Most overrated Fire Emblem in your opinion

[Jotari]

I played FE8, FE9, FE10, FE11, and FE13 before FE7

FE7 is my second favorite FE after 6.

Please don't generalize like this, it really bugs me."Clear in X turns" actually encouraged good playing, unlike "let your army get killed" which just forces the player to play worse. It's just such a strange requirement considering FE6 showed a far superior one several games earlier.

Given that it was also the game that introduced playable generics if your army got to small, I assume it was a feature they wanted to add so struggling players good gain more units if their old ones kept dying off. Given they introduced classic directly after this game supports that theory. Still they underestimated the fact that players would view that as extra content they were missing out on. Which is strange since they give you the event theatre which practically points out the fact that you're missing content.

[Magical Glace]

Given that it was also the game that introduced playable generics if your army got to small, I assume it was a feature they wanted to add so struggling players good gain more units if their old ones kept dying off. Given they introduced classic directly after this game supports that theory. Still they underestimated the fact that players would view that as extra content they were missing out on. Which is strange since they give you the event theatre which practically points out the fact that you're missing content.

I mean if it was just a unit, people likely wouldn't care, the fact it's an entire map of a type that used to be a reward for doing well is probably what bugs people.

At least how I see it.

[Jotari]

Yeah you can even get really good weapons there. Unless there's a secret shop I'm forgetting about, the Gaidens are the only way to get a Long Bow or Wao Dao.

[Irysa]

You can buy Longbows at the secret shop, and the Wo Dao was also available in the online shop (same for Braves/Elysian Whips).

[Jotari]

You can buy Longbows at the secret shop, and the Wo Dao was also available in the online shop (same for Braves/Elysian Whips).

I suspected the Wo Dao would be an Online Shop item but I never was fortunate enough to be able to access the Online Shop in Shadow Dragon. Shame they never put Elysian Whips in any of the Gaidens. It's impossible to legitimately get Falcon Knights in that game now.

[ChibiToastExplosion]

I'd love to see a version where Gaidens are accessible without slaughtering 70% of your arm.

This has always been the most overblown strike against 11.

Having played the source games, I feel like I am missing absolutely nothing by pretending that they don't exist, because well, they don't imo. I look upon all the characters it added with disdain. Call me a purist or whatever but believe it or not 11 is that much better without the gaidens.

[Magical Glace]

This has always been the most overblown strike against 11.

Having played the source games, I feel like I am missing absolutely nothing by pretending that they don't exist, because well, they don't imo. I look upon all the characters it added with disdain. Call me a purist or whatever but believe it or not 11 is that much better without the gaidens.

Except the fact they're full maps that you know are there? You're still missing out on content if you don't kill your own troops. Whether or not they were in 1/3 is completely irrelevant.

The game is rewarding you with content for playing badly. Unlike 6, where it rewarded you with content for playing well.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Glaceon Mage

[ruadath]

FE7 wins by virtue of rose tinted glasses everywhere, even vets give it way too much credit as a game. Terrible balance, terrible ranking system, terrible story, terrible maps everywhere, terrible forced tutorial and many popular characters are memelords that aren't far off the same stuff their fans will bash in FE13/14.

what is this blasphemy

[General Horace]

It really is terrible. Survival is bad but i'll let it slide since it should be included, Funds is extremely flawed and misleading, Combat is probably impossible to fail, and Tactics is extremely lenient. Experience is probably the only mildly challenging rank.

Not to mention the Hector mode chapter 0 requirement bugs and you can cheese the whole ranking system by arena abusing for like 40 turns in four fanged offence.

[solrocknroll]

I'd rather be rewarded for playing badly than playing well. Bad players deserve more help than good players. It isn't fair to lol things away just because they aren't good enough. That's ridiculous.

Good players should just live with the satisfaction of playing well. You shouldn't get special treatment. If SD's side chapters were available through both losing units and a small amount of turns, that would help both camps. But if I had to choose between one of losing units or a certain amount of turns for a requirement, I would choose the one that helps the worse player. That's why FE5/FE6's gaidens are so terrible. They force insane amounts of rushing when rushing is not fun in any way.

