Fire Emblem Fates Review - Big Shoes To Fill

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Fire Emblem Fates Review - Big Shoes To Fill

Fire Emblem: Fates takes two steps forward and one step back.

Read Full Article
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,677
346
88
Good enough for me, and since I'm currently swimming in cash that rather nice special edition beckons.
YOU MUST SHIP ADDITIONAL PAIRINGS.
 

kenu12345

Seeker of Ancient Knowledge
Aug 3, 2011
573
0
0
Sounds awesome enough for me but thing I do want to ask is if you are Awakening fan or an older fan and what version did you play. You seem to be more of an Awakening fan which is cool and all but Awakening was pretty bland to me and those who prefer that over the others, I tend to respect but rather hear from someone else
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
kenu12345 said:
Sounds awesome enough for me but thing I do want to ask is if you are Awakening fan or an older fan and what version did you play. You seem to be more of an Awakening fan which is cool and all but Awakening was pretty bland to me and those who prefer that over the others, I tend to respect but rather hear from someone else
Like a lot of Western Fire Emblem fans, my first experience with the series was the GBA port and its follow-up.
 

kenu12345

Seeker of Ancient Knowledge
Aug 3, 2011
573
0
0
Slycne said:
kenu12345 said:
Sounds awesome enough for me but thing I do want to ask is if you are Awakening fan or an older fan and what version did you play. You seem to be more of an Awakening fan which is cool and all but Awakening was pretty bland to me and those who prefer that over the others, I tend to respect but rather hear from someone else
Like a lot of Western Fire Emblem fans, my first experience with the series was the GBA port and its follow-up.
Ah right then ^^ I assume you played both of the Fates then(QM) Thanks for getting back to me on that. I just was a bit confused cause some details I would have liked weren't there
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
kenu12345 said:
Ah right then ^^ I assume you played both of the Fates then(QM) Thanks for getting back to me on that. I just was a bit confused cause some details I would have liked weren't there
I'm happy to answer any questions you have to the best of my abilities. It's hard to fit every bit into the review sometimes.
 

kenu12345

Seeker of Ancient Knowledge
Aug 3, 2011
573
0
0
Slycne said:
kenu12345 said:
Ah right then ^^ I assume you played both of the Fates then(QM) Thanks for getting back to me on that. I just was a bit confused cause some details I would have liked weren't there
I'm happy to answer any questions you have to the best of my abilities. It's hard to fit every bit into the review sometimes.
Well at the moment I only have a few, but a huge problem I had with Awakening was that even if you went classic, half of your army technically never died, females and people that join after their place in the plot should be done like Basillo I think. Is this a problem in this game
 

Josh123914

They'll fix it by "Monday"
Nov 17, 2009
2,048
0
0
I'm ready for this game, unfortunately they haven't even given a release date for the UK, so I'm a bit salty.

Slycne said:
kenu12345 said:
Ah right then ^^ I assume you played both of the Fates then(QM) Thanks for getting back to me on that. I just was a bit confused cause some details I would have liked weren't there
I'm happy to answer any questions you have to the best of my abilities. It's hard to fit every bit into the review sometimes.
How's the Voice Acting? I heard there was some issues regarding localization?
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
Well I was going to get this game anyway. Though I'm torn between which one to get first. I like the idea of timed missions with more tactical objectives in conquest, but I feel like going from the harder game to an easier game is going to be a weird sensation that might throw me off.

So I gotta think about that. Worse comes to worse I can always put it off and just waste my time playing SMT IV Final (need to get that)
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
18,159
1
3
Country
UK
Ah danm, I forgot it was out in the US soon.

I guess I'm selfish to say that I kinda glad it ain't out in the UK yet (I far more invested in this 3DS game at the moment). By the time the UK is released, there will be a guide or two to used if I get stuck.

I still intend to get Conquest but not using classic mode cos I'm lazy like that. By all means I played the franchise since the GBA but I no longer got the time to spend hours trying to redo a mission without getting anyone killed.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
kenu12345 said:
Well at the moment I only have a few, but a huge problem I had with Awakening was that even if you went classic, half of your army technically never died, females and people that join after their place in the plot should be done like Basillo I think. Is this a problem in this game
Most of the ones I saw in Fates are similar to Basillo. Their "death" quote was something about a permanent injury or needing to retreat. However, there are a few scripted deaths that will occur.

Josh123914 said:
How's the Voice Acting? I heard there was some issues regarding localization?
Given the big cast remarkably decent. The only grating thing I found with the VA is they play these short lines or sounds over the dialogue sometimes. You're going to hear "Brother/Sister" and the same gasps and grunts a lot. A few little grammar mistakes crept into the text, but I haven't heard, or noticed, anything particularly egregious in the VA.

Somewhat related, despite having many of the same composers, the soundtrack is a little weak. It's the first Fire Emblem I've been fine playing with the sound turned down/off.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,510
1,255
118
Country
United Kingdom
Hrmm. A little worried that the entry I had chosen to be my introduction to the Fire Emblem series-- Fates: Conquest-- is apparently significantly more difficult. I imagine I'll be switching perma-death off to compensate (unless I turn out to be just badass enough to have no problems).

