Gaiden vs Genealogy: Deviating from the Formula

[bethany81707]

When one brings up the topic of 'the black sheep in the series', the common answer is Fire Emblem Gaiden for the Famicom. Why wouldn't it? Many of Nintendo's iconic, and even their not so iconic, franchises are famous for their second installments being... different. Super Mario Bros USA, Adventure of Link, Return of Samus, Star Fox 2, Of Myths and Monsters... one could even claim that Pikmin 2 fits the mould, despite it being relatively recent and having few comparable data points.

It's not like Fire Emblem Gaiden doesn't work to be called different. Explorable dungeons, one item slot for weapons, shields, rings, etc, magic that is cast from HP, and a focus on multiple small fights over one chapter, or Act. It introduced the concepts of the World Map and infinite durability well before other titles began to use them themselves, and the promotion system is significantly deviant from the rest of the series- where promoting is done at a class-based level rather than a uniform 10.

My argument is that Fire Emblem Genealogy of the Holy War is more drastically different. Massive maps with multiple Seize objectives that accurately represent the continent, a town with features that have a dramatically different impact on your play experience (like the Pawn shop replacing item trading and the Smithy allowing you to repair broken weapons), a skill system that alters the mechanics of the double attack and the critical hit, separate money reserves, the introduction of marriage and children before other titles (and because of both its skill system and the fact it takes the old characters away, inheritance is much more impactful here), and yet another significantly different promotion system that minimises the impact it has on the levelling curve and leaves its value exclusively to its heightened caps (which match the promotion gains) and alternative weapons and mounts.

Both games play very differently to the standard gameplay system Fire Emblem started with, but I ask this... by how much do you reckon these changes impact upon the feel of the game underneath? Which title do you find offers the greatest change from the standard?

[Slumber]

One thing that gives Genealogy an edge in terms of fitting in with the rest of the franchise is that it introduced a handful of features that have been in nearly EVERY FE(Barring the remakes) since.

The only things that Gaiden introduced that stuck around are open world maps and multiple main characters(I suppose you can add branching promotions/villager classes), and neither are as major or prevalent as things like...

- Supports and events/event tiles

- The weapon triangle and weapon ranks

- Splitting the Mercenary and Myrmidon line(Granted, Heroes/Forrests as we know them didn't become a thing until the next game) 

- Splitting Wyvern and Pegasus Knights

- Splitting Magic types and offering multiple Mage classes

- Skills(This skipped FE6 and 7, admittedly)

And probably more that I can't think of off the top of my head. You play any FE made after FE4, and there's a pretty good chance you'll see all of those things. It makes FE4 much more familiar when you play it after nearly any modern Fire Emblem, compared to Gaiden. Gaiden/Echoes has many, many, many things that never made it out of that game. Something I've noticed, and something I've seen other people say, is that Gaiden feels more like a turn-based JRPG on a grid compared to other FE games. For all you can say about Genealogy's game play, I'd argue that it still feels like a strategy game at its heart.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Slumber

[De Geso]

At the time of release, FE4 was a much more noticeable deviation than FE2 - FE2 is closer to FE1 and 3 than FE4 is.

As time has passed, FE4's influence has affected many more games in the series in more ways than Gaiden, so I think today Gaiden is the darker horse (for lack of a better term), but FE4 is certainly still noticeably different.

[Michelaar]

To be honest, I don't care how much they're going away from the norm, as long as it's enjoyable. Fe2, 4, and to an extent Fe15, did not succeed doing that for me. Yes, it introduced a lot of new features that are used in new games as well, but the new games handle it a lot better.

[Kazuya]

Gaiden is better imo. I love Gaiden, for me it's one of the best things in series except Clair because Clair and her family is the worst. 

[De Geso]

24 minutes ago, Michelaar said:

To be honest, I don't care how much they're going away from the norm, as long as it's enjoyable. Fe2, 4, and to an extent Fe15, did not succeed doing that for me. Yes, it introduced a lot of new features that are used in new games as well, but the new games handle it a lot better.

I know that this is mostly subjective, but I find FE2/15's deviations from the standard FE formula to be a breath of fresh air, and I enjoy them quite a lot.

FE4 doesn't really feel different in a good way to me, though, I agree with that. It's just so slow.

[Agro]

I would say that all of the KagaFE games were pretty different in feel. It wasn't until the GBA series that they started to become very monotonous.

[Michelaar]

4 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

I know that this is mostly subjective, but I find FE2/15's deviations from the standard FE formula to be a breath of fresh air, and I enjoy them quite a lot.

FE4 doesn't really feel different in a good way to me, though, I agree with that. It's just so slow.

I respect your opinion, It just wasn't my kinda gameplay system.

[Thinks Their Own Way]

Just notice how most of Gaiden's features didn't return in future games and the lack of people going on about before Echoes was announced with, "I sure hope they bring back magic costing HP". And truth be told, all the unique stuff about Gaiden is nothing overly special in gaming in general. And Gaiden/Echoes doesn't do them well to be blunt.

I wouldn't call Genealogy much of a divergence of the formula because the features like skills and weapon triangle that are very relevant to this day. 

[Shadow Mir]

I would've mentioned Rune Factory 2 as yet another game that manages to be different from its predecessor. Anyways, back on topic, I'd say despite the fact that more of its features have been relevant in the games afterward, Genealogy is more of a departure from the norm of the franchise. That being said, I could overlook being different from the rest of the series if it's still fun to play... but Genealogy's not different in a good way. It's just a huge slog to play through.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[bethany81707]

57 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

I would've mentioned Rune Factory 2 as yet another game that manages to be different from its predecessor.

Not familiar with it, honestly.

[Dandy Druid]

23 minutes ago, phineas81707 said:

Not familiar with it, honestly.

RF2 is a part farming meets RPG game series, inspired by the (old) Harvest Moon games and Final Fantasy.

RF2 is a different from other games because it also has a generational system, like FE4. Each generation has a different goal/focus on what to do. 1st is farming, 2nd is fighting. Anyways the series in general is pretty good, and the game mechanics get better with every release. However their company went bankrupt so we're probably not going to get another game.