What other TRPG series rivals Fire Emblem?

[Harvey]

FFT doesn't borrow elements from FE. FFT is entirely based on Tactics Ogre...which also doesn't borrow from FE in any discernible way, borrowing much more from dungeons and dragons and other western media than anything else. You can't attribute grid-based combat to FE and that's where their mechanical similarities end (TO is also much better written than any FE game lol). If anything, modern FE borrows elements from TO and FFT.

FFT has sold nearly 1 million more copies than Awakening including the Android re-release, and it's unlikely Fates will get close to it. I find it interesting you would dismiss FFT's sales because it was on PS1, but ignore the fact that a significant portion of Fates' sales aren't real for the purpose of this discussion because it demands users double-dip or buy a special edition for the full experience - those aren't new people buying the game, it's a bunch of people needing to buy two games and having it counted towards Fates' total instead of being tracked separately, whereas FFT's sales are all one game. I'm a fan of FE, obviously, but lets not blow things out of proportion and act like FE is making the genre more mainstream than it has been in the past.

I disagree with how FE is now borrowing elements from TO and FFT. Sure, FE in terms of story might not be as deep as those two (though I personally dislike FFT in every other way) But those two games lack in variety which Fire Emblem seems to have.

Also, the game alone sold 2 million...Fates reached one and a half million outside Europe and once sales of the Europe count, its bound to outsell the game.

Even then, the android port sold less than the original version regardless and its a different version we're talking about here as its more of a remake than a port. If we are to compare the sales of the remake, then obviously Fates outsold it.

While I never played Ogre, I did play Tactics and I can say that its the worst SRPG I've played. Everything about it is simply bad that makes me wonder what's the point of it.

[Zera]

I did play Tactics and I can say that its the worst SRPG I've played. Everything about it is simply bad that makes me wonder what's the point of it.

Why don't you make a list of everything it did wrong then?

[Tangerine]

I disagree with how FE is now borrowing elements from TO and FFT. Sure, FE in terms of story might not be as deep as those two (though I personally dislike FFT in every other way) But those two games lack in variety which Fire Emblem seems to have.

Also, the game alone sold 2 million...Fates reached one and a half million outside Europe and once sales of the Europe count, its bound to outsell the game.

Even then, the android port sold less than the original version regardless and its a different version we're talking about here as its more of a remake than a port. If we are to compare the sales of the remake, then obviously Fates outsold it.

While I never played Ogre, I did play Tactics and I can say that its the worst SRPG I've played. Everything about it is simply bad that makes me wonder what's the point of it.

How do they lack in variety...? FFT's class system alone adds more variety in unit compositions than FE has ever had. It's comical that you'd be criticizing TO's depth when you admit you've never played it as well lol. TO did affinities, made height a factor in map layouts, equippable skills, weapon preferences, class compatibilities, flexible class trees, racial traits, leadership passives etc etc all before FE did - some of these mechanics FE -still- hasn't done as well as TO.

Then there are important things that TO did that FE still hasn't: legitimate geographical advantages and disadvantages (aka not "oh i dodge more because i'm in a bush"), weather effects that matter, and unit weight that matters to name a few*.

FE may have come before it, but TO is the grandfather of the modern TRPG (DnD is the great grandfather), and I consider the updated TO remake to be the best TRPG currently available.

*Not including alignment and loyalty because that's a very TO mechanic that not even FFT copied, regardless of the fact it adds a layer of depth; FE shouldn't be expected to emulate that because they'd need to write the story around it too lol.

---

FFT sales:

I purposely didn't include the PSP version (War of the Lions) because it would shoot FFT's sales up to around 3.5 million, which is obviously out of reach of Fates. The original FFT sold 2.4 million copies as of 2011, not 2 million.

