semolinaro Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) Wait... so a story you liked yet have already witnessed would be the reason why you'd replay a game as opposed to amazing gameplay that is bound to be a different experience every time? Wow. I see that we play video games for very different reasons. How much focus did the marketing really put into the story? I know they put a ton of emphasis into the choice, but I feel like that's different. I mean obviously they're going to market and emphasize the choice because the buyer is going to have to choose and it changes the entire game. In a game that's story driven, which most RPGs are, then yes, I would replay it to relive those amazing moments and triumph as my army moves towards victory or is about to face tragedy. A good story adds meaning to the gameplay. Yes, I agree they put a lot of emphasis into the choice, but they did heavily advertise the story as a whole. Between the choice, Conquests's apparently 'darker' and more complex plot, complaints about Awakening, and hiring Shin Kibayashi, IS really made a marketing push for the story. Edited March 10, 2016 by semolinaro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel07 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Agreed with many of the points here. I do love Fates for what it is, but there are many things to be critical on, such as some of the dumber aspects of the story and decision to be 3 separate games. Intelligent Systems has shown that they are willing to listen to feedback on this so I hope they take the complaints to heart to better improve the next game. In my personal opinion, if they want a good story, they just have to look back at Blazing Sword, Sacred Stones, and Path of Radiance. The stories in those games were based on extremely simplistic concepts and they worked because of it. Things might honestly be easier for them if they thought back on some of the more simplistic and grounded things that Fire Emblem did well with in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medeus Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) In the second trailer, they hyped the heck out of the new writer they got. Beyond that tho, they only really focused on the choice and the gameplay itself with passing mentions of the story and characters. They also hyped the hell out of him and his involvement in the Iwata Ask segment, to the point where I think it took up the majority of that interview. So I do think it was something that they considered important to the game and wanted people to be excited about, otherwise they wouldn't even have bothered to give it attention at all. Edited March 10, 2016 by Medeus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nordopolica Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I like the game and all, but tbh I'm kind of hoping they take the criticism to heart so they can reshuffle and really figure out what they're doing for the (hopefully) next one. As good of a game as it is, I want them to work out the little kinks (no pun intended) here and there when it comes to supports and story and characters so that the next one is polished and cohesive in a way that meshes well in all its aspects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fircoal Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 and I thought we were harsh at least everyone agrees that the music is the best part I don't! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xaos Steel Wing Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I thought the games were really good. The story could have been written better, that's true. But when you look at the three games together as a whole I think the overall story is actually good, it's just that the moment-to-moment execution was lacking in many parts. In most other ways, it was very good, and I don't mind the version split. Each of the 3 paths feels like its own complete game and all 3 paths for the price of $80 is fine to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 How much focus did the marketing really put into the story? I know they put a ton of emphasis into the choice, but I feel like that's different. I mean obviously they're going to market and emphasize the choice because the buyer is going to have to choose and it changes the entire game. What was the choice described as? A choice between gameplay similar to Awakening, or gameplay similar to older FE games? Or a choice between your birth country or your adopted country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NekoKnight Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Did the Japanese players have problems with the gameplay, or was it mostly complaints about the pricing model? This. When a game is advertised as being heavily story based and character driven, it better damn deliver, and IS epically failed to do so. And I really think the split scenario is to blame. Yes we get three full games, but even though they have plenty of content to warrant as their own game, they feel 'incomplete' plotwise. Major details are left out and a lot of the mysteries the story presents are never solved, all to be saved for Revelations. Conquest is the biggest offender for not tying up the loose ends, but that's because I feel the developers intended for everyone to play Birthright, Conquest then Revelation. Conquest is just a rollercoaster ride of railroading, headscratching and facepalming. It's not the structure of the game at fault, it's the writing quality. Fully developed (as in full length Fire Emblem titles) routes should offer MORE story, not less individually. That's 3 different perspectives, 3 times as much potential characterization and world building, 3 times as much...time to develop the greater plot of the game. That plot elements were gutted from the first two routes to incentivize the 3rd route was entirely the fault of the writers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel07 Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Did the Japanese players have problems with the gameplay, or was it mostly complaints about the pricing model? It's not the structure of the game at fault, it's the writing quality. Fully developed (as in full length Fire Emblem titles) routes should offer MORE story, not less individually. That's 3 different perspectives, 3 times as much potential characterization and world building, 3 times as much...time to develop the greater plot of the game. That plot elements were gutted from the first two routes to incentivize the 3rd route was entirely the fault of the writers. Unfortunately, this game has no sense of world building in either route. I mean really, nations like Izumo and Nestra are introduced as brief stops and then we don't hear any more about them. We literally learn next to nothing about most of these other kingdoms and minor nations. Where as in previous games, you got to know every nation inside and out practically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.