Fates Reviews are in

[Sunwoo]

Also, a lot of the plot problems only become apparent when all three routes are compared together. A person playing all three but trying to review them separately will miss the bigger picture.

[spoiler=This is actually a spoiler]Weren't people saying that Conquest was terrible in a void, in part because it relied so heavily on elements from the IK and didn't stand on its own nearly as much?

[JasonsOrigin]

GameTrailers was my only trusted review source but now they're officially closed down. This saddens me greatly.

Ah well. It's not like I need to see a video review of game I know I'll already love.

[NekoKnight]

[spoiler=This is actually a spoiler]Weren't people saying that Conquest was terrible in a void, in part because it relied so heavily on elements from the IK and didn't stand on its own nearly as much?

I'd say the opposite. Some stuff doesn't get explained (everything related to IK) but you're better off not knowing those things because they show that the entirety of Conquest and all its tragedies were avoidable. The plot is really bad but you won't realize how bad until you learn about Azura's involvement.

I'd add on that the plot is going to be more disappointing to fans who followed the development of the game because we were listening when they hyped the story so much and told us the plot premises which turned out to be false.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Aside from the initial hype, I honestly wasn't expecting much from Fates plot. Storytelling has never been a strong-point Fire Emblem, with most of them being very generic and relying on stock fantasy tropes. The only time I ever remember being properly captivated by an FE plot was my first time playing through FE4 and that was mostly because they killed off so many characters relatively early on. FE's strength story was has mostly been in the characters for me and in that aspect, Fates has done remarkably well. Very few characters are stuck with only a single gimmick to them and even ones with a prominent gimmicky trait like Arthur have quite a bit of depth to them. Takumi, Azura, Niles, Arthur and Shiro are definite stand outs for me and Fates has the least amount of characters that I outright dislike.

However, even by the standards of Fire Emblem (and video game stories in general if you're particularly cynical), Fates is a major letdown because it fails to deliver on everything it promises. The moral complexity, family themes and heartbreaking decision are all absent from the final product or severely undercut by something else. If Nintendo hadn't hyped up the story so much, I'm sure we wouldn't be feeling so sour about the plot.

[Katryn]

One thing I can add to this discussion as someone who ran a professional book blog for three years and who was sent review copies is that finding ways to explain plot issues without deconstructing the way something is written can be very hard. In addition to wanting to primarily discuss gameplay, game reviewers also likely want to keep plot spoilers to a minimum. If I understand correctly, the issues in Fates' story are not something that could be summed up with something like "the characters are flat", "the last third dragged", etc.

Another thought: people here being surprised the game got high reviews despite their own criticisms of it does not necessarily mean they wanted the game to get lesser reviews. High reviews tend to lead to better sales, and many of the issues the members of this community have discovered have been discovered thanks to discussion, multiple playthroughs, inter-connecting of plot pieces from the varying games, etc. I'm fairly sure none of us wants to see Fates fail in such a way that it would cause the Fire Emblem franchise to be in jeopardy of no longer existing. The critique shown on this forum isn't necessarily meant for or meant to be understood by an average fan or casual observer of the games. Many of these issues are issues because we care so much.

I'm glad the game is getting good reviews and that those reviews are reporting the good about the key aspects of the game that the average consumer is going to care about. I think this will help with ensuring solid sales, which in turn will help ensure the longevity of this franchise. That said, I think it's absolutely vital that the types of discussions that go on at places like Serenes Forest actually happen--this is a place where developers have a potential chance to see what their most devoted fans feel about things. Even those making the best series can stand to learn from mistakes. Hindsight is 20 / 20.

Whether Fates, Awakening or any other FE was your favorite game (or only a favorite, or something you enjoyed) the fact remains that if somebody took the time to come here and join in discussions, that person very likely has a passionate connection to the series and wants it to succeed. It just happens that sometimes our definitions of success do not match with each other's or with the definition being used by the developer / Nintendo.

Lastly, that GameSpot Conquest review was utter crap. If he wanted to give it a 7 that's fine, but he did not present his information in a way that would be helpful or beneficial to a consumer in any matter. That review is, quite frankly, a disgrace. It's really a shame, as I tend to usually like GameSpot for reviews.

[sirmola]

I generaly don't trust "traditional" games media any more. Randos on youtube tend to write better, more ballenced, reviews (and are less likely to be in bed with the developers.)

I'd add on that the plot is going to be more disappointing to fans who followed the development of the game because we were listening when they hyped the story so much and told us the plot premises which turned out to be false.