I don't see how merging their sales makes any less sense than merging Birthright and Conquest's, either way. Fates' total sales numbers aren't to different homes, meaning that even if it were to match FFT's sales its numbers still wouldn't mean as much as FFT's in a discussion about mainstream value.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Tangerine

[Zera]

@Tangerine: Would I enjoy TO even if I didn't like FFT all that much?

[Water Mage]

Stella Glow's gameplay is amazing. Its story/premise is extraordinarily shaky. If y'all thought Fates was bad. . .

Is the story really that bad?

I've been thinking of playing it, so I'm kinda curious.

[Harvey]

Why don't you make a list of everything it did wrong then?

Gladly!

1. Its story is poorly written and its shallow.

2. It doesn't have any objective varieties unlike FE. While that may seem the least, it puts a text there claiming to do something different when its still the same damn thing. What's the difference between defeat all enemies and protect someone?

3. The CP......it is so damn broken for wrong reasons. Wizards when casting spells need CP instead of casting them right away. This is bad because if your opponent moves before the spell is casted, your wizard has wasted time and effort.

4. The permadeath is forced here. If you try to recruit units, they are always in level 1. So you have to make good use of your units if you hate grinding.

5. Speaking of which, grinding. You are forced to do it from the very start itself since grinding isn't limited.

6. You can't quit battles, if you do, you quit the game. I like the option to do something else if I don't feel like battling this chapter.

7. You can't study the map unless you finish placing your units. This is bad because when you place your units at the wrong place, you're forced to restart placing units again. And unless you're extremely smart, you can't figure where your unit will be placed on the battlefield.

8. Certain chapters force you to play at a stretch without going back. Granted the same thing happens in Fire Emblem but the difference is that FE allows you to do stuff before repeated chapters. Here, you're forced to use multiple saves inorder to make proper progress otherwise you'll end up with Gunters and lose.

9.The process of promotion is extremely tedious here. You need your units to be leveled up in specific classes and the process is long depending on how well it goes. Even if this isn't an issue, the fact that you rely on the promotions more than the base classes is annoying.

10. You need to get job points to do basic things like using potions.....really? Sure, later on when you get white mages, it becomes less of a pain, but really?

11. Speaking of white mages....chance is needed to revive units......wow. How broken can that be. Revives are better than pheonix downs because a phenoix down gives very low hp compared to the spells.

12. When you get to the second half of the game, it becomes easier for wrong reasons. One unit is damn overpowered.

These are what I can think of right now in my head...but yeah, small things like this really break games big time.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Harvey

[Tangerine]

Gladly!

1. Its story is poorly written and its shallow.

2. It doesn't have any objective varieties unlike FE. While that may seem the least, it puts a text there claiming to do something different when its still the same damn thing. What's the difference between defeat all enemies and protect someone?

3. The CP......it is so damn broken for wrong reasons. Wizards when casting spells need CP instead of casting them right away. This is bad because if your opponent moves before the spell is casted, your wizard has wasted time and effort.

4. The permadeath is forced here. If you try to recruit units, they are always in level 1. So you have to make good use of your units if you hate grinding.

5. Speaking of which, grinding. You are forced to do it from the very start itself since grinding isn't limited.

6. You can't quit battles, if you do, you quit the game. I like the option to do something else if I don't feel like battling this chapter.

7. You can't study the map unless you finish placing your units. This is bad because when you place your units at the wrong place, you're forced to restart placing units again. And unless you're extremely smart, you can't figure where your unit will be placed on the battlefield.

8. Certain chapters force you to play at a stretch without going back. Granted the same thing happens in Fire Emblem but the difference is that FE allows you to do stuff before repeated chapters. Here, you're forced to use multiple saves inorder to make proper progress otherwise you'll end up with Gunters and lose.

9.The process of promotion is extremely tedious here. You need your units to be leveled up in specific classes and the process is long depending on how well it goes. Even if this isn't an issue, the fact that you rely on the promotions more than the base classes is annoying.

10. You need to get job points to do basic things like using potions.....really? Sure, later on when you get white mages, it becomes less of a pain, but really?

