Fates Reviews are in

[Thane]

I didn't know that Thane's opinions are above everyone else.

If Sacred Stones, Blazing Sword, or Path of Radiance were to come out tomorrow everyone would be complaining that "the story sucks, the characters are boring and all sorts of negativity " with the exeption of Shadow Dragon(and was fixed somewhat in FE12) there were boring characters and really good characters in each of the games.

So just shut up for a week or two and let everyone else come up with their own opinion

My opinion is not worth more than anyone else's and I don't know why you'd think otherwise. I have, however, already played the game and care more about the story than a lot of the reviewers seem to do, and have written several threads and many, many posts in detail about why I think the way I do while still also praising several gameplay aspects, meaning that people know that I'm not hating on it blindly. That doesn't make my opinions worth more, but it makes it more nuanced than a random YouTube comment either praising or hating on the game with a one-sentence explanation.

Also, why do you ask people on a forum - a platform meant for discussion - dedicated to Fire Emblem which has an upcoming release on the way, to shut up?

IN THANE I TRUST

Good, my child, you have found the true way!

Most people judge games primarily based on gameplay... That's why they're games.

Many people also don't play games just because of the gameplay, and that extends even to developers; Hideo Kojima, an industry heavyweight, wanted to become a movie director but chose games as the medium to convey his stories. What separates games from movies is the interactive element, often intertwining both story and gameplay and making them inseparable, leading to scenes that can have far more of an impact and a personal touch than any movie ever could since the player is actively participating.

For a lot of players, if the story immersion is ruined for whatever reason, then so is the interest in wanting to keep playing.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Thane

[Loki Laufeyson]

Thane, why are you salty that the game(s) are getting good reviews if you understand how/why reviews are the way they are? Is it simply because it doesnt match up with your opinion? Or because other people arent arsed about the story (or even like it)?

Edited February 18, 2016 by Loki Laufeyson

[MCProductions]

Many people also don't play games just because of the gameplay, and that extends even to developers; Hideo Kojima, an industry heavyweight, wanted to become a movie director but chose games as the medium to convey his stories. What separates games from movies is the interactive element, often intertwining both story and gameplay and making them inseparable, leading to scenes that can have far more of an impact and a personal touch than any movie ever could since the player is actively participating.

For a lot of players, if the story immersion is ruined for whatever reason, then so is the interest in wanting to keep playing.

As much praise as I give the Metal Gear series for it's stories, I feel as long as the gameplay is solid, the story can suck. There are franchises I play because of the narrative and not the gameplay, namely Ace Attorney and Metal Gear, but these are few and far between.

Gameplay over Story is my usual MO, and I feel this is FE's strong point. 12 times out of 13 the story has royally sucked imo, but the gameplay is so solid I honestly couldn't care.

[Thane]

Thane, why are you salty that the game(s) are getting good reviews if you understand how/why reviews are the way they are? Is it simply because it doesnt match up with your opinion? Or because other people arent arsed about the story (or even like it)?

I believe salty is the wrong word. Incredulous would be a more suiting term. A lot of reviews are written hastily and before any real reflection has been allowed to sink in. It's one thing to not mind a story or mention it very briefly, but to actively praise it in spite of its many, many flaws seems dishonest at best. I'd also like to point out that a lot more people than I have the same issues with the plot, although I seem to be the one who shouts the loudest.

I've praised several aspects of the gameplay, and I believe the reviewers capture my opinion of that rather well. However, saying that, for instance, the game contains political intrigue and that Conquest is about changing the kingdom from within borders on being a flat out lie.

[nordopolica]

I believe salty is the wrong word. Incredulous would be a more suiting term. A lot of reviews are written hastily and before any real reflection has been allowed to sink in. It's one thing to not mind a story or mention it very briefly, but to actively praise it in spite of its many, many flaws seems dishonest at best. I'd also like to point out that a lot more people than I have the same issues with the plot, although I seem to be the one who shouts the loudest.

I've praised several aspects of the gameplay, and I believe the reviewers capture my opinion of that rather well. However, saying that, for instance, the game contains political intrigue and that Conquest is about changing the kingdom from within borders on being a flat out lie.