Anywho. Looking forward to it. Also frustrated the UK doesn't have a definitive release date.
 

kenu12345

Seeker of Ancient Knowledge
Aug 3, 2011
573
0
0
Silvanus said:
Hrmm. A little worried that the entry I had chosen to be my introduction to the Fire Emblem series-- Fates: Conquest-- is apparently significantly more difficult. I imagine I'll be switching perma-death off to compensate (unless I turn out to be just badass enough to have no problems).

Anywho. Looking forward to it. Also frustrated the UK doesn't have a definitive release date.
There's three difficulties plus the things relating to death so I am sure that you can handle it. Some people overblow difficulty of classic mode at times. If you like strategies games and can pick up on the mechanics, I am sure that you won't have troubles
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
Silvanus said:
Hrmm. A little worried that the entry I had chosen to be my introduction to the Fire Emblem series-- Fates: Conquest-- is apparently significantly more difficult. I imagine I'll be switching perma-death off to compensate
Why? Just play smart, take your time, and don't assume you should be playing on any difficulty other than Normal if you don't yet know all the rules.

Just start on Normal Classic and go from there, playing other difficulties once you feel you've seen what this game has in story for you.

On a more personal note, why do most journalists and commentators feel the need to dedicate space to describing how Fire Emblem works? It may be complicated to describe, but showing it is a much simpler affair. Nobody dedicates time to going over how X-Com or Deus Ex worked.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,510
1,255
118
Country
United Kingdom
kenu12345 said:
There's three difficulties plus the things relating to death so I am sure that you can handle it. Some people overblow difficulty of classic mode at times. If you like strategies games and can pick up on the mechanics, I am sure that you won't have troubles
Well, that sounds quite manageable :)

Logience said:
Why? Just play smart, take your time, and don't assume you should be playing on any difficulty other than Normal if you don't yet know all the rules.

Just start on Normal Classic and go from there, playing other difficulties once you feel you've seen what this game has in story for you.
Is Classic the mode with perma-death? That's... scary to me. At the same time, I must admit I can appreciate the tension and attachment it would bring out... but I think that would be better suited to a second playthrough.
 
Jan 19, 2011
65
0
0
Just a piece of advice for people looking in the comments: play with classic mode (ie., permadeath) on. It's the way the game is meant to be played, as it forces you to strategize (as you can't just kamikaze all your units and expect them to be fine; you have to be able to finish the chapter, and have enough good units to finish the game). I'd also recommend Conquest over Birthright. Grinding trivialises difficulty, as you can just grind your way past the harder parts of the game, instead of improving your strategy and becoming a better player.

Silvanus said:
Is Classic the mode with perma-death? That's... scary to me. At the same time, I must admit I can appreciate the tension and attachment it would bring out... but I think that would be better suited to a second playthrough.
I agree with the posters that urged you to try Classic. Permadeath offers a strategy experience like no other. The fact that you have a unique (and limited) cast along with permadeath causes you to strategize and develop awareness of your unit's strenghts and weaknesses. The game will be a much more enjoyable and fufiling. If it seems daunting, you can always play on Normal, which should be forgiving enough to allow you to learn the mechanics of the game/series. You can always up the difficulty for a 2nd playthrough if you want. Also, if a unit dies, don't be afraid to restart the chapter. No need to Ironman on your first run (unless you want to of course; I know I will).

On the topic of the review:

Good review. You made good points and you backed them up. It's always interesting to see others opinions.
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
Silvanus said:
Is Classic the mode with perma-death?
Yes.

That's... scary to me. At the same time, I must admit I can appreciate the tension and attachment it would bring out... but I think that would be better suited to a second playthrough.
Why? The point of Fire Emblem is to go through the levels preventing units from getting beaten at all. If a unit gets killed, you're supposed to reset, figure out what went wrong, and do the level over in a manner that'll prevent this. Getting used to units getting killed is a terrible habit.

Like I said: Take your time, learn how to play, and the rest will flow from there.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,510
1,255
118
Country
United Kingdom
Logience said:
Why? The point of Fire Emblem is to go through the levels preventing units from getting beaten at all. If a unit gets killed, you're supposed to reset, figure out what went wrong, and do the level over in a manner that'll prevent this. Getting used to units getting killed is a terrible habit.

Like I said: Take your time, learn how to play, and the rest will flow from there.
The point of any game is to get through without dying (except maybe Limbo). This just seems to punish failure rather excessively for a first playthrough.

If resetting the battle is always an option, that's fine. I hadn't realised that.
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
Silvanus said:
This just seems to punish failure rather excessively for a first playthrough.
That's what failure is supposed to be: punishing. You screwed up, so now you have to suffer consequences. Casual mode's problem is how it utterly removes the need for players to suffer consequences for their actions.

Losing a unit is your failure, and as consequence, your punishment is to either move on without them - locking off content by doing so - or to reset the level to ensure you get to experience that content - at the cost of being forced to do the level all over to learn a lesson from your mistakes.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Silvanus said:
Is Classic the mode with perma-death? That's... scary to me. At the same time, I must admit I can appreciate the tension and attachment it would bring out... but I think that would be better suited to a second playthrough.
One thing you can do is play on a pseudo self-imposed Classic. Let the death stand if it feels right and wasn't due to an honest mistake or supremely bad luck. Like having one of your characters gone permanently because they body blocked another character from an attack feels appropriate. Loosing someone to a 2% crit, less so. It doesn't iron man the save, so you can quit back to the home screen and restart the game to end up at your last save.
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
It says how much I loved Awakening that even though they split this game in half arbitrarily and still had the cheek to cut out the "best" path and sell it back to you as disk locked content, and then sold the whole thing on one card as part of a stupidly limited run special edition (that was bought out by scalpers inside thirty seconds) just to flaunt that none of this division was necessary, I'm still gonna fucking buy it.