11. Speaking of white mages....chance is needed to revive units......wow. How broken can that be. Revives are better than pheonix downs because a phenoix down gives very low hp compared to the spells.

12. When you get to the second half of the game, it becomes easier for wrong reasons. One unit is damn overpowered.

These are what I can think of right now in my head...but yeah, small things like this really break games big time.

Okay your list bothers me because it directly contradicts what your original complaint with the game was: lack of depth/variety.

2. Most FE titles also suffer from this?

3. The CT turn system lends itself to varied strategies so much more than FE's phase based combat that I can't understand where you're coming from here. Spells having cast time force you to use different ones based on the amount of time it would take to cast it. Like I don't understand this complaint at all - you can see the enemy's CT as well, so choose actions based on what will go off before they move, or prevent their actions entirely with status effects or by knocking them off a cliff. Use another unit to disable them so you can get a big spell off even if they do get their turn. There are even strategies involving casting Reflect on your own units and then casting big spells on them to reflect it across the map, or you can cast Reraise on a unit (allows them to revive after death 1 time) and then Meteor and run them into a group of enemies. There are plenty of ways to reach your goal of casting a big spell on the enemy team.

4. "You have to make good use of your units" is a bad thing? Also, you can recruit enemy units using the Mediator class, so you don't even need to hire a level 1 guy if one of your units happens to die.

5. You aren't forced to grind simply because the option to is available.

9. Base classes all have their use, you don't need a team full of Ninjas or Calculators. Chemist is one of the best utility classes in the game. Knight and Monk are perfectly viable. No class in FFT is useless (though some are obviously better than others), it depends on what team composition you decide on.

10. Yes, item using classes need to learn their abilities....consumables in FFT are also considerably more powerful than in FE.

11. Chance is only needed if you don't make use of the game's mechanics. Phoenix Downs never miss, and white magic is based on the caster's and target's Faith, as well as their zodiac compatibility. If you create a team with compatible Zodiac signs and your healer has a decent Faith value, their heals will be much stronger and they'll never miss their revives. Use Phoenix Downs for units you choose to have low Faith.

12. How is this any different than an FE title lol. Orlandu is no more broken than your Titanias, Sigurds or Seths in the FE series. They can all effortlessly solo the game, but at least you don't get Orlandu until near the end of his.

The rest of your points are subjective so you're free to those opinions, but these complaints are all based on not understanding the game's mechanics - a game you claimed was too simple.

@Tangerine: Would I enjoy TO even if I didn't like FFT all that much?

It depends on what you didn't like about FFT. FFT took TO's turn system and basic gameplay/game mechanics, but they're fairly different overall, with TO's gameplay mechanics tending to be much more in-depth, but also more subtle and unexplained. TO has a much more in-depth storyline with branching paths, with a less customizable (but still robust) class system. I personally find the alignment scale to be more interesting than the FFT job system, but that's preference, and it requires a fair amount of micro-management. I'd suggest the TO remake to anyone who likes TRPGs and a good story, either way.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Tangerine

[Harvey]

Okay your list bothers me because it directly contradicts what your original complaint with the game was: lack of depth/variety.

2. Most FE titles also suffer from this?

3. The CT turn system lends itself to varied strategies so much more than FE's phase based combat that I can't understand where you're coming from here. Spells having cast time force you to use different ones based on the amount of time it would take to cast it. Like I don't understand this complaint at all - you can see the enemy's CT as well, so choose actions based on what will go off before they move, or prevent their actions entirely with status effects or by knocking them off a cliff. Use another unit to disable them so you can get a big spell off even if they do get their turn. There are plenty of ways to reach your goal.

4. "You have to make good use of your units" is a bad thing? Also, you can recruit enemy units using the Mediator class, so you don't even need to hire a level 1 guy if one of your units happens to die.