[Jotari]

Most of FE5's Gaidens weren't turn based. They were based on capturing the right enemy or visiting the right location. Or in other cases having the right unit recruited (which incidentally is the way I think Shadow Dragon should have handled it. Given his importance in the sequel, Hardan definitely deserved to get some development in Shadow Dragon).

[Irysa]

I'd rather be rewarded for playing badly than playing well. Bad players deserve more help than good players. It isn't fair to lol things away just because they aren't good enough. That's ridiculous.

Good players should just live with the satisfaction of playing well. You shouldn't get special treatment. If SD's side chapters were available through both losing units and a small amount of turns, that would help both camps. But if I had to choose between one of losing units or a certain amount of turns for a requirement, I would choose the one that helps the worse player. That's why FE5/FE6's gaidens are so terrible. They force insane amounts of rushing when rushing is not fun in any way.

FE6's turn requirements are incredibly leniant. 12x is 20 Turns, 21x is 30, and the rest are 25. In all of these, even if Roy simply walks to the throne himself and the player doesn't use the Warp Staff or the Rescue Command you can make the turn requirements with plenty of turns to spare. If you seriously consider taking under 25 turns to complete a map to be "rushing" then you're part of a rather small outlier.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Irysa

[Troykv]

what is this blasphemy

FE7 Rankings are... extremely specific...

They don't reward the most efficient people (if you try to be too efficent you will unable to win the Experience and Gold Ranks), you have to play without buying things before the Silver Card (a way to get extra money) and limiting a lot the use of the Promotion Items.

Basically you're extremely limited to do anything.

[Magical Glace]

I'd rather be rewarded for playing badly than playing well. Bad players deserve more help than good players. It isn't fair to lol things away just because they aren't good enough. That's ridiculous.

Good players should just live with the satisfaction of playing well. You shouldn't get special treatment. If SD's side chapters were available through both losing units and a small amount of turns, that would help both camps. But if I had to choose between one of losing units or a certain amount of turns for a requirement, I would choose the one that helps the worse player. That's why FE5/FE6's gaidens are so terrible. They force insane amounts of rushing when rushing is not fun in any way.

There's a difference between helping bad players and rewarding bad players. FE11 offered extra challenges for playing badly. That's rewarding them. Just giving extra units would be helping them.

What people want is the maps. They shouldn't be rewarded to players who play badly, it would be like having Kaguya Houraisan require the player to continue to reach her (as is, you can only fight Kaguya if you don't continue during stages 1-5 and have beaten Eirin at least once.)

[solrocknroll]

There's a difference between helping bad players and rewarding bad players. FE11 offered extra challenges for playing badly. That's rewarding them. Just giving extra units would be helping them.

What people want is the maps. They shouldn't be rewarded to players who play badly, it would be like having Kaguya Houraisan require the player to continue to reach her (as is, you can only fight Kaguya if you don't continue during stages 1-5 and have beaten Eirin at least once.)

Idk, I always found the characters to be more important than the maps.

The extra maps were nothing much. The best parts to me were getting wonderful characters like Athena.

[Magical Glace]

Idk, I always found the characters to be more important than the maps.

The extra maps were nothing much. The best parts to me were getting wonderful characters like Athena.

Ah, I see.

But still, more skilled players are going to want the maps more than the units. FE6/7's (and presumably 5's but I've yet to play FE5, I want to though) Gaidens were extra challenges for the player if they do well. Giving extra challenges to players who do poorly just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Gradivus.]

The enemies in FE11's gaidens are weaker than on the normal maps and on the higher difficulties, they also have weaker weapons (4 Atk less), so the maps are supposed to be extra help (via exp) for players who did worse, not extra challenges. I also think they're pretty dull maps, so I'm not bothered about missing them just because I want to keep everyone alive. It's a missed opportunity, but not a dealbreaker.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Gradivus.

[JasonMendez]

I'd rather be rewarded for playing badly than playing well. Bad players deserve more help than good players. It isn't fair to lol things away just because they aren't good enough. That's ridiculous.