Although I do find Nintendo getting away with this outrage free is hilarious when any other company would have been crucified. Just another example of how hypocritical "consumer" outrage is.
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
Slycne said:
Loosing someone to a 2% crit, less so.
First, enemies never have crit chance unless they're using weapons that deliberately give them high crit.

Second, those circumstances only happen when you're expecting one or two units to take on a mob of at least half a dozen enemies in one turn without a vast statistical gulf. In which case, they deserve that reset.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
Logience said:
Silvanus said:
This just seems to punish failure rather excessively for a first playthrough.
That's what failure is supposed to be: punishing. You screwed up, so now you have to suffer consequences. Casual mode's problem is how it utterly removes the need for players to suffer consequences for their actions.
Oh let him play the game the way he wants to. Some people, like you and I, like a challenge. Some people just want to have a good time. Neither way is the "right" way.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Oh man, I forgot to mention that Fates does have one major improvement over Awakening. Characters have feet!


 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,851
582
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
major_chaos said:
It says how much I loved Awakening that even though they split this game in half arbitrarily and still had the cheek to cut out the "best" path and sell it back to you as disk locked content, and then sold the whole thing on one card as part of a stupidly limited run special edition (that was bought out by scalpers inside thirty seconds) just to flaunt that none of this division was necessary, I'm still gonna fucking buy it.

Although I do find Nintendo getting away with this outrage free is hilarious when any other company would have been crucified. Just another example of how hypocritical "consumer" outrage is.
I know what you mean. If Activision, Ubisoft, or EA did this, people would be up in arms, but it's Nintendo, so hey, free pass.

It's funny because I remember when people claimed that SC2 was being split into three games (false, one game, two expansions, priced as such), yet fall silent on Pillars of Eternity (one game, two expansions, priced as such), and in Fire Emblem, we had a dual campaign in Sacred Stones, yet here, it's split. Now maybe the length of each campaign is enough to justify said split here, but with there already being a "true" campaign that negates both, I'm left to ask what the point is.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,510
1,255
118
Country
United Kingdom
Logience said:
That's what failure is supposed to be: punishing. You screwed up, so now you have to suffer consequences. Casual mode's problem is how it utterly removes the need for players to suffer consequences for their actions.

Losing a unit is your failure, and as consequence, your punishment is to either move on without them - locking off content by doing so - or to reset the level to ensure you get to experience that content - at the cost of being forced to do the level all over to learn a lesson from your mistakes.
Well, alright, but that's a matter of personal preference, surely. The majority of games do not feature perma-death, after all.

Slycne said:
One thing you can do is play on a pseudo self-imposed Classic. Let the death stand if it feels right and wasn't due to an honest mistake or supremely bad luck. Like having one of your characters gone permanently because they body blocked another character from an attack feels appropriate. Loosing someone to a 2% crit, less so. It doesn't iron man the save, so you can quit back to the home screen and restart the game to end up at your last save.
A good idea. But then I'd feel cheap!

...And with that, I realise that I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, too.
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
erttheking said:
Oh let him play the game the way he wants to. Some people, like you and I, like a challenge. Some people just want to have a good time. Neither way is the "right" way.
This game is meant to be a strategy game, to give an intellectual thrill. If people just want a base "video gamey" thrill, there's tons and tons of Mario games for them to play instead.

Silvanus said:
The majority of games do not feature perma-death, after all.
The majority of games aren't turn-based strategies, either.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
major_chaos said:
It says how much I loved Awakening that even though they split this game in half arbitrarily and still had the cheek to cut out the "best" path and sell it back to you as disk locked content, and then sold the whole thing on one card as part of a stupidly limited run special edition (that was bought out by scalpers inside thirty seconds) just to flaunt that none of this division was necessary, I'm still gonna fucking buy it.

Although I do find Nintendo getting away with this outrage free is hilarious when any other company would have been crucified. Just another example of how hypocritical "consumer" outrage is.
Hawki said:
major_chaos said:
It says how much I loved Awakening that even though they split this game in half arbitrarily and still had the cheek to cut out the "best" path and sell it back to you as disk locked content, and then sold the whole thing on one card as part of a stupidly limited run special edition (that was bought out by scalpers inside thirty seconds) just to flaunt that none of this division was necessary, I'm still gonna fucking buy it.

Although I do find Nintendo getting away with this outrage free is hilarious when any other company would have been crucified. Just another example of how hypocritical "consumer" outrage is.
I know what you mean. If Activision, Ubisoft, or EA did this, people would be up in arms, but it's Nintendo, so hey, free pass.

