Fates Review Roundup Thread

[SalShich10N]

The streamer for GameSpot (one that died constantly on the child paralogues) was Alexa Ray Corriea, who reviewed Birthright (8) and Revelations (9). It was Peter Brown reviewed Conquest for GameSpot, and that was where the 7 came from.

Yes, imagine Alexa was the one we were shown, probably because she's better at the game and has more experience than Peter. Just imagine HOW Peter played the game.

[Aggro Incarnate]

Yes, imagine Alexa was the one we were shown, probably because she's better at the game and has more experience than Peter. Just imagine HOW Peter played the game.

I don't mean to be presumptuous but do you know that for a fact? I'm not all that familiar with the GameSpot crew that reviewed Fates.

[Loki Laufeyson]

The salt some people have over reviews is pretty funny to see.

I dont get why people are that salty that its getting good reviews. I expected it to. Its a huge package full of whistles and bells with something for everyone.

Or maybe the story is better than what it's being given credit for, the complainers are grossly overexaggerating and the reviewers standards for writing is just typical for what's expected.

I think it has more to do with the fact that a huge majority of gamers do not play games just for narrative alone. So reviewers are not really looking at the story as much as the whole enchilada. A game's story can be pretty mediocre, and the game itself be pretty fantastic. I never expected a reviewer to dock like, 2 points or more for story, if everything else measures up.

That 7 for Conquest is silly due to the reasoning behind it. "I cant grind, so therefore its inferior to the other ones." Wait...no. Uh...Thats kind of the point of that particular route. Its supposed to be the more old school style of gameplay. Reminds me of IGN's too much water nonsense.

[Elieson]

Isn't it safe to just drop the bottom 15% and top 15% of reviewers for being bias and/or not great reviewers, then averaging the remaining?

[Lynsanity]

I didn't think the Gamespot Conquest review was that unreasonable. It sounded like he took issue with how he couldn't experience all the game's content on a playthrough, because the chances to level up supports were limited. There are probably lots of convos and entire characters the average player doesn't get to see without playing multiple times, and maybe that's a downside when you spend $40+ dollars on a product.

I don't usually fall in this camp, but there's a growing opinion in videogames that "unlocking" content is outdated. In other media, you don't have to perform some task to earn the right to read Chapter 12 in a book, or see all the characters in a movie. You get all the content when you buy the thing. I don't know if that's where this reviewer was coming from, but it's why I listen to opinions about locked or limited content in games.

[nordopolica]

I didn't think the Gamespot Conquest review was that unreasonable. It sounded like he took issue with how he couldn't experience all the game's content on a playthrough, because the chances to level up supports were limited. There are probably lots of convos and entire characters the average player doesn't get to see without playing multiple times, and maybe that's a downside when you spend $40+ dollars on a product.

I don't usually fall in this camp, but there's a growing opinion in videogames that "unlocking" content is outdated. In other media, you don't have to perform some task to earn the right to read Chapter 12 in a book, or see all the characters in a movie. You get all the content when you buy the thing. I don't know if that's where this reviewer was coming from, but it's why I listen to opinions about locked or limited content in games.

The fact is that many other reviewers, most of whom gave Conquest a higher score than its counterparts, have acknowledged that it was designed with classic FEs in mind and cite is as a good, challenging thing. This is reflected in its limited support points (not really true, as there is MyCastle grinding) and experience, all of which serve to make it a more challenging experience. Particularly in his defences on Twitter, the reviewer seems adamant that players were entitled to exp grinding despite its exclusion being a central part of Conquest's gameplay. It's just really bizarre and comes off as him whining about it being too hard. I'm a firm believer in reviewing games in a vacuum, and it appears he's comparing it largely to Birthright and Awakening. To criticise Conquest for its lack of grinding is ignoring a large part of its excellent design, not to mention it's one of the things in Fates that doesn't deserve criticism.

[LuxSpes]

I didn't think the Gamespot Conquest review was that unreasonable. It sounded like he took issue with how he couldn't experience all the game's content on a playthrough, because the chances to level up supports were limited. There are probably lots of convos and entire characters the average player doesn't get to see without playing multiple times, and maybe that's a downside when you spend $40+ dollars on a product.

I don't usually fall in this camp, but there's a growing opinion in videogames that "unlocking" content is outdated. In other media, you don't have to perform some task to earn the right to read Chapter 12 in a book, or see all the characters in a movie. You get all the content when you buy the thing. I don't know if that's where this reviewer was coming from, but it's why I listen to opinions about locked or limited content in games.

From looking at the review, it seemed to have less to do with supports and more with him being stuck on a hard chapter and wishing he could grind to make it easier instead of having to lower the difficulty.