5. You aren't forced to grind simply because the option to is available.

9. Base classes all have their use, you don't need a team full of Ninjas or Calculators. Chemist is one of the best utility classes in the game. Knight and Monk are perfectly viable. No class in FFT is useless (though some are obviously better than others), it depends on what team composition you decide on.

10. Yes, item using classes need to learn their abilities....consumables in FFT are also considerably more powerful than in FE.

11. Chance is only needed if you don't make use of the game's mechanics. Phoenix Downs never miss, and white magic is based on the caster's and target's Faith, as well as their zodiac compatibility. If you create a team with compatible Zodiac signs and your healer has a decent Faith value, their heals will be much stronger and they'll never miss their revives. Use Phoenix Downs for units you choose to have low Faith.

12. How is this any different than an FE title lol. Orlandu is no more broken than your Titanias, Sigurds or Seths in the FE series. They can all effortlessly solo the game, but at least you don't get Orlandu until near the end of his.

The rest of your points are subjective so you're free to those opinions, but these complaints are all based on not understanding the game's mechanics - a game you claimed was too simple.

2. But they are done in interesting ways though. Majority of the objectives in FFT are straightforward with little to no tactical variety.

3. Look, is it wrong to make it that I can use all my units on my turn first and then let the enemy use all his units on his turn or something like FE? This CP thing really doesn't add any tactical challenge to it nor does it make it anymore interesting to that matter.

4. Then why even have that option of having only level one units to begin with? You do realize that you can only recruit a max of 4 units so why even bother getting more units, repromoting your units inorder to get the best results.

5. No...you are forced to. The enemies are extremely powerful even at the start of the game.

9. Maybe so. But you really need to get decent promotions nonetheless. The first half really urges you to get a white mage ASAP.

10. Again, I'm not asking for valuable items and all here. I'm asking the need to perform basic functions that shouldn't require abilities as such. I don't care about the better potions. Needing an ability to use a basic one is just plain dumb.

12. Because in FE, you can't just rush like that and have too many Gunters since you're limited to grinding unlike in FFT where grinding is mandatory. What's the point of bringing someone like him so late in the game when it would have been a blessing at the start instead? Gunter while being weak very late atleast serves well at the beginning which is the lack of balance FFT has.

Look, love the game or not, I hate it because its nowhere as immersive as FE or even Vantage Master for that matter. Its just frustrating. And if at all you still say that I can't understand the mechanics right, they should have made an attempt to understand the game better which they didn't unlike in FE where they do teach the mechanics properly.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Harvey

[eclipse]

Is the story really that bad?

I've been thinking of playing it, so I'm kinda curious.

The gameplay makes up for the story and characters. The music's pretty good, too.

If possible, get the demo, and see if you like how it plays.

EDIT: TC, if you're looking for more attack-oriented SRPG combat, may I suggest Mercenaries Saga II? The option to grind is there, but it's not necessary, assuming you can figure out how the battle system works (and how to exploit it).

Edited June 3, 2016 by eclipse

[Gemma]

Langrisser has my favorite gameplay, hands down. Der Langrisser is my fave, IV is really fun too.

[Zera]

I saw a review for the new Langrisser game. Apparently it sucks.

A shame, really.This would've been my chance to try a Langrisser game.

[Gemma]

Yeah, I can confirm the new Langrisser is no good. Can't watch that vid atm, but this review sums up the game perfectly: https://tonkuniverse.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/langrisser-reincarnation-tensei-review-3ds/

What I did was download Langrisser I&II and Langrisser IV&V Final Edition for PSX on the JP PSN. Playing the Super Famicom Der Langrisser is another good option.

[Tangerine]

2. But they are done in interesting ways though. Majority of the objectives in FFT are straightforward with little to no tactical variety.

3. Look, is it wrong to make it that I can use all my units on my turn first and then let the enemy use all his units on his turn or something like FE? This CP thing really doesn't add any tactical challenge to it nor does it make it anymore interesting to that matter.