My issue with the reviews falls along these lines. Generally they are written with a deadline in mind, and the weeks leading up to the embargo lift seemed to be characterised by the frantic 'I-have-to-play-this-game' mentality which meant that a lot of them were rushing through, and some didn't even finish the game (IIRC Conquest's later bits are the real stinkers.)

Thane definitely is not the only one with issues about the story; enough to make it appear justified, at least. Just go back to the myriad of threads devoted to picking apart every plot contrivance and poorly executed story mechanic, and you'll see it's not just one individual's complaints. What I find strange is that the story is almost completely brushed over in these reviews. Instead we get Gamespot's 'it's too hard and it's not awakening 7/10' and others giving it immense praise. The only notable story nod I saw was Polygon's review, which acknowledged the awful child justification and the poor pacing, but other than that most complaints seemed to stem from MyCastle and difficulty. The fact that so many reviewers seemed to enjoy the story interests me, and I'll have to play the English version for myself, but from what I have played and seen and read and discussed, the least of this game's worries are its difficulty and multiplayer.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I honestly think a lot of the reviewers are using lines like intrigue in order to help sell the game. Or maybe some of those guys actually thought all the struggles in Conquest related to a kind of intrigue. Its also possible they just didnt think about the story at all and liked what they did see. Like so many people who play video games. One thing is very consistent in the reviews: Everyone liked Revelations best.

As much praise as I give the Metal Gear series for it's stories, I feel as long as the gameplay is solid, the story can suck. There are franchises I play because of the narrative and not the gameplay, namely Ace Attorney and Metal Gear, but these are few and far between.

Gameplay over Story is my usual MO, and I feel this is FE's strong point. 12 times out of 13 the story has royally sucked imo, but the gameplay is so solid I honestly couldn't care.

This is actually the extreme majority of people who play video games. Like Twilight Princess has a story full of swiss cheese, yet its still fun to play for me, so i like it. Awakening's story is really really bad, but its so much fun to play, i hardly care. But i do play Monolith games for narrative, and thats also why i like some of those weird walking simulator games on Steam. Its really difficult to balance really great narrative with really great gameplay. Very very few titles do it.

My issue with the reviews falls along these lines. Generally they are written with a deadline in mind, and the weeks leading up to the embargo lift seemed to be characterised by the frantic 'I-have-to-play-this-game' mentality which meant that a lot of them were rushing through, and some didn't even finish the game (IIRC Conquest's later bits are the real stinkers.)

Thane definitely is not the only one with issues about the story; enough to make it appear justified, at least. Just go back to the myriad of threads devoted to picking apart every plot contrivance and poorly executed story mechanic, and you'll see it's not just one individual's complaints. What I find strange is that the story is almost completely brushed over in these reviews. Instead we get Gamespot's 'it's too hard and it's not awakening 7/10' and others giving it immense praise. The only notable story nod I saw was Polygon's review, which acknowledged the awful child justification and the poor pacing, but other than that most complaints seemed to stem from MyCastle and difficulty. The fact that so many reviewers seemed to enjoy the story interests me, and I'll have to play the English version for myself, but from what I have played and seen and read and discussed, the least of this game's worries are its difficulty and multiplayer.

thing is, this is how reviews roll. I dont see a lot of reviews for games in general really focusing on story. And if they do talk about it, its usually some shallow "oh yeah it was pretty moving in places" or "epic storytelling doubles with excellent gameplay" type shit. So you have to chalk it up with having issues with reviews in general, not just Fates reviews. This is extremely par for the course as far as reviewing goes. And this is why a lot of us are a bit incredulous (to use Thane's word here) at some of the opinions expecting bad reviews.

[Captain Karnage]

My opinion is not worth more than anyone else's and I don't know why you'd think otherwise. I have, however, already played the game and care more about the story than a lot of the reviewers seem to do, and have written several threads and many, many posts in detail about why I think the way I do while still also praising several gameplay aspects, meaning that people know that I'm not hating on it blindly. That doesn't make my opinions worth more, but it makes it more nuanced than a random YouTube comment either praising or hating on the game with a one-sentence explanation.