I should point out that awakening also had interesting ideas with a lot of potential that was totaly squandered, so i was not expecting anything

I also never belive hype simply because the information the publisher makes avalible before release is intentionaly biased to encourage preorders.

From what i read, reviewers tend to not focus on story so as not to get blamed for spoiling things.

Edited February 18, 2016 by sirmola

[NekoKnight]

I generaly don't trust "traditional" games media any more. Randos on youtube tend to write better, more ballenced, reviews (and are less likely to be in bed with the developers.)

I should point out that awakening also had interesting ideas with a lot of potential that was totaly squandered, so i was not expecting anything

I also never belive hype simply because the information the publisher makes avalible before release is intentionaly biased to encourage preorders.

From what i read, reviewers tend to not focus on story so as not to get blamed for spoiling things.

I think I was more willing and able to be hoodwinked by the hype because Fire Emblem generally isn't something hyped for its story. It sounded really good on paper. Strongly contrasting cultures, themes of family and justice, a story so broad that it's split into three routes and choices that matter. Who wouldn't be sold on that? Expectations will be lowered for the next game.

[arvilino]

I generaly don't trust "traditional" games media any more. Randos on youtube tend to write better, more ballenced, reviews (and are less likely to be in bed with the developers.)

I should point out that awakening also had interesting ideas with a lot of potential that was totaly squandered, so i was not expecting anything

I also never belive hype simply because the information the publisher makes avalible before release is intentionaly biased to encourage preorders.

From what i read, reviewers tend to not focus on story so as not to get blamed for spoiling things.

Professional reviewers still comment on story and have all other recent games to compare it to. For example Mario & Luigi Paper Jam's story was brought up in a number of reviews where reviewers were criticising it specifically for the story. Considering recent games like Undertale, Last of Us and all those Walking Simulators being held up for storytelling the standard reviewers have is still going to be there when they're playing Fire Emblem.

If Fates genuinely had a bad story compared to what else is on the market or other Fire Emblem games it wouldn't get away with it. If someone was hyped into thinking a story would be mindblowing and it wasn't for then, it doesn't make the game's story bad for simply not reaching their unrealistic expectations. The level of hyperbole that some people have around the story is frankly ridiculous especially around the fantastical elements to the point it's no surprise that those coming in with a level head are atleast fine with the story and or even think it's great.

Edited February 18, 2016 by arvilino

[Crysta]

It's not wrong to like Fates. I like games with underwhelming stories, too (like Dragon Age 2!). There are more things to it than just story.

But it's not wrong to be criticize and be disappointed in it, either. It doesn't mean their expectations are "unrealistic" or the fans are more "level-headed" than the detractors, especially when they've explained themselves pretty well. Story and plot are more relevant to roleplaying games than other genres (for example, I don't expect a Mario game with an evil versus gray storyline because lol).

This is sounding more and more like "how dare you not like something I like/want to like!"

Edited February 18, 2016 by Crysta

[Thane]

Ohhh in that case, my mistake. Maybe its the earlier ones had Conquest a wee bit lower.

Did you play Revelations on Loony? Cuz like, that would be really disappointing to have Hard and Loony not have enemies and generics without some mad skillz. I dont mind some maps with gimmicks, especially with the dry spell that was Awakening's maps. I play on Casual anyway, so if its hella gimmicky, oh well. Im wondering if the localized Revelations has some tweaks. From what i know about that one's plot, some shit is really shoehorned at the last leg of it. Also, i dont think the other paths are supposed to be thought of as wrong, as much as a different perspective. We'll see come this coming week when everyone dives headfirst. I wonder how many are gonna jump right into Revelations (if they have the SE) first.

I didn't play on Lunatic no, but I believe someone confirmed it for me.

Also, I hope you like waiting for slow-moving platforms.

It's not wrong to like Fates. I like games with underwhelming stories, too (like Dragon Age 2!). There are more things to it than just story.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Not a fan I'm guessing?

[Crysta]

(DON'T POKE HIM OR WE ALL DIE)

[Time the Crestfallen]

(DON'T POKE HIM OR WE ALL DIE)

So that's a no, hmm?

...

Hey Thane!

[Thane]

So that's a no, hmm?

...

Hey Thane!

Welp, I hope you're proud of yourself, I exploded.