4. Then why even have that option of having only level one units to begin with? You do realize that you can only recruit a max of 4 units so why even bother getting more units, repromoting your units inorder to get the best results.

5. No...you are forced to. The enemies are extremely powerful even at the start of the game.

9. Maybe so. But you really need to get decent promotions nonetheless. The first half really urges you to get a white mage ASAP.

10. Again, I'm not asking for valuable items and all here. I'm asking the need to perform basic functions that shouldn't require abilities as such. I don't care about the better potions. Needing an ability to use a basic one is just plain dumb.

12. Because in FE, you can't just rush like that and have too many Gunters since you're limited to grinding unlike in FFT where grinding is mandatory. What's the point of bringing someone like him so late in the game when it would have been a blessing at the start instead? Gunter while being weak very late atleast serves well at the beginning which is the lack of balance FFT has.

Look, love the game or not, I hate it because its nowhere as immersive as FE or even Vantage Master for that matter. Its just frustrating. And if at all you still say that I can't understand the mechanics right, they should have made an attempt to understand the game better which they didn't unlike in FE where they do teach the mechanics properly.

2. And the battle system offers much more "tactical variety" than FE, so I'd say it evens out.

3. No, nothing is wrong with phase-based combat. But nothing is wrong with the CT system either. Again, you're saying that it offers no "tactical challenge", and yet your main complaint is that it prevents you from spamming your highest damage attacks every turn. The CT system encourages varied strategy far more than the phase-based system.

4. No, you can have up to 16 (24 in WotL) total units. Recruiting level 1 units allows you to manipulate their zodiac sign and brave/faith values to fit the team build you want to run.

5. I've played through FFT and increased difficulty mods without ever grinding. You do not need to grind in FFT, you need to learn how to use the CT system and pay attention to positioning. The only time a completely new player might ever need to grind is before Velius.

9. Priest (And Wizard) requires level 2 Chemist..that's one battle.

10. Except it works for FFT. Not even getting into the fact that nearly all of your characters start with the ability to use basic potions, and new recruits start with enough JP to learn it.

12. I mean, you just said it'd be more balanced to get an extremely OP character at the start, so I'm not even going to respond to this. The FE series itself has proven that that is completely unbalanced... not that it needed to be proven.

FE's mechanics are much more simple than FFT's, particularly because the difference in combat variety between the two is astronomical - the APPEAL of FE is that it's not at all complicated. You'd be complaining that the tutorial was 10 hours long if they made explaining everything to the player mandatory in FFT. Go into the menu system and read the help files they put in the game for you if you don't understand something.

You're free to not like a game, but don't make up reasons that don't even apply to the game, just say it's not your preference.

[Harvey]

2. And the battle system offers much more "tactical variety" than FE, so I'd say it evens out.

3. No, nothing is wrong with phase-based combat. But nothing is wrong with the CT system either. Again, you're saying that it offers no "tactical challenge", and yet your main complaint is that it prevents you from spamming your highest damage attacks every turn. The CT system encourages varied strategy far more than the phase-based system.

4. No, you can have up to 16 (24 in WotL) total units. Recruiting level 1 units allows you to manipulate their zodiac sign and brave/faith values to fit the team build you want to run.

5. I've played through FFT and increased difficulty mods without ever grinding. You do not need to grind in FFT, you need to learn how to use the CT system and pay attention to positioning. The only time a completely new player might ever need to grind is before Velius.

9. Priest (And Wizard) requires level 2 Chemist..that's one battle.

10. Except it works for FFT. Not even getting into the fact that nearly all of your characters start with the ability to use basic potions, and new recruits start with enough JP to learn it.

12. I mean, you just said it'd be more balanced to get an extremely OP character at the start, so I'm not even going to respond to this. The FE series itself has proven that that is completely unbalanced... not that it needed to be proven.