Also, why do you ask people on a forum - a platform meant for discussion - dedicated to Fire Emblem which has an upcoming release on the way, to shut up?

because when you hype up something the general reader will in turn get hyped up for it

when you tell people how awaful something is their expectation goes down into the negative

by going around and trying to convince everyone that the game's story is awaful you set expectations too low, and then when people see how it actualy is they see at is way better than they expected

essentally if you're trying to get people to hate it by telling them that its horrindus they will expect it to be awaful, and if it's not as bad as they thought they'll probably say how good it is and ignore the haters

if you want people to hate it for what it is then don't set the bar too low

it's best to go into this as blindly as possible

this is also comming from someone who says that Awakening is their favorite FE

also feel free to pick appart the other 900 plot issues with the other 13 games

like how Blazing Sword (don't kill me I very much like this game) introduced many characters that had nothing to do with the prior game

[Loki Laufeyson]

I would also like to add that the consistency of Conquest being rated lower than the other two is interesting. Granted, story is either not mentioned or praised, but they are lower scores than Birthright and Revelations. Which is funny because people claim Conquest is the weakest narratively.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Loki Laufeyson

[nordopolica]

I honestly think a lot of the reviewers are using lines like intrigue in order to help sell the game. Or maybe some of those guys actually thought all the struggles in Conquest related to a kind of intrigue. Its also possible they just didnt think about the story at all and liked what they did see. Like so many people who play video games. One thing is very consistent in the reviews: Everyone liked Revelations best.

This is actually the extreme majority of people who play video games. Like Twilight Princess has a story full of swiss cheese, yet its still fun to play for me, so i like it. Awakening's story is really really bad, but its so much fun to play, i hardly care. But i do play Monolith games for narrative, and thats also why i like some of those weird walking simulator games on Steam. Its really difficult to balance really great narrative with really great gameplay. Very very few titles do it.

thing is, this is how reviews roll. I dont see a lot of reviews for games in general really focusing on story. And if they do talk about it, its usually some shallow "oh yeah it was pretty moving in places" or "epic storytelling doubles with excellent gameplay" type shit. So you have to chalk it up with having issues with reviews in general, not just Fates reviews. This is extremely par for the course as far as reviewing goes. And this is why a lot of us are a bit incredulous (to use Thane's word here) at some of the opinions expecting bad reviews.

I don't think it deserved bad reviews; not at all. I think Polygon's was particularly reasonable, but like I said I find it interesting that the story seems to be praised. I'm also really salty about the Gamespot Conquest review. I don't read game reviews all that often, but one I did read was MGSV: TPP, which is what I pretty much expected of Fates: "great gameplay, awful story."

I would also like to add that the consistency of Conquest being rated lower than the other two is interesting. Granted, story is either not mentioned or praised, but they are lower scores than Birthright and Revelations. Which is funny because people claim Conquest is the weakest narratively.

Isn't it being rated higher? Or have I missed something?

[Loki Laufeyson]

I don't think it deserved bad reviews; not at all. I think Polygon's was particularly reasonable, but like I said I find it interesting that the story seems to be praised. I'm also really salty about the Gamespot Conquest review. I don't read game reviews all that often, but one I did read was MGSV: TPP, which is what I pretty much expected of Fates: "great gameplay, awful story."

Isn't it being rated higher? Or have I missed something?

The other thread categorizing the numbers seems to have Conquest slightly lower than the other two. Also there could be a reason why the story is getting praised a bit. The localization writing could be pretty solid (like Awakening's) and people just taking it at face value. OR, they are praising based on how all three routes fit together. /shrug

Edited February 18, 2016 by Loki Laufeyson

[dragonlordsd]

Isn't it being rated higher? Or have I missed something?

It is being rated higher (for now at least):

http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/fire%20emblem/results

Ign rated it 95 to birthrite's 94 (according to metacritic, will double check)

Destructoid gave conquest a full 9.5 over birthrite's 8.5

Edited February 18, 2016 by dragonlordsd

[Thane]

I honestly think a lot of the reviewers are using lines like intrigue in order to help sell the game. Or maybe some of those guys actually thought all the struggles in Conquest related to a kind of intrigue. Its also possible they just didnt think about the story at all and liked what they did see. Like so many people who play video games. One thing is very consistent in the reviews: Everyone liked Revelations best.