Why does it feel like I only talk about bad games? I love video games even though it might not seem like it given my history here. However, no, I thoroughly despise both Dragon Age II and Inquisition for many different reasons. Both of them are also big reasons as to why I'm very skeptical when it comes to reviews.

Varric's cool though.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Thane

[Time the Crestfallen]

Welp, I hope you're proud of yourself, I exploded.

Why does it feel like I only talk about bad games? I love video games even though it might not seem like it given my history here. However, no, I thoroughly despise both Dragon Age II and Inquisition for many different reasons. Both of them are also big reasons as to why I'm very skeptical when it comes to reviews.

Varric's cool though.

​Mission accomplished.

Well you've made it pretty clear that you don't like a lot of things about Fates (though I won't assume you hate everything about it until you say so), you post frequently about the things you don't like about Fates and, well, this is a Fates thread. I'm sure there are plenty of games you enjoy, but you're not really going to talk about them here are you?

Oh, and one last thing.

:D

[Thane]

​Mission accomplished.

Well you've made it pretty clear that you don't like a lot of things about Fates (though I won't assume you hate everything about it until you say so), you post frequently about the things you don't like about Fates and, well, this is a Fates thread. I'm sure there are plenty of games you enjoy, but you're not really going to talk about them here are you?

Oh, and one last thing.

:D

I most certainly don't hate everything about it, and I've made that clear many, many times. I love the new weapon system even if there's some room for improvement, I adore the music and there are even several really well-written characters. I'd never blindly bash a game and ignore the good parts.

Oh I know, it's just that of all the games to appear, Dragon Age II was brought up. That's 40$ I'll never get back. Now, you might say that I could've easily ignored that and just moved on with my life, but that would be far too logical.

And just to end on a positive note, I'll say that Ghost Trick is one of the coolest, best-written games I've ever played yet so few people know about it. So sad.

[B.Leu]

Welp, I hope you're proud of yourself, I exploded.

Why does it feel like I only talk about bad games? I love video games even though it might not seem like it given my history here. However, no, I thoroughly despise both Dragon Age II and Inquisition for many different reasons. Both of them are also big reasons as to why I'm very skeptical when it comes to reviews.

Varric's cool though.

Our God as spoken. All thanks to it's prophet Philius. All hail the Helix... or Dead hand... or whatever this avatar is supposed to be.

In other words, B.Leu approves, yadayada you know this reference.

Look, I know that I might step on a mine there, but if people talk about how some things in games are bad, there MIGHT be a reason behind it ? Because they played the damn games ? Maybe because they not only have the right but the reasons and arguments for it ? Because they analyzed it ?

Also it's not like we're boycotting the whole game, it's just the story, the gameplay get the full praise.

And y'know you, you can be fan of something... while still criticize it.

*insert shocked gasp there*

Now can I be the False Prophet ?

Edited February 18, 2016 by B.Leu

[ckc22]

So.... the consensus sites have both/all of them as less than awakening. Does this feel accurate?

Edited February 18, 2016 by ckc22

[Great Geargia Gateway]

Give this a month or two and it'll get dragged down to Awakening's level. We praised at launch, then we keep nit picking later on, until it hits our realization.

It's not wrong to like Fates. I like games with underwhelming stories, too (like Dragon Age 2!). There are more things to it than just story.

Yeah. I can say the same about Skyrim. Story, couldn't care about, but content and time... I could kiss it.

[arvilino]

It's not wrong to like Fates. I like games with underwhelming stories, too (like Dragon Age 2!). There are more things to it than just story.

But it's not wrong to be criticize and be disappointed in it, either. It doesn't mean their expectations are "unrealistic" or the fans are more "level-headed" than the detractors, especially when they've explained themselves pretty well. Story and plot are more relevant to roleplaying games than other genres (for example, I don't expect a Mario game with an evil versus gray storyline because lol).

This is sounding more and more like "how dare you not like something I like/want to like!"

By level-headed I meant the reviewers, the people coming into the game from an arguably less biased standpoint than a fan or a detractor.

The thing with games like these is that the detractors do have their reasons, fine, but it's the ever more common cynical method of taking a few choice parts to criticise and blowing them out of proportion making the whole game out to be just the parts the person doesn't like. It usually turns into an echochamber where the suggestion the story is ok, good, or "not bad" is treat like it's more extreme than saying it's utter shit.

Edited February 18, 2016 by arvilino

[ingu]

So.... the consensus sites have both/all of them as less than awakening. Does this feel accurate?