Good players should just live with the satisfaction of playing well. You shouldn't get special treatment. If SD's side chapters were available through both losing units and a small amount of turns, that would help both camps. But if I had to choose between one of losing units or a certain amount of turns for a requirement, I would choose the one that helps the worse player. That's why FE5/FE6's gaidens are so terrible. They force insane amounts of rushing when rushing is not fun in any way.

Good players should be rewarded for playing well. After all when a general claims victory he gets praise and often rewards in monetary value. I'm not saying that worse players shouldn't be rewarded, but that will ever hardly be a problem with casual mode, hence why good players should receive the rewards because they actually go through a challenge ( Shadow Dragon not withstanding).

Rushing has never been a bad thing at all. A good strategy even with mediocre units certainly helps. I prefer to rush for a gaiden chapter than get one from losing units. The Gaiden chapters you speak of are unique particularly to FE5 and FE6 because those games aren't as easy as the western games, they are supposed to be hard, though FE6 requirements for Gaidens are pretty easy to meet unless you go at a turtle's pace.

[NekoKnight]

If the Gaiden requirements were just "5 characters need to have died", I could accept them as replacements for lost characters. But you need to basically massacre half your army to get them, which means I need to fill my character slots with soon-to-be-corpses just to unlock the next level/character.

[Quintessence]

Sometimes I feel Fates is overhyped due to gameplay and UI improvements. Naturally, when a new game is released, it is *expected* to have a better and more friendly UI, better graphics, better visuals and better gameplay. But all of this improvements are immersed in a safe zone, because technology advances promote said improvements, as well as user feedback. It is easier to improve gameplay rather than other elements of a game. Hence why I see them as underwhelming because it feels as if the game was kept in a confort zone rather than risk itself with improvements in character building, coherent lore, appealing story and a logical ambience/context within the game. Fates' gameplay and UI is what I expected, basically what one would expect from a new Pokemon main game.

[The Geek]

Sometimes I feel Fates is overhyped due to gameplay and UI improvements. Naturally, when a new game is released, it is *expected* to have a better and more friendly UI, better graphics, better visuals and better gameplay. But all of this improvements are immersed in a safe zone, because technology advances promote said improvements, as well as user feedback. It is easier to improve gameplay rather than other elements of a game. Hence why I see them as underwhelming because it feels as if the game was kept in a confort zone rather than risk itself with improvements in character building, coherent lore, appealing story and a logical ambience/context within the game. Fates' gameplay and UI is what I expected, basically what one would expect from a new Pokemon main game.

I disagree, IS took a huge risk with some of the changes they made to Fates. Particularly the removal of weapon durability and the new weapon effect system.

And I'd also argue that the UI in Fates is actually kind of a step down from Awakening (most notably in that it no longer shows what kind of weapons a particular unit is weak to)

[Quintessence]

I disagree, IS took a huge risk with some of the changes they made to Fates. Particularly the removal of weapon durability and the new weapon effect system.

And I'd also argue that the UI in Fates is actually kind of a step down from Awakening (most notably in that it no longer shows what kind of weapons a particular unit is weak to)

Granted, they took a risk. But is there anything beyond gameplay changes/improvements?

[The Geek]

Granted, they took a risk. But is there anything beyond gameplay changes/improvements?

Well, Fire Emblem is first and foremost a video game so I personally think that taking a risk in terms of gameplay is absolutely huge and worth merit in and of itself. They also took a risk with some elements of the story, it's just that those didn't pan out as well. And by didn't turn out as well I mean that they fell flat on their face.

[Quintessence]

But were these risks worth it? Do these risks mean inprovements as a whole? I think not, and this is why I think Fates is overhyped.

They may have improved 'slightly' the gameplay experience (because it is basically Awakening 2.0), but they didn't improve any other aspect of the game tbh.

Edit: also, not going to enter in details about the changes in weapon durability and the introduction of shurikens in the weapon triangle since that's another discussion.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Quintessence

[solrocknroll]

Fates has everything that a game needs. It ha a self-insert, which is vital. It had fanservice and romance, which I require from an RPG. The gameplay is ironically the unimportant part.