That was predicted from the very moment people started completing Revelations back in July. It IS the canon, happy and most complete path with the game itself even going so far as to tell you the other two thirds of the game are wrong. The gameplay in Revelations remains incredibly shallow, with enemies not getting skills even in higher difficulties, and the maps being tedious and overly gimmicky.

because when you hype up something the general reader will in turn get hyped up for it

when you tell people how awaful something is their expectation goes down into the negative

by going around and trying to convince everyone that the game's story is awaful you set expectations too low, and then when people see how it actualy is they see at is way better than they expected

essentally if you're trying to get people to hate it by telling them that its horrindus they will expect it to be awaful, and if it's not as bad as they thought they'll probably say how good it is and ignore the haters

if you want people to hate it for what it is then don't set the bar too low

it's best to go into this as blindly as possible

this is also comming from someone who says that Awakening is their favorite FE

also feel free to pick appart the other 900 plot issues with the other 13 games

like how Blazing Sword (don't kill me I very much like this game) introduced many characters that had nothing to do with the prior game

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Why should a forum be silenced to hype up a game? Why should a review hype up a game not worth hyping up? That seems dishonest and very anti-consumer, not to mention going against everything those two things are supposed to do: discuss and give an honest opinion.

If you want to remain unspoiled, you avoid the internet forum dedicated the the discussion of that particular topic, you don't try to shut it down.

Also, what does my favorite Fire Emblem game have to do with anything? I've discussed the poor writing of Fire Emblem many times before, particularly Blazing Sword and Fates since I consider them two of the worst video game stories I've ever played (Fates being THE worst), but not once have I said that Awakening has a great story; the most positive thing I've said about it is that it's not so bad as people make it out to be in the context of an already rather poorly written series.

You don't have to agree with me on anything, but don't try to silence people trying to have a proper discussion, and don't resort to playground arguments like mocking what someone else likes.

[Captain Karnage]

That was predicted from the very moment people started completing Revelations back in July. It IS the canon, happy and most complete path with the game itself even going so far as to tell you the other two thirds of the game are wrong. The gameplay in Revelations remains incredibly shallow, with enemies not getting skills even in higher difficulties, and the maps being tedious and overly gimmicky.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Why should a forum be silenced to hype up a game? Why should a review hype up a game not worth hyping up? That seems dishonest and very anti-consumer, not to mention going against everything those two things are supposed to do: discuss and give an honest opinion.

If you want to remain unspoiled, you avoid the internet forum dedicated the the discussion of that particular topic, you don't try to shut it down.

Also, what does my favorite Fire Emblem game have to do with anything? I've discussed the poor writing of Fire Emblem many times before, particularly Blazing Sword and Fates since I consider them two of the worst video game stories I've ever played (Fates being THE worst), but not once have I said that Awakening has a great story; the most positive thing I've said about it is that it's not so bad as people make it out to be in the context of an already rather poorly written series.

You don't have to agree with me on anything, but don't try to silence people trying to have a proper discussion, and don't resort to playground arguments like mocking what someone else likes.

what I'm trying to get at is you should go into a game with as few expectations as possible

when you have no expectations at all you tend to enjoy things more

I fear you were just part of they hype train and held your expectations way too high

and particularly Blazing Sword and Fates since I consider them two of the worst video game stories I've ever played

so wait, you're saying Awakening had a better story than Blazing Sword

hold on a sec

edit: wrong video

Edited February 18, 2016 by Captain Karnage

[Thane]

what I'm trying to get at is you should go into a game with as few expectations as possible

when you have no expectations at all you tend to enjoy things more

I fear you were just part of they hype train and held your expectations way too high

and particularly Blazing Sword and Fates since I consider them two of the worst video game stories I've ever played

so you're saying Awakening had a better story than Blazing Sword

hold on a sec

So that whole trying to stop people from discussing the game was just a minor little detail?