It's funny because I remember when people claimed that SC2 was being split into three games (false, one game, two expansions, priced as such), yet fall silent on Pillars of Eternity (one game, two expansions, priced as such), and in Fire Emblem, we had a dual campaign in Sacred Stones, yet here, it's split. Now maybe the length of each campaign is enough to justify said split here, but with there already being a "true" campaign that negates both, I'm left to ask what the point is.
What free pass? The same free pass that got those 100+ comments on those negative Fire Emblem threads? People ARE complaining about the three-way split and is among the pile of reasons why people don't want the game. It's just that most of those reasons...don't really matter for the main game. And even if we go with the "if EA, Activtion did it" excuse...those games still get high reviews even when they do shady things. Nintendo doesn't get any more of a free pass then other companies.
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,677
346
88
Logience said:
Silvanus said:
Is Classic the mode with perma-death?
Yes.

That's... scary to me. At the same time, I must admit I can appreciate the tension and attachment it would bring out... but I think that would be better suited to a second playthrough.
Why? The point of Fire Emblem is to go through the levels preventing units from getting beaten at all. If a unit gets killed, you're supposed to reset, figure out what went wrong, and do the level over in a manner that'll prevent this. Getting used to units getting killed is a terrible habit.

Like I said: Take your time, learn how to play, and the rest will flow from there.
It's a testament to the quality of the writing that I refuse point blank to play Awakening on Classic despite having beaten it twice. I still get enough of a strategic workout without having to worry about losing those sweet, sweet, support conversations.
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
09philj said:
It's a testament to the quality of the writing that I refuse point blank to play Awakening on Classic despite having beaten it twice. I still get enough of a strategic workout without having to worry about losing those sweet, sweet, support conversations.
What?
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
Logience said:
erttheking said:
Oh let him play the game the way he wants to. Some people, like you and I, like a challenge. Some people just want to have a good time. Neither way is the "right" way.
This game is meant to be a strategy game, to give an intellectual thrill. If people just want a base "video gamey" thrill, there's tons and tons of Mario games for them to play instead.
According to whom? May I ask. Nintendo is the one who made the game, making them the absolute authority on the matter. Since they added this game mode themselves, I don't really see how you can argue that it's not the way the game was "meant" to be. Hell, the game as it exists is the way it was "meant" to be, so what is so wrong about someone using a mode the developers gave to them? It's not exactly diluting your enjoyment of the game. It'd be like saying that you should only play XCOM on ironman mode. No bloody thank you.

I look forward to the day when easy modes aren't treated with disdain.
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,677
346
88
xaszatm said:
major_chaos said:
It says how much I loved Awakening that even though they split this game in half arbitrarily and still had the cheek to cut out the "best" path and sell it back to you as disk locked content, and then sold the whole thing on one card as part of a stupidly limited run special edition (that was bought out by scalpers inside thirty seconds) just to flaunt that none of this division was necessary, I'm still gonna fucking buy it.

Although I do find Nintendo getting away with this outrage free is hilarious when any other company would have been crucified. Just another example of how hypocritical "consumer" outrage is.
Hawki said:
major_chaos said:
It says how much I loved Awakening that even though they split this game in half arbitrarily and still had the cheek to cut out the "best" path and sell it back to you as disk locked content, and then sold the whole thing on one card as part of a stupidly limited run special edition (that was bought out by scalpers inside thirty seconds) just to flaunt that none of this division was necessary, I'm still gonna fucking buy it.

Although I do find Nintendo getting away with this outrage free is hilarious when any other company would have been crucified. Just another example of how hypocritical "consumer" outrage is.
I know what you mean. If Activision, Ubisoft, or EA did this, people would be up in arms, but it's Nintendo, so hey, free pass.

It's funny because I remember when people claimed that SC2 was being split into three games (false, one game, two expansions, priced as such), yet fall silent on Pillars of Eternity (one game, two expansions, priced as such), and in Fire Emblem, we had a dual campaign in Sacred Stones, yet here, it's split. Now maybe the length of each campaign is enough to justify said split here, but with there already being a "true" campaign that negates both, I'm left to ask what the point is.
What free pass? The same free pass that got those 100+ comments on those negative Fire Emblem threads? People ARE complaining about the three-way split and is among the pile of reasons why people don't want the game. It's just that most of those reasons...don't really matter for the main game. And even if we go with the "if EA, Activtion did it" excuse...those games still get high reviews even when they do shady things. Nintendo doesn't get any more of a free pass then other companies.
It's not something I'm happy with, but since each base game represents a full and substantial campaign anyway I can tolerate it.
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,677
346
88
erttheking said:
Logience said:
erttheking said:
Oh let him play the game the way he wants to. Some people, like you and I, like a challenge. Some people just want to have a good time. Neither way is the "right" way.
This game is meant to be a strategy game, to give an intellectual thrill. If people just want a base "video gamey" thrill, there's tons and tons of Mario games for them to play instead.
According to whom? May I ask. Nintendo is the one who made the game, making them the absolute authority on the matter. Since they added this game mode themselves, I don't really see how you can argue that it's not the way the game was "meant" to be. Hell, the game as it exists is the way it was "meant" to be, so what is so wrong about someone using a mode the developers gave to them? It's not exactly diluting your enjoyment of the game. It'd be like saying that you should only play XCOM on ironman mode. No bloody thank you.