FE's mechanics are much more simple than FFT's, particularly because the difference in combat variety between the two is astronomical - the APPEAL of FE is that it's not at all complicated. You'd be complaining that the tutorial was 10 hours long if they made explaining everything to the player mandatory in FFT. Go into the menu system and read the help files they put in the game for you if you don't understand something.

You're free to not like a game, but don't make up reasons that don't even apply to the game, just say it's not your preference.

You're still wrong that FFT has more tactical variety than FE. All the objectives in FFT are the same. Maps may have variety but that doesn't give enough justice.

Um...buddy, I've played Tactics ok? You can only use upto four units to battle maps...sometimes 5. You can't use more than that.

If you claim that the CT isn't any different than the phrase, then why even praise it? Its still better just to have phrases.

Look, its pretty simple. Long texts of tutorials really aren't good for games these days. Either make them short and simple or simply teach them through gameplay itself.

And your wrong that FE's mechanics are simpler than FFT. Its just as complex as FFT. Tharcia and Fates for example. The thing is that FE teaches the mechanics better. If you can't teach players how to play the game, then its obviously the game designer's fault for not teaching me and as such FFT isn't properly executed.

Heck if FFT is better than FE, then why is it that SE isn't making any more FFT then? Obviously they don't see TRPG as a market big for them unlike IS/Nintendo who is beginning to see it.

Now...getting back to topic, How does Sakura Wars play compared to FE? I hear that its a really good series to get into.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Harvey

[Soledai]

All I'm seeing is you wanted more FE in a game wasn't FE, didn't get it, now you're complaining about it.

You wanted it to be easy, it wasn't, now you're mad.

You say Orlandu would've been better at the beginning, you wanted it to be easy and it wasn't, and you're mad about his join time? Then I bet you would've complained about it being too easy, or complained if the game takes him away.

You whine about FFT not having variety, but complain when the game gives you options, gives you variety.

You're trying to pass off your bad experiences/opinions as fact and that's not how it works.

Heck if FFT is better than FE, then why is it that SE isn't making any more FFT then? Obviously they don't see TRPG as a market big for them unlike IS/Nintendo who is beginning to see it.

Because SE is not Nintendo???

Because they don't need to? If you want to go business, then they have other games making them money.

Because Quality = Quantity?

You're free to not like a game, but don't make up reasons that don't even apply to the game, just say it's not your preference.

Yes, all of my yes.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Soledai

[Tangerine]

You're still wrong that FFT has more tactical variety than FE. All the objectives in FFT are the same. Maps may have variety but that doesn't give enough justice.

Um...buddy, I've played Tactics ok? You can only use upto four units to battle maps...sometimes 5. You can't use more than that.

If you claim that the CT isn't any different than the phrase, then why even praise it? Its still better just to have phrases.

Look, its pretty simple. Long texts of tutorials really aren't good for games these days. Either make them short and simple or simply teach them through gameplay itself.

And your wrong that FE's mechanics are simpler than FFT. Its just as complex as FFT. Tharcia and Fates for example. The thing is that FE teaches the mechanics better. If you can't teach players how to play the game, then its obviously the game designer's fault for not teaching me and as such FFT isn't properly executed.

Heck if FFT is better than FE, then why is it that SE isn't making any more FFT then? Obviously they don't see TRPG as a market big for them unlike IS/Nintendo who is beginning to see it.

Now...getting back to topic, How does Sakura Wars play compared to FE? I hear that its a really good series to get into.

It's funny that you keep saying FFT lacks depth and strategy but your biggest complaints continue to be that it was too hard for you to understand lol.

Yes, "buddy", you can use 5 units in a battle, but you can have up to 16/24 in reserve. Your question was what was the point in being able to recruit more people, and I gave you an answer.

Neither system is "better", the discussion is about which one forces a thinking player to evaluate more potential moves from turn to turn (aka variety in tactics) - and that answer is the CT system.

If you're unwilling to use the help menus they provided, that's no skin off their noses. I can't believe some of this lol.