I have never denied having my expectations shattered (in no small part due to the developers trying to sell the story like crazy), but that doesn't make my issues with the game's plot any less real. You are more than welcome to look up all those threads discussing the problems with the story from last year all the way up till just last week, I believe, and only one of them was created by me.

I don't know how to reply to that last part, since you seem to want proper explanations yet refuse to discuss your own views, opting instead to give me a quick amateur psych eval and sending Nicolas Cage videos. Regardless, I've got to go now anyway, it's far too late where I live.

[Loki Laufeyson]

It is being rated higher (for now at least):

http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/fire%20emblem/results

Ign rated it 95 to birthrite's 94 (according to metacritic, will double check)

Destructoid gave conquest a full 9.5 over birthrite's 8.5

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

That was predicted from the very moment people started completing Revelations back in July. It IS the canon, happy and most complete path with the game itself even going so far as to tell you the other two thirds of the game are wrong. The gameplay in Revelations remains incredibly shallow, with enemies not getting skills even in higher difficulties, and the maps being tedious and overly gimmicky.

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.

[Captain Karnage]

my point is don't get too hyped because you're probably going to get dissapointed

also Treehouse could have fixed a few of those plot holes, but we wont know untill Friday

@Thane sorry, I put in the wrong video

[Baldrick]

I don't see how "don't get too hyped" translates to "stop talking about it". It's possible to have a calm and thoughtful discussion.

From what I understand, in order for the plot to work pretty much all the characters would need to be completely rewritten like Henry was. I don't know whether that's likely or not.

[Sunwoo]

I think that a lot of these reviewers didn't have time for the story to really sink in before writing these reviews. Things that thrive on people's emotions over logic are going to get a reaction from the viewer -- then the viewer realizes how ridiculous it is and then suddenly it's not emotional anymore.

But that takes time. It took me several reads of Hoshido and IK translations before I started seeing the cracks in the presentation (I haven't played Conquest but have watched translated playthroughs, yeah, I think its story is closer to suck than decent). Unless you're just super intuitive or playing super slowly or really analyzing every bit of dialogue, most people aren't going to see the flaws on the first run through. Maybe not even the second. Birthright and Conquest and Revelations all look like they have a good and/or intriguing story on the surface. But then you see the cracks. But you won't see those cracks until later, and a first impression will more than likely make you think it's good.

As for myself, I don't think I'd trust reviews that are made too soon to be completely accurate. If anything, the reviews are a good indicator of "initial impressions". But as a long-term impression, too early for that.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I think that a lot of these reviewers didn't have time for the story to really sink in before writing these reviews. Things that thrive on people's emotions over logic are going to get a reaction from the viewer -- then the viewer realizes how ridiculous it is and then suddenly it's not emotional anymore.

But that takes time. It took me several reads of Hoshido and IK translations before I started seeing the cracks in the presentation (I haven't played Conquest but have watched translated playthroughs, yeah, I think its story is closer to suck than decent). Unless you're just super intuitive or playing super slowly or really analyzing every bit of dialogue, most people aren't going to see the flaws on the first run through. Maybe not even the second. Birthright and Conquest and Revelations all look like they have a good and/or intriguing story on the surface. But then you see the cracks. But you won't see those cracks until later, and a first impression will more than likely make you think it's good.

As for myself, I don't think I'd trust reviews that are made too soon to be completely accurate. If anything, the reviews are a good indicator of "initial impressions". But as a long-term impression, too early for that.

You do have a point. Like, i didnt see things that i consider outright foul in Awakening, until around the third run through the game. Gameplay really is the thing people notice first, so if the reviews on that aspect are solid, chances are, its gonna be a pretty solid gameplay experience. Stories tend to be objective a lot of the time too. (yet i have only seen three people say they preferred Conquest over the others)

[Seanp12]

As much praise as I give the Metal Gear series for it's stories, I feel as long as the gameplay is solid, the story can suck.

Tell that to the Metroid Other M hatebase. I don't even think the story was half-bad (though it wasn't exactly terrific, either), but the bad word-of-mouth killed that game and possibly put the Metroid series on hold through this console generation.