Grinding is a cheat to let you power through a strategical problem instead of finding a way to use your limited resources to solve said problem. So complaining about that in a strategy game seems like a pretty weak argument as to why it is an objectively worse strategy game than the one that allows you to grind.

[SalShich10N]

I don't mean to be presumptuous but do you know that for a fact? I'm not all that familiar with the GameSpot crew that reviewed Fates.

She mentioned she had beaten all three campaigns on the stream, whereas her companion had only beaten Nohr for the review, and I think she mentioned him being halfway through Revelations at the time. I endured the whole thing.

[NekoKnight]

I think it has more to do with the fact that a huge majority of gamers do not play games just for narrative alone. So reviewers are not really looking at the story as much as the whole enchilada. A game's story can be pretty mediocre, and the game itself be pretty fantastic. I never expected a reviewer to dock like, 2 points or more for story, if everything else measures up.

That 7 for Conquest is silly due to the reasoning behind it. "I cant grind, so therefore its inferior to the other ones." Wait...no. Uh...Thats kind of the point of that particular route. Its supposed to be the more old school style of gameplay. Reminds me of IGN's too much water nonsense.

I wouldn't say that even the staunchest of story critics on SF play games for the story alone (Fates has great gameplay yo), but they do give it more weight than the typical player. As far as reviewers are concerned, as you said they are probably looking for a complete package, solid gameplay and a serviceable story. A lot of the plot holes and contrivances don't immediately jump out until you really sit down and analyze how and why everything happens. Fates is just smart enough, to the casual player, to look like a lot of effort was put in.

I'm not bothered by the positive reviews. I never expected reviewers to really care about the writing. Most video game reviews for even the most mindbogglingly dumb plots usually only mention it in a footnote.

In regards to the 'water' complaints, water being a central element of RS doesn't mean the water routes weren't tedious and boring. The world being covered with water was a central theme of Windwaker but the time it took to sail from place to place was complained about enough that they added a faster sail in the HD remake.

[Busterman64]

Been on the sidelines for a bit, but now I would like to throw in my 25 cents.

Just to say it now, I like if someone who's gonna review a game actually knows what they're talking about(they actually know about the series a bit in depth and know what kind of game it is) and make soild points on both sides (positive and negative). And I also kinda don't know how to feel about number ratings really, but I do like GameXplain's rating system. It seems a bit more personal and since I know what kind of guys are in GameXplain, they're words seem more reliable (either way, there will be bias when it comes to a review).

I didn't see Gamespot's review of Conquest when it was uploaded yesterday, I watched GameXplain's first and IGN' s second (both being good. Which is nice, especially for IGN because they actually made another good review).

Just watched it a couple minutes ago and...good lord...he actually does sound like he's whining.

(Also, I looked at that video's comments......no mercy...that's all that needs to be said.)

It kinda feels like the guy didn't know what he was getting into. Also, comparing the game to Birthright kinda feels like a cop out/excuse. Both versions are catered to certain FE audiences, Conquest for older fans and Birthright for newcomers (and for those for who may have started with Awakening). This is a fact that we've know since the game's announcement. While yes, it probably is a hard game and you can't grind, but that's shouldn't be a reason to decrease a game's score because it's kinda a selling point (and a fair, challenging one too).

I'm gonna use an example I saw in the Youtube comments. DarkSouls and BloodBorne are hard games and you know that going in (I can't say how much since I've never played them, just watched them). You saying that it's bad because it's too hard and you can't get past it is probably because you aren't thinking about what you can do with what you have. There is a way to beat the challenge ahead of you, but you need to plan ahead.

Now while those games and Fire Emblem are different genres, you do have to think about what you can do, how you approach the issue in front of you...carefully, and think one or two steps ahead. (If it helps, another example is checkers or, my personal favorite, Chinese Checkers :3 )

From looking at the review, it seemed to have less to do with supports and more with him being stuck on a hard chapter and wishing he could grind to make it easier instead of having to lower the difficulty.

Grinding is a cheat to let you power through a strategical problem instead of finding a way to use your limited resources to solve said problem. So complaining about that in a strategy game seems like a pretty weak argument as to why it is an objectively worse strategy game than the one that allows you to grind.

This is what makes me think he hasn't played the previous games. Guess grinding can kinda spoil you a bit!

Also, in every Fire Emblem game (I'm sure of this), whenever you restart a chapter, the enemies stats are altered slightly (either lowered or raised by 1-2 points and some are the same). This way, you aren't stuck and facing the same problem everytime you retry a chapter (I think bosses may be excluded from this though).