Most overrated Fire Emblem in your opinion

[Raguna]

Yup, the shift from historical records into a full blown character story make it really hard to really consider Conquest anywhere near classic FE, and this issue also applies for Awakening.

Yeah, I'm on the same boat as JSND and Quintessence. I appreciate to have gained two (four?) new FE's but Conquest doesn't truly feel like a classic FE or the revolutionary that it reported to be. For a classic FE, I can use a recent example like that of Ike and Micaiah while being the most important characters in their games, never felt like the entire story was just about them. Ike matured with the story but that was a consequence of him fighting for Elincia in the war, and not because the entire war hinged around him. In contrast to Kamui's story pretty much envelops the entire thing from the get go. Imo anyways.

Call me jaded, but I think we need more of the packet if it gets praised pretty highly in general by others

Edited June 24, 2016 by Raguna

[Shadow Mir]

As much as story generally isn't something I care about, personally, I liked Awakening and (what I've played of) Fates' stories more than I ever did some of the "classic" FEs' stories.

[ChibiToastExplosion]

What is needed is no avatar. That's definitely a strike against any game with one.

I don't think the record of the war of Hoshido vs. Nohr was any less of a historical tale than Ike's games. Fe is less about gods and more about dragons and their struggle against humanity. That story stopped after game 7 and it was always the most interesting FE tale because humans were not always painted in a positive light.

[Quintessence]

Story doesn't matter after the first playthrough, characters are okay, you can play without supports.

If you really wanted to argue that it wasn't like classic FE you'd argue about skills being in it (those affect actual strategic gameplay), but if that's a part of new FE you like then it gets a pass I suppose.

FE 3/6 are my favorites. There is a lot to love in conquest and the best part is that the options to play it like the older titles is there. It does stand on it's own as a game.

I was grumpy like you and then I let myself approach it with an open mind. The series is starting to reach a point where we all have to decide if we move forward with it. It's scary. The old games aren't worth less because of the new ones and they won't go anywhere, but expecting the new ones be just like those isn't the answer.

Story: is there a norm of how to play FE? Some players can full play the game hitting the start button by experiencing gameplay and mechanics, while others entertain themeselves with the story, character interactions and whatnot, and even focus on good gameplay. Sure, story is not the core element but why dismiss it?

Characters: Fates in this aspect is underwhelming compared to the rest of the series.

Support dialogues: compare the quality of FE6-10 supports against FE13 and 14 dialogues. They stomp them.

I didn't bring up skills because they add value to the game experience through gameplay. They're a good implementation, and they're not even new since they were brought up in Genealogy of the Holy War, so they fit into the classic FE. I'm not solely referring to Blazing Sword.

The issue is that you're just taking gameplay elements, maps, objectives, etc., as the only way to experience FE, seemingly disregarding other elements that also add value in different ways to the player experience.

I'm not reluctant to newer ways into FE, I support some, I dislike some. For example, I'm ok with marriage and children system, but both Awakening and Fates have done it terribly, Awakening less than Fates. And what I dislike most, is stuff being shoved because of excessive fanservice and trends.

Edit: For instance, the trend about FE being about dragons and humans, with the implementation of gods concepts in PoR and RD I wasn't even mad at, I even liked that it was done well with a different approach.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Quintessence

[JasonMendez]

I'd probably say that the Tellius game are the most "overrated". I love them, particularly Path of Radiance, yet Radiant Dawn isn't too memorable imo (Maybe it's because I haven't played it in like 3 years).

As for other games in the series I'd say some are simply "overrated" due to nostalgia, FE7 in particular.

What is needed is no avatar. That's definitely a strike against any game with one.

I wouldn't say that there should be no avatar rather that the Avatar should have a limited role and not be central to the story just a simple friend would be good. Being central to the story will make many characters just suck ups and that diminishes their personality imo.

[eclipse]

You can vote both, you know. And I'd disagree about FE7's esteem having dropped off, if this is anything to go by.

Do note that I made that GameFAQs topic with every intention of starting up a shitstorm. I don't take GameFAQs seriously.