No FE title is even close to being as complex as FFT or TO - again, that is the appeal of the series; the battle system by nature is simple, intuitive and easy to understand with very little variance. You know what's going to happen, how much damage you're going to take, etc on any given turn.

Again, my advice would be to not try to pass your opinions off as fact when you have very little knowledge about what you're talking about. Play a game and dislike it, accept that it isn't for you, don't start making things up because you didn't explore the game enough to learn how to play.

[Harvey]

It's funny that you keep saying FFT lacks depth and strategy but your biggest complaints continue to be that it was too hard for you to understand lol.

Yes, "buddy", you can use 5 units in a battle, but you can have up to 16/24 in reserve. Your question was what was the point in being able to recruit more people, and I gave you an answer.

Neither system is "better", the discussion is about which one forces a thinking player to evaluate more potential moves from turn to turn (aka variety in tactics) - and that answer is the CT system.

If you're unwilling to use the help menus they provided, that's no skin off their noses. I can't believe some of this lol.

No FE title is even close to being as complex as FFT or TO - again, that is the appeal of the series; the battle system by nature is simple, intuitive and easy to understand with very little variance. You know what's going to happen, how much damage you're going to take, etc on any given turn.

Again, my advice would be to not try to pass your opinions off as fact when you have very little knowledge about what you're talking about. Play a game and dislike it, accept that it isn't for you, don't start making things up because you didn't explore the game enough to learn how to play.

I didn't say it was to hard to understand. I just said that it should just borrow some elements of FE.

Look, I played the game, every single thing about the game requires you to defeat all enemies. Sure, some objectives require you to just beat bosses alone but you're better off beating all units because some units block your way and give you a hard time.

And yeah, I did use the help menus and they still didn't teach me enough of the damn thing to begin with.

I hate that it implemented what it did. There's no reason for that CT bar to judge when you just said that there's no difference between them.

So Conquest and Tharcia aren't that complex at all? I played the hell out of Conquest and its actually complex...as much as what FFT will ever have.

I'm hurt and yeah, by saying that, I'm raging at this point because of someone who simply stated my opinion as a fact instead of just ignoring it and leaving it aside. The game sucks and I don't like it. Permadeath is hopeless here, Story is awful and its often repetitive.

[Tryhard]

It's not as if Fire Emblem doesn't have only a handful of objectives either. FE6 or 11 is almost exclusively seize (FE2 is exclusively rout) and most of the other games cycle through very limited objectives (rout, seize, defeat boss (which honestly most people like to kill everything on the map anyway), perhaps a defend or escape)

FE being relatively simple is the reason I like it over FFT - but there is no denying that pretty much everyone found the FE7 Lyn tutorial long-winded and overly unnecessary. Being more complex doesn't make it any better of a game (computing thac0 and to-hit systems isn't fun) unless you personally enjoy that, and the reputation of Fire Emblem as a "hardcore" series has always been a misnomer outside of the fact that it does have permadeath.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Tryhard

[Harvey]

If FE is to be so simple, then why do players have the option to increase the difficulty then?

Why is it that it forces players to think twice when leveling up units then? Unlike FFT which gives you options to grind, FE doesn't so that makes it more tactical than FFT.

FFT has unbalanced gameplay at the very early stage that should have been fixed. Its interface is horrible besides the actual battlefield and its not a fun game if the game doesn't do anything to make you want more of it. The Job system and classes is the best thing about the game. Everything else is just bland.

Anyway this one game shouldn't even compare to FE series as a whole simply because FFT is outdated and the series itself is more dormant than FE.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Harvey

[Tryhard]

I think you're confusing 'complexity' with 'difficulty'. They are different.