That's part of why I'm happy FE fans don't seem to be taking a story they see as inferior too seriously. While I currently know nothing much about the story (a state achieved through much self-restraint), I'm glad that those who don't like it aren't bashing the game over it. Series on the scales of Metroid and FE can't afford an excessively picky fanbase bashing their own series. That's how you end up with long hiatuses and possibly the series' death.

[Sarcastic Shark]

I suddenly feel less special.

We can't all be as impressive as Hisame wielding a mighty, titanic pickle.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Sarcastic Shark

[Tsuky]

Well, no surprises here, I expected nothing other than high scores. It's natural that the gameplay aspect is going to be focused on above all else, since this is a video game after all, and I honestly think that the story just wasn't on the front of those reviewers' minds; to be fair, it is pretty easy to get swept up in the emotional parts of the story.

I'm seeing a lot of people trying to tell others to shut up and quit complaining about the story, but it is possible to love something and still be critical of it. Many players probably don't care about the story that much and it won't hinder their enjoyment of the games, but the story problems are undeniably there; those long threads about the plot aren't there for no reason.

If you don't think the story is that important to the overall quality of the game, that's perfectly fine. If you want to form your own opinion of the story, that's perfectly fine, too; the complaints on this site are fairly concentrated and are easy enough to avoid. But people should also be able to discuss and critique the story without being labelled as "hating on the games."

Personally, I'm going to enjoy playing through the games very much, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that the flaws in the story don't exist. As optimistic as I would like to be, unless whole scenes got rewrites in the localized version, a lot of the problems aren't going anywhere.

[Captain Karnage]

I'm legitimately sorry for telling anyone to shut up

but I've been hearing the same complaints for the last seven months ( + every thing else for the 6 months prior)

so I'm just really tired of hearing all of the complaining

the're beating a dead horse at this point

[Sentinel07]

Tell that to the Metroid Other M hatebase. I don't even think the story was half-bad (though it wasn't exactly terrific, either), but the bad word-of-mouth killed that game and possibly put the Metroid series on hold through this console generation.

That's part of why I'm happy FE fans don't seem to be taking a story they see as inferior too seriously. While I currently know nothing much about the story (a state achieved through much self-restraint), I'm glad that those who don't like it aren't bashing the game over it. Series on the scales of Metroid and FE can't afford an excessively picky fanbase bashing their own series. That's how you end up with long hiatuses and possibly the series' death.

Agreed. On a personal note, I actually like most of the things in Other M's story, though I do agree that it had lousy execution of said plot.

[NekoKnight]

But that takes time. It took me several reads of Hoshido and IK translations before I started seeing the cracks in the presentation (I haven't played Conquest but have watched translated playthroughs, yeah, I think its story is closer to suck than decent). Unless you're just super intuitive or playing super slowly or really analyzing every bit of dialogue, most people aren't going to see the flaws on the first run through. Maybe not even the second. Birthright and Conquest and Revelations all look like they have a good and/or intriguing story on the surface. But then you see the cracks. But you won't see those cracks until later, and a first impression will more than likely make you think it's good.

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.

Tell that to the Metroid Other M hatebase. I don't even think the story was half-bad (though it wasn't exactly terrific, either), but the bad word-of-mouth killed that game and possibly put the Metroid series on hold through this console generation.

That's part of why I'm happy FE fans don't seem to be taking a story they see as inferior too seriously. While I currently know nothing much about the story (a state achieved through much self-restraint), I'm glad that those who don't like it aren't bashing the game over it. Series on the scales of Metroid and FE can't afford an excessively picky fanbase bashing their own series. That's how you end up with long hiatuses and possibly the series' death.

Right, because it's the fault of the fanbase that Other M was poorly received. I'm sure Samus being portrayed as suffering from battered woman syndrome and constantly giving monotonous monologues had nothing to do with it. To quote an Other M analysis "I'm afraid the series will go on an extended hiatus because developers will think people don't want to play Metroid games anymore when the truth is, they just don't want to play bad Metroid games."

Fates isn't Other M levels of bad. Few things could be.