Dislike GameFAQs all you want. However, you're taking it way too far, especially in this topic. If you don't like GameFAQs, don't fucking go there.

And yes, that is grounds for a warn, and I will exercise it. Anyone ELSE who wants to bitch about another board had best read the Code of Conduct before posting.

---

As for the actual topic. . .no, it's not worth answering at this point. Those who are familiar with me already know what I'd answer anyway.

[ChibiToastExplosion]

Quint what you say is all valid points. I'm weighing game play as king and you value story more than I do.

Supports were better in the GBA tellius area but they were the best when there were none at all. We just weigh things differently, and that's what I like about FE - no two games are the same. I hope that trend continues.

I agree to disagree.

[Quintessence]

What is needed is no avatar. That's definitely a strike against any game with one

Thane brought KOTOR 2 the other day in another thread and made me realize the potential Fates had with the avatar system. If the core of the game was to make choices, why not make the game similar to Star Wars where you actually choose and it impacts differently in the story. That way, you would've built 3 different endings with none of them being canon or morally good/bad. That'd be great.

But avatar in FE has been pure fanservice and trend.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Quintessence

[The Draco Knight]

Story doesn't matter after the first playthrough, characters are okay, you can play without supports.

If you really wanted to argue that it wasn't like classic FE you'd argue about skills being in it (those affect actual strategic gameplay), but if that's a part of new FE you like then it gets a pass I suppose.

FE 3/6 are my favorites. There is a lot to love in conquest and the best part is that the options to play it like the older titles is there. It does stand on it's own as a game.

I was grumpy like you and then I let myself approach it with an open mind. The series is starting to reach a point where we all have to decide if we move forward with it. It's scary. The old games aren't worth less because of the new ones and they won't go anywhere, but expecting the new ones be just like those isn't the answer.

But FE4,5, 9 and 10 had skills and are considered to be classic FE, so It's not something that you could say tjat doesn't make Conquest a classic FE.

Or I simply misunderstood something?

But anyway, Fates and Awakening doesn't really feel like a classic FE game, but I like to think they are the beginning of a new era and while some of you are rigjtfully scared about this, I must say that I'm quite excited to see what this new era will show to us - and it's not the first that It happens: when Kaga left, IS with FE6 gave birth to another era; I mean, the games were still similar to their predecessors, but they were rslly different, at lest to me.

And yes, I know this "Era" thing looks strange, but I want to see it in this way because it always keep my excitement for the next games really high.

[maybe]

You can vote both, you know. And I'd disagree about FE7's esteem having dropped off, if this is anything to go by.

Do note that I made that GameFAQs topic with every intention of starting up a shitstorm. I don't take GameFAQs seriously.

i just see people saying "no, it's fine"

no one is getting overly defensive or saying it's extremely fantastic

i don't see the problem here

[ChibiToastExplosion]

But FE4,5, 9 and 10 had skills and are considered to be classic FE, so It's not something that you could say tjat doesn't make Conquest a classic FE.

Or I simply misunderstood something?

I guess that would need a definition. I always saw classic as 1-3. Jugdral is the era of complexity, GBA is it's own thing, and tellius is it's own era. 11-12 are the bridge to 13-14.

I just like 14 because it puts a large emphasis on HP/Def, where even the best units can only take so many hits, just like playing 3 on the SNES. That's why it reminds me most of the classic era, vs. say the GBA one where dodgetanks are a thing.

I thought Awakening was OK at best, but I don't think it's fair to put conquest quite on the same level. Both have bad stories, but at least conquest is a game I will want to play over and over just to have fun with the mechanics.

Edited June 24, 2016 by ChibiToastExplosion

[Katie]

Support dialogues: compare the quality of FE6-10 supports against FE13 and 14 dialogues. They stomp them.

Oh yeah, FE10 sure has some top quality supports.

[Peppy]

I'd say FE4. I've seen a lot of praise for this game but the awful balance in its gameplay (Weapon balance and the doubling mechanic being locked behind the Pursuit skill, for example) will always make me see this game in a bad light (to me, no amount of good music and good story can save a game with horrid gameplay).

[Locke087]

Oh yeah, FE10 sure has some top quality supports.