Think about it. If I make a game where I have one unit with 5 hit points and 5 attack, and my attack directly subtracts from enemies hit point totals, that is a very simple game. However, if I create it so the game is almost always so the enemies are on par with or better than me - for example, five units of equal strength against my one - that is difficult, probably impossible. But the game itself is still simple. If I create a game with 20 attributes all affecting different things with algorithms I don't even understand, then that is undoubtedly complex, but not necessarily difficult.

You can grind in some FEs including 13. I'm not here to argue about the interface or the health of the FFT series, but unbalanced gameplay is a staple throughout all Fire Emblems. I did play through the start of WotL, but it wasn't really my thing.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Tryhard

[Harvey]

I think you're confusing 'complexity' with 'difficulty'. They are different.

Think about it. If I make a game where I have one unit with 5 hit points and 5 attack, and my attack directly subtracts from enemies hit point totals, that is a very simple game. However, if I create it so the game is almost always so the enemies are on par with or better than me - for example, five units of equal strength against my one - that is difficult, probably impossible. But the game itself is still simple. If I create a game with 20 attributes all affecting different things with algorithms I don't even understand, then that is undoubtedly complex, but not necessarily difficult.

You can grind in some FEs including 13. I'm not here to argue about the interface or the health of the FFT series, but unbalanced gameplay is a staple throughout all Fire Emblems. I did play through the start of WotL, but it wasn't really my thing.

So what point you're making here? That other TRPGs are better than Fire Emblem because they offer complexity that FE never offers? That we should claim that FE isn't the best TRPG series out there because this one game that isn't doing any better than FE now.

TRPGs have a mix of fun, challenge and complexity. Saying that FE never has any complexity is removing some challenge here which wrong since after playing Conquest, there's lots of complexity interms of maps, enemy position wise and challenge.

[Tryhard]

So what point you're making here? That other TRPGs are better than Fire Emblem because they offer complexity that FE never offers? That we should claim that FE isn't the best TRPG series out there because this one game that isn't doing any better than FE now.

TRPGs have a mix of fun, challenge and complexity. Saying that FE never has any complexity is removing some challenge here which wrong since after playing Conquest, there's lots of complexity interms of maps, enemy position wise and challenge.

I didn't say any of that. You were the one making the claim that FE is more complex than FFT, and is implying that this is somehow an objective detriment. I also didn't say that FE had no complexity.

Nor do I really care what is considered "the best TRPG" series. I just have a problem with your classification.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Tryhard

[Tangerine]

So what point you're making here? That other TRPGs are better than Fire Emblem because they offer complexity that FE never offers? That we should claim that FE isn't the best TRPG series out there because this one game that isn't doing any better than FE now.

TRPGs have a mix of fun, challenge and complexity. Saying that FE never has any complexity is removing some challenge here which wrong since after playing Conquest, there's lots of complexity interms of maps, enemy position wise and challenge.

His point is the exact opposite, that complexity doesn't equate to superiority, and that the main draw of the FE franchise over the more heavily TO-inspired TRPGs is that it's much less complex and easier to get into. There's a time, place and audience for both types of games.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Tangerine

[Soledai]

And if we go by that argument of complexity equaling superiority, he would therein be admitting FFT is better because of all his prior complaints.

FFT has unbalanced gameplay at the very early stage that should have been fixed. Its interface is horrible besides the actual battlefield and its not a fun game if the game doesn't do anything to make you want more of it. The Job system and classes is the best thing about the game. Everything else is just bland.

It actually doesn't.

In the beginning the enemies have more or less the same power as you, so it you're getting bodied, it's a you problem, not a game problem.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Soledai

[Refa]

Yeah, and the time to enjoy FE was 20 years ago whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Don't really have much more to add regarding FFT, since I basically agree w/Tangerine and Kelspers' view points. Everyone knows what FFT is and has probably given it a try at some point, but Tactics Ogre is really good as well and IMO although it plays similarly in some aspects, it has a very different appeal to it overall. Also the Ogre Battle games, while not strictly TRPG's, are supposed to be very good as well and I really should get around to playing them.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Refa