be aware of, so slowly taking down the auras doesn't feel very rewarding and there's little urgency in doing so. But the actual Aura mechanic itself is fine.

I've tried making the spirits that spawn a large threat + plus hard to kill but removed their ridiculous movement. As well as Ashera's actions/threat being affected by aura count. So there's a big sense of urgency in progressing the battle because otherwise you'll likely lose. With that fixed, it's a good map.

So it's not a matter of map design in a literal sense. In fact, the huge terrain bonuses on RD's endgame maps are really cool after some tuning.

But then, this is an execution vs. concept debate depending on what you're referring to.

Is your idea to make her more powerful the more aura's she has so you have to wittle her down quickly? Or does she grow progressively harder the less auras she has?