It doesn't have any supports (well ones worth caring about anyways), but it has some good base conversations.... That's something right?

Edited June 24, 2016 by Locke087

[Quintessence]

Oh yeah, FE10 sure has some top quality supports.

Whoops, that wasn't meant to be there! A-anyways, uh... base conversations... y-yeah!

[The Draco Knight]

I guess that would need a definition. I always saw classic as 1-3. Jugdral is the era of complexity, GBA is it's own thing, and tellius is it's own era. 11-12 are the bridge to 13-14.

I just like 14 because it puts a large emphasis on HP/Def, where even the best units can only take so many hits, just like playing 3 on the SNES. That's why it reminds me most of the classic era, vs. say the GBA one where dodgetanks are a thing.

I thought Awakening was OK at best, but I don't think it's fair to put conquest quite on the same level. Both have bad stories, but at least conquest is a game I will want to play over and over just to have fun with the mechanics.

Interesting. I always saw it in the way I said in my previous post more because of the genersl direction the various games took than anything else.

Anyway, while I agree that Conquest is a more enjoyable and replayable game than Awakening. However, I have to say that, aside from the Gameplay, Conquest is very similar to Awakening in the others regards, so I tend to consider them to belong to the same "Era".

[Katie]

Here's my opinion on the many FEs:(Do note that I like all of the games)

FE1: Started it all, but it has a terrible u.i. and an even worse inventory system.

FE2: Has a much better inventory system than FE1, but the same bad u.i., and while being able to grind is definitely a plus, this game pretty much requires it, and leveling up takes way too long.

FE3: Makes vast improvements in gameplay over the previous games, and has 2 games in 1, though it unfortunately cut some things from FE1.

FE4: One of my favorites. The story and a few characters are rather bad, but most of the characters get decent characterization, and I like the huge maps and the weapon repair shop(especially the latter) a lot, among other things. It was also the only FE to do a second gen well.

FE5: Handles plot and characterization a bit better than FE4, but is way too hard.

FE6: I actually really like this games plot and characters, better than FE7's in fact, but the gameplay leaves something to be desired. There isn't enough objective variety, and the units are way too unbalanced. It did introduce multiple difficulty modes to the series, something I think was very good for it.

FE7: I've gone over this one already. This one's probably my 7th favorite overall, making vast improvements over its prequel in gameplay, but the plot is rather lacking and it doesn't do a very good job of being a prequel IMO.

FE8: My 3rd or 4th favorite, I'd say(it's a toss up between it and FE4). It has a decent plot, great characters(including my favorite FE character in general), fun gameplay, and brought back the world map and skirmishes from Gaiden. A vast improvement over its predecessor in nearly every aspect.

FE9: My 6th favorite, this one introduced a lot of cool new mechanics such as BEXP and base conversations, and has a somewhat decent story, and some really cool characters.

FE10: My 5th favorite, this one's pretty much just a better PoR, IMO.

FE11: A very barebones remake of the first game, but it's a vast improvement over the first game and even FE3 book 1, I'd say. This one was my first FE.

FE12: This one basically took all the complaints about FE11 and fixed the problems. It introduced Casual Mode, one of the best things for the series IMO, and is overall my second favorite FE. However, Kris is the worst avatar in the series and a blatant Mary Sue, but the other new characters are pretty cool.

FE13: My favorite game in the series. My main gripe with it is the lack of mission variety, though there are other problems with it too.

FE14: Haven't played yet.

It doesn't but it has really good base conversations.... That's something right?

I was being sarcastic there. Base conversations are actually something I wish would return, though. It was a nice way to characterize non-required units outside of support convos.

[Locke087]

i just see people saying "no, it's fine"

no one is getting overly defensive or saying it's extremely fantastic

i don't see the problem here

There are two or so extremes responses but they mostly just from him egging people on to try to get elicit responses. Trolling begets defensiveness so these responses were to be expected, I see nothing out of the ordinary.

[Katie]

Like I said, I was deliberately trying to start a shitstorm in that topic. It's fun to troll on the gamefaqs boards. It's the main reason I even use the gamefaqs boards. I definitely wouldn't act like I did in that topic here unless it was in FFtF, and even then, I generally don't troll in FFtF, merely shitpost.