It feels pretty inaccurate, actually. Gameplay for Fates was better than Awakening in so many ways... and all the reviews coming out right now for Fates focus almost entirely on gameplay mechanics and flow as opposed to characterization, plot, etc.

My response to the generally high scores for Fates atm: I'm happy for the series. Like someone else mentioned, higher ratings bring in better sales for a game, which p much lends itself to future development for the franchise. That's all good stuff. I would assume that's why we're here on a FE forum. But I can't help but think that the reviews are biased or hyped. Or that the majority of reviewers only care about gameplay. Or that the reviewers and I share wildly different opinions about what constitutes a "rich" or "excellently executed" storyline.

Also, nice to see you again, Thane.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ingu

[Great Geargia Gateway]

My response to the generally high scores for Fates atm: I'm happy for the series. Like someone else mentioned, higher ratings brings in better sales for a game, which p much lends itself to future development for the franchise. That's all good stuff. I would assume that's why we're here on a FE forum. But I can't help but think that the reviews are biased or hyped. Or that the majority of reviewers only care about gameplay. Or that the reviewers and I share wildly different opinions about what constitutes a "rich" or "excellently executed" storyline.

Also, nice to see you again, Thane.

Like wise, but what will become of it? What will be IS's decisions and view on our views? Will IS continue to take Awakening's route through and through, or take Nohr's hint and return home? I get so curious.

[The DanMan]

Like wise, but what will become of it? What will be IS's decisions and view on our views? Will IS continue to take Awakening's route through and through, or take Nohr's hint and return home? I get so curious.

And there's the hints of internal drama within IS itself to factor in.

I have a rather deep (emotionally detached) interest in what may happen next.

[arvilino]

Like wise, but what will become of it? What will be IS's decisions and view on our views? Will IS continue to take Awakening's route through and through, or take Nohr's hint and return home? I get so curious.

They'll probably continue to innovate and change the game and it eventually won't be that much like Awakening or previous entries because stagnation was what was killing the series in the first place. Being one way for a long time isn't a good idea, even Fates changed a lot from Awakening... the series returning to being like any of the 12 before Awakening would be a death sentence for the series(outside of remakes).

I think they'll eventually get to their Fire Emblem on Mars idea at some point.

Edited February 18, 2016 by arvilino

[Aggro Incarnate]

So.... the consensus sites have both/all of them as less than awakening. Does this feel accurate?

Awakening is rated higher than Fates in terms of sheer figures so far, but only very slightly. Just to take review score samples from reviewing sites I could find that scored all of Awakening, Birthright and Conquest (I'm excluding Revelations for now) so far, of which there are only 15 (since Fates is just getting released now), here's the breakdown.

So Awakening scores higher by a small margin. Admittedly though, this isn't exactly a fair representation of the reviews, since

- Many of the reviewers actually reviewed the FE Fates Special Edition as a whole instead of distinguished Birthright/Conquest

- A good deal of complaints about Fates came from limitations of Birthright/Conquest as a standalone game

- The individual reviewers for each game within the same reviewing site are usually different people (Even for reviews done by the same individuals for all of these games, while perhaps the best source of comparative evaluation one can possibly have, are not necessarily reflective of the comparative merits of each game; just how much are small deviations in ratings representative of the individual instead of the game?)

If we include other reviews it might seem numberwise that Awakening has more generally favourable reviews if you bring over a lot of other responses from sites like Metacritic, but I don't think the difference is to any significant degree. For one, it's just far too early for Fates: if you look into Metacritic a significant portion of the 10s on Metacritic for Awakening came after the release; contrast the situation with Fates which has yet to be released in NA. Note also that the EU (where a significant portion of very high scores like 10s come from) doesn't even have an announced released date yet (*sigh*), and that Fates, yet to be released outside of Japan, has so far only been reviewed by people who got the SE from NoA. In addition, Fates carry the burden of keeping up with the success of Awakening as a previously commercially and critically successful title, and thus faces higher expectations but credited less for the same successes. Think of it this way; if NA and EU got Fates before Awakening, would Awakening have as many 9-10s in their reviews as it actually did?

I think in consideration of all these factors, the differences between Awakening and Fates in terms of ratings are negligible. On top of that, having read most of these reviews, I'm fairly certain that the differences in these scores are usually not reflective of the core gameplay, but rather a difference of expectations placed in these games, as well as the particular situation of Fates being released as 3 games (which, while perhaps rightfully so, plays to Fates' disadvantage).

Edited February 18, 2016 by Aggro Incarnate