I look forward to the day when easy modes aren't treated with disdain.
There are several reasons Awakening is fairly easy, Newcomer mode is not one of them. Not that it matters anyway, I like the gameplay but loved it for the characters.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Logience said:
A better example, there's one mission that standing in the wrong place can get you hit with an undodgeable reduction to 1 hp and then attacked before getting back to your turn. See also getting one shot for failing to see a counter weapon.

Some folks are fine with the gotcha moments, others are not. Thankfully there's plenty of difficulty options for everyone to tailor the experience to their preference.
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
erttheking said:
Nintendo is the one who made the game, making them the absolute authority on the matter. Since they added this game mode themselves, I don't really see how you can argue that it's not the way the game was "meant" to be.
That assumes the people who made this change understood whether or not this actually meshed with how Fire Emblem was meant to be played.

The original Fire Emblem didn't have any difficulty modes or "Casual Mode". If you lost a unit, you were meant to use an inferior substitute unit recruited along the way. Later games ended up dropping that mentality under the assumption that people were more likely to restart than use a substitute, leading to greater unit variety. Heck, enemy AI prioritizes killing units over dealing damage specifically to force a restart. From a very early point, Fire Emblem was built with reset-upon-death in mind.

This isn't how the game was "Meant" to be, this is how FE14 was "forced" to be to appeal to an audience that otherwise wouldn't play it. And elitism or not, I can't help but get upset when people proudly announce their declaration not to push themselves playing video games when there's no reason why they can't.

Slycne said:
there's one mission that standing in the wrong place can get you hit with an undodgeable reduction to 1 hp and then attacked before getting back to your turn.
Where was that?
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
Logience said:
I'm assuming that you're going to bring forward some evidence that proves otherwise?

Yeah. And the original Mario didn't have the warp whistle. And the original Metroid didn't have save stations that restored your health. And the original Zelda didn't have fairies that brought you back to life when you died. My point...so what? The original didn't have it? Good for the original. The original design isn't better or sacred in any way. It's just older. If a change improves something, make a change. Yeah. WAS. Past tense. Now there's an option for people who want to avoid it because it can be infuriating and people are more interested in the characters than playing a half hour level over for the fifth time in a row. I fail to see what's so horrible about this. It's not like the option for people who like the old way of doing it is gone.

Oh it was forced? I fail to see it. Then again Fire Emblem wasn't "Meant" to be anything, seeing how the formula changes every game, so saying what it was "meant" to be is a rather pointless endeavor. Proudly? Where was the pride in someone saying that they were going to take an option that was less frustrating for them? Because sometimes people want to have fun and not have to deal with dying over and over again to prove a point to absolutely no one. Not everyone approaches games from the same angle you do.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Logience said:
Slycne said:
there's one mission that standing in the wrong place can get you hit with an undodgeable reduction to 1 hp and then attacked before getting back to your turn.
Where was that?
Chapter 13 or so of the Birthright path when you encounter Camilla. She starts next to a dragon vein that bolts a section of map, which you can't even see the area if you're not zoomed out.
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,677
346
88
Logience said:
erttheking said:
Nintendo is the one who made the game, making them the absolute authority on the matter. Since they added this game mode themselves, I don't really see how you can argue that it's not the way the game was "meant" to be.
That assumes the people who made this change understood whether or not this actually meshed with how Fire Emblem was meant to be played.

The original Fire Emblem didn't have any difficulty modes or "Casual Mode". If you lost a unit, you were meant to use an inferior substitute unit recruited along the way. Later games ended up dropping that mentality under the assumption that people were more likely to restart than use a substitute, leading to greater unit variety. Heck, enemy AI prioritizes killing units over dealing damage specifically to force a restart. From a very early point, Fire Emblem was built with reset-upon-death in mind.

This isn't how the game was "Meant" to be, this is how FE14 was "forced" to be to appeal to an audience that otherwise wouldn't play it. And elitism or not, I can't help but get upset when people proudly announce their declaration not to push themselves playing video games when there's no reason why they can't.

Slycne said:
there's one mission that standing in the wrong place can get you hit with an undodgeable reduction to 1 hp and then attacked before getting back to your turn.
Where was that?
Once you decide there's a way a game was meant to be played and all other approaches are somehow invalid or wrong you've kind of lost the argument. The beauty of an interactive medium is that there is no "must". I like a challenge, but I like challenges that reward me for success rather than punish me for failure.
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
erttheking said:
WHOA THERE!

Okay, misguided angle of argument, but my point is that stuff like Casual Mode does not feel like a good decision for Fire Emblem. Or rather, that this change is detrimental to playing the game.

Mario 3's Warp Whistle was just an alternate version of the Warp Zone - all it does is allow the player to skip a couple levels if they feel it'll let them finish the game faster.

Zelda 3's Fairies were really just an alternative to healing potions. It lets you auto-revive after death, but doesn't restore as much health as potions. It's mainly just used to survive blows and help out Three-Heart players to keep going without committing the definition of insanity, or to help economize item use by letting you revive without having to pull the potion out of your menu.

Metroid Prime's full-heal saves just made gameplay a bit less grindy. Health and missile pickups drop from enemies like candy anyways.

Casual mode is just something that really doesn't feel Fire Emblem in the least. It lets you use units as expendable kamikaze chargers without suffering the obvious consequence of doing so. It takes away experience from incapacitated units while forcing what units managed to go the whole way through to become overfed, allowing them to trivialize those units's later fights.

Slycne said:
Chapter 13 or so of the Birthright path
Then that's just really, really bad level design.

09philj said:
Once you decide there's a way a game was meant to be played and all other approaches are somehow invalid or wrong you've kind of lost the argument.
That's not what I wanted to say, but I still disagree with your tone. The fact is that in all mediums, even video games, there *are* ways that content is meant to be enjoyed, experienced, or understood. I'm sure someone can attest to finding the fun in Mario to be slamming headfirst into the first Goomba and dying over and over again without progress, but that can hardly be called what the product was meant to indulge.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
Logience said:
Why? No one is forcing you to play it. It's an optional mode. Really it just comes off as you wanting everyone to play the game the way yourself want to.

No they weren't. If you didn't use a healing potion before you died, you were gone for good. Not so much with a fairy. It's a game over prevention. Situations where you had a potion in the games instead of a fairy means progress lost if you didn't drink it manually.

Are you honestly talking about how something makes a game less grindy when we're talking about something designed to prevent resetting whole levels constantly?

So. What? All of these problems? You can freely ignore them by playing the classic game mode. What is the big deal here? Are you really that concerned about people playing the game in a way you don't approve of?
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
You know, it's kinda difficult to tell which parts of what you're complaining about when you just delete the whole topic, yet still respond to it in strides.

erttheking said:
Really it just comes off as you wanting everyone to play the game the way yourself want to.
Where's the problem in asking people to push themselves? It's still up to them to take my advice, so don't get stressed out about it.

Situations where you had a potion in the games instead of a fairy means progress lost if you didn't drink it manually.
That's what I said: they were a method of keeping players in the action without having to use a potion from the menu.

Are you honestly talking about how something makes a game less grindy when we're talking about something designed to prevent resetting whole levels constantly?
Yes. If you're low on health at any point in the first four Metroids, if there wasn't a nearby HP recharge station, you could just go around killing weak enemies for health and missile pickups. I'm not complaining about their inclusion, I'm saying that recharge stations are just streamlined methods for getting desired results.

So. What? All of these problems? You can freely ignore them by playing the classic game mode. What is the big deal here? Are you really that concerned about people playing the game in a way you don't approve of?
It doesn't affect me as I'm playing, no. But it will affect how people will see Fire Emblem, and I just don't see the harm in trying to ask people to reconsider. What does seem harmful is how you're assuming my recommendations are an act of hostility and elitism when they're just suggestions for people to consider before they play.
 

kenu12345

Seeker of Ancient Knowledge
Aug 3, 2011
573
0
0
Slycne said:
Oh man, I forgot to mention that Fates does have one major improvement over Awakening. Characters have feet!


Praise the lord for he have blessed all with feet finally!
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
Logience said:
I respond to it section by section, it's very clear.

How about this. They don't want to be pushed. When they want to be pushed, the option is right there waiting for them. And it's not a matter of advice, you were riding that guy's ass about him not wanting to have permadeath, and you yourself said you get "upset" over this.

In a situation that would otherwise result in a game over. Kind of like what's in Fire Emblem now.

Or die. Certainly happened to me a lot. Streamlined to get results? Surely the same could be said about Fire Emblem. I mean why can't it be?

How? How will it affect how people see Fire Emblem? Can it only be seen as the way you want it to be seen if all other options are cut off? The ability to save scum in XCOM Enemy Unknown didn't do anything to affect it's image of hard as balls. So why is it a problem here? The way you were acting goes beyond suggesting something. If you were just suggesting something you would've dropped it when the guy made it clear he wasn't interested. Plus all the comments on how the way the game was "meant" to be played and that there were other games he could play if he had a problem with that.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Silvanus said:
Logience said:
Why? The point of Fire Emblem is to go through the levels preventing units from getting beaten at all. If a unit gets killed, you're supposed to reset, figure out what went wrong, and do the level over in a manner that'll prevent this. Getting used to units getting killed is a terrible habit.

Like I said: Take your time, learn how to play, and the rest will flow from there.
The point of any game is to get through without dying (except maybe Limbo). This just seems to punish failure rather excessively for a first playthrough.

If resetting the battle is always an option, that's fine. I hadn't realised that.
Ugh. Just play it on normal with permadeath off. If you like it, then you can replay it with permadeath on. I like permadeath, but you shouldn't let people guilt you into playing a certain way. Besides, if you get characters killed, you could miss interesting bits of content. It's your precious time and money, enjoy it. Ignore the people who want to give you a hard time. They'll sour the well for everyone. Just have f in : ]

Logience said:
Silvanus said:
This just seems to punish failure rather excessively for a first playthrough.
That's what failure is supposed to be: punishing. You screwed up, so now you have to suffer consequences. Casual mode's problem is how it utterly removes the need for players to suffer consequences for their actions.

Losing a unit is your failure, and as consequence, your punishment is to either move on without them - locking off content by doing so - or to reset the level to ensure you get to experience that content - at the cost of being forced to do the level all over to learn a lesson from your mistakes.
How can you act high and mighty for playing on classic mode one minute, then turn around and talk about reloading the minute something doesn't go your way? It's like people who complain about magic in Dark Souls. Who cares? When did single player games become a dick measuring contest?
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
Silvanus said:
Logience said:
Why? The point of Fire Emblem is to go through the levels preventing units from getting beaten at all. If a unit gets killed, you're supposed to reset, figure out what went wrong, and do the level over in a manner that'll prevent this. Getting used to units getting killed is a terrible habit.

Like I said: Take your time, learn how to play, and the rest will flow from there.
The point of any game is to get through without dying (except maybe Limbo). This just seems to punish failure rather excessively for a first playthrough.

If resetting the battle is always an option, that's fine. I hadn't realised that.
Yeah, you can always reset the battle.

For the difficulty without classic, imagine an RTS where as long as you won the battle, every single one of your units would return at full health at the end of it. You'd end up just steamrolling the enemy, because you'd fight their army, and then your army would respawn, and you could just charge their defences without having to worry about keeping your people alive.
Or a game of Civ where whenever you capture a city, you get all the units that city killed back at full health.

It just kind of breaks the game. Its good for if you want to just rush through the story and not worry about the gameplay, but if you're there for the gameplay you'll need to play classic. And you'll reset a fair bit. Can't tell you how many times my flying unit has been off to the side and I forgot they had an archer nearby. RIP. But, you restart, learn not to move near archers, ever, at all, under any circumstances, with flying units, and beat the level with no deaths.

And then there's the fun of trying to pair your shippings, and get their relationships up, even if they're not the best combat units, whilst still winning the game. Its doable, but you won't always be able to go for the optimal strategy of assured victory to do so. Makes the game more fun and interesting, if you lose a unit just restart the mission [They can't stop you from doing that. Worst case you could just party wipe and HAVE to restart the mission, but there is an option to just restart there and then too].

erttheking said:
Logience said:
erttheking said:
Oh let him play the game the way he wants to. Some people, like you and I, like a challenge. Some people just want to have a good time. Neither way is the "right" way.
This game is meant to be a strategy game, to give an intellectual thrill. If people just want a base "video gamey" thrill, there's tons and tons of Mario games for them to play instead.
According to whom? May I ask. Nintendo is the one who made the game, making them the absolute authority on the matter. Since they added this game mode themselves, I don't really see how you can argue that it's not the way the game was "meant" to be. Hell, the game as it exists is the way it was "meant" to be, so what is so wrong about someone using a mode the developers gave to them? It's not exactly diluting your enjoyment of the game. It'd be like saying that you should only play XCOM on ironman mode. No bloody thank you.

I look forward to the day when easy modes aren't treated with disdain.
According to the difficulty names. "Normal" and "Classic" [As opposed to "Casual" or "Newcomers" mode] basically spell out that's the way the game was intended to be played. In many games this is often spelt out as well. Easy is not the way the game was INTENDED to be played, its a way its been ALLOWED to be played so that other people can enjoy the title, even if they're not as good at the gameplay.
That's not a disdain of easy mode, its a simple statement of fact. As I said, many games even highlight in the normal description "This is the way the game was meant to be played". Hard also isn't the way the game was meant to be played, its there for those who would prefer an additional challenge from the gameplay. Normal simply represents the middle ground that the designers felt was the intended experience, with the appropriate balance between story and gameplay such that you weren't too focused on simply the gameplay that you struggled to keep track of the story, but that you were still offered enough engagement by the gameplay that it added to the experience rather than just got in the way of the story components. Of course, people's preferences differ, and that's why other options are there - but that doesn't mean those other options were the way the game was intended to be played, merely a way it can be played.

As an analogy, touch rugby is a thing. You touch someone, and it counts as tackling them and the whole possession of the ball switches and such. Is this the way Rugby was intended to be played? No, no it isn't. Rugby was intended to be a full contact sport. Touch was created as an option for those who don't like the idea of that.
See also things like T-ball vs Baseball. Its an easier version of the game for those who can't play the harder version, or simply don't want to, but it isn't the way the base game is intended to be played, hence the variant offspring rather than specific rules within the base game.

There isn't anything wrong with playing on easier difficulties if it presents you an experience that you'll enjoy more, but it isn't the way the game was meant to be played. Its a way that's been added so that those who don't enjoy the game in the way its meant to be played have an option to still enjoy and play the game. Fire Emblem is intended to be a tactical experience. Because they allow people to experience it as a movie with quick time events doesn't change what it is intended to be, it simply means its provided another option.
And as a note, that option was added 1 game before Awakening in the whole series. There have been 7-9 or something games beforehand that simply didn't have the option, as they weren't interested in accommodating other styles of play. Its the way the game is meant to be played. Always has been.
 

ThatOtherGirl

New member
Jul 20, 2015
364
0
0
Silvanus said:
Logience said:
That's what failure is supposed to be: punishing. You screwed up, so now you have to suffer consequences. Casual mode's problem is how it utterly removes the need for players to suffer consequences for their actions.

Losing a unit is your failure, and as consequence, your punishment is to either move on without them - locking off content by doing so - or to reset the level to ensure you get to experience that content - at the cost of being forced to do the level all over to learn a lesson from your mistakes.
Well, alright, but that's a matter of personal preference, surely. The majority of games do not feature perma-death, after all.

Slycne said:
One thing you can do is play on a pseudo self-imposed Classic. Let the death stand if it feels right and wasn't due to an honest mistake or supremely bad luck. Like having one of your characters gone permanently because they body blocked another character from an attack feels appropriate. Loosing someone to a 2% crit, less so. It doesn't iron man the save, so you can quit back to the home screen and restart the game to end up at your last save.
A good idea. But then I'd feel cheap!

...And with that, I realise that I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, too.
Personally, I feel the permadeath in Fire Emblem is nothing special. I honestly think the way it is implemented discourages interesting tactics in favor of sand bagging and reset baiting. Permadeath in Final Fantasy Tactics was far better implemented and actually contributed to the interesting tactical decisions being made.

So really, play how ever you want. I usually ratchet up the difficulty by one notch and turn off permadeath.
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
erttheking said:
Complaining about defeatism is a weakness of mine. I assume that people shouldn't let something stop them from pushing themselves to win something using whatever legitimate means they have, therefore I try to compile all the methods people have to keep themselves going. I don't want people to just act as if their only options are either failure or a decision to handicap what's meant to be the idealized experience. What I want to bring across in my arguments about potions and recharge points are a consideration that people shouldn't just assume they're going to lose once they get stuck in a tight spot unless they make the game easier on themselves. The punishment of resetting or getting a game over exists to make people try and try until they get good enough to prevent that punishment. Getting a game over and assuming defeat is not and never should be an acceptable outcome, yet FE14's Casual and Phoenix Modes choose to say otherwise for no good reason.

Fox12 said:
How can you act high and mighty for playing on classic mode one minute, then turn around and talk about reloading the minute something doesn't go your way?
Because losing a unit is Fire Emblem's equivalent to getting a game over. Otherwise you're letting content get taken away from you. Not to mention what could happen if the unit you lost was the only one you trained.

Also, recommending permadeath is not "acting high and mighty", thank you.
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,677
346
88
Logience said:
erttheking said:
Complaining about defeatism is a weakness of mine. I assume that people shouldn't let something stop them from pushing themselves to win something using whatever legitimate means they have, therefore I try to compile all the methods people have to keep themselves going. I don't want people to just act as if their only options are either failure or a decision to handicap what's meant to be the idealized experience. What I want to bring across in my arguments about potions and recharge points are a consideration that people shouldn't just assume they're going to lose once they get stuck in a tight spot unless they make the game easier on themselves. The punishment of resetting or getting a game over exists to make people try and try until they get good enough to prevent that punishment. Getting a game over and assuming defeat is not and never should be an acceptable outcome, yet FE14's Casual and Phoenix Modes choose to say otherwise for no good reason.
There is a good reason, and the good reason is that some people may enjoy the story, characters, and level by level game play, but can't be arsed to do it 100% perfectly. I find games which demand perfection are really boring and sterile. I find being free to go off the rails and then manage to drag things back under control is a lot more interesting and dynamic.
 

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
09philj said:
There is a good reason, and the good reason is that some people may enjoy the story, characters, and level by level game play, but can't be arsed to do it 100% perfectly. I find games which demand perfection are really boring and sterile. I find being free to go off the rails and then manage to drag things back under control is a lot more interesting and dynamic.
Who said it needed to be done perfectly? Beating a map without losing a unit isn't perfection, it's an incentive unto itself for the sake of self-confidence and earning content.
 

StormShaun

The Basement has been unleashed!
Feb 1, 2009
6,948
0
0
That's great.
Can't wait to pick it up.

...
...
...

Now when are other countries getting it?
'Cause as we know, Europe and Australia's copies are usually gone for a month or two. >.>
 

NinjaTank56

New member
Jan 14, 2015
26
0
0
For people on the fence about their perma-death setting of choice, normally I would say to try out classic and see if it's your cup of tea, but I just can't recommend that to the average gamer. For me, the issues almost always come halfway or more through the game, and even if they didn't, 30+ minutes of wasted time is too much for me, and many others (even if it is a handheld game).
I've played FE and FE: sacred stones on the GBA, and Awakening on the 3DS, and to this day I haven't been able to beat a single one on classic. The difficulty is far too much on the side of trial and error (and memorizing maps) to not be extremely frustrated. The game takes 3-4 times longer on classic for me, between simply taking longer thinking about my moves, and having to restart difficult missions several times. Even with the fog of war maps removed from the 3DS titles, one underestimated attack, or poorly timed enemy reinforcement means you have to start over at the beginning of the level (and don't say "you don't have to start over" because you don't put have enough slots to put throw-away characters in a difficult mission).

If you do decide you want to try classic, I would very much recommend you play on easy (especially if you're on conquest). It will save you a lot of needless frustration and I personally didn't feel any guilt for finishing Awakening on non-classic.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
xaszatm said:
What free pass? The same free pass that got those 100+ comments on those negative Fire Emblem threads? People ARE complaining about the three-way split and is among the pile of reasons why people don't want the game. It's just that most of those reasons...don't really matter for the main game. And even if we go with the "if EA, Activtion did it" excuse...those games still get high reviews even when they do shady things. Nintendo doesn't get any more of a free pass then other companies.
I find it funny because it just reminds me that gamers and the gaming industry have no long-term memory or just ignore history in favor of petty BS. I would have loved to see how people would react to the Zelda: Oracle games getting released in this