EDIT: And FWIW, I'd rather future game not try to be like older ones. The games should instead try and find ways to improve over their predecessors and stand out from the other games in the series, otherwise the series would just stagnate.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Matthewtheman

[Locke087]

I'm aware, and I don't blame you for doing it, i'm just saying it doesn't serve your point very well because you tampered with the results. I'll be interested to see how the thread with turned out if you didn't interfered as much. But as it is the sample is tainted...

On your second point I totally agree the series needs to continue to innovate and push forward, that said there are things it can learn from learn from predecessors, such as good characters and supports. But just imagine a Fire Emblem game that can once again be as different as FE 4 is, I would love the next Fire Emblem to be it's own thing. I hope that intelligent systems doesn't get scared too much of innovation because of Awakening, it would be a shame if the next game is just a slight improvement on that formula.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Locke087

[Katie]

On your second point I totally agree the series needs to continue to innovate and push forward, that said there are things it can learn from learn from predecessors, such as good characters and supports.

Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm not saying they should try to be totally different for innovation's sake. In fact, they should continue to use stuff that worked in previous entries, while introducing new stuff to keep things fresh. I'm just saying they shouldn't try to be so much like a previous entry that the game ends up playing almost exactly like said entry. There's always room for improvement and differentiation, IMO.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I don't hate GameFAQs. It's just that its community is very fun and easy to mock. The site itself is a very useful place if you need help with a game, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy participating in its message boards, as bad as they can get sometimes.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Matthewtheman

[Jotari]

So five pages in a topic started today...I'm going to go ahead and assume things were not kept civil.

[Raguna]

So five pages in a topic started today...I'm going to go ahead and assume things were not kept civil.

Actually to mostly everyone's surprise, everything has been pretty civil so far. There hasn't been much of an problem, but the topic does have that air of flames being spurned.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Raguna

[Katie]

Actually to mostly everyone's surprise, everything has been pretty civil so far. There hasn't been much of an easy, but the topic does have that air of flames being spurned.

Yeah, I'm actually pretty surprised myself.

Anyway, I decided to do this poll on gamefaqs, but without the 3DS FEs(mainly because Gamefaqs only let's you do 10 options per poll), as you can see, and even vote, here: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/114533-fire-emblem-fates-conquest/73925914

[Jotari]

To give my opinion, I'm going to say Path of Radiance which is trailing behind in forth on the poll currently. This was the seventh or eight Fire Emblem game I played so by the time I got to it I was a bit underwhelmed. Overall it's pretty easy compared to the rest of the series save Sacred Stones (in the west that is, I'm aware Lunatic exists in Japan) and the gameplay comes with some pretty annoying features. Predominantly skills vanishing when you remove them from a unit and only 1 S Ranked magic tome. The story also seemed super generic by this point. I can appreciate that it had some good writing, particularly in the world building department (unfortunately for the game I'd already played through Radiant Dawn several times so it wasn't something I could appreciate fully) but over all it threw nothing at me that was surprising and I doubt my opinion would have been much different if I hadn't played Radiant Dawn first. It's by no means a bad game, it did add or bring back some good features and I can see why people like it, but for me personally it just ranks among the lower of Fire Emblem games I feel inclined to play.

I don't really see how Awakening is overrated. Sure it's very popular and its sales were phenomenal for a FE, but I don't see people pretending that it's perfect or ignoring its flaws, even if it's their favorite, unlike some FEs such as FE4, FE7, or the Tellius games. In fact, I see people bashing it more often than I do singing its praises, though I'm aware the bashers are a vocal minority. But maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places. If you people can provide me evidence of someone overexaggerating how good it is, please do so. I can provide an example of someone exaggerating the quality of FE7:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/633202-super-smash-bros-for-wii-u/73912781

They literally call it a masterpiece.

Quoting something from the first page here but I'd just like to point out that this is someone who was hating on a game series before they even played a single game in it. So my opinion of their opinion couldn't really be much lower.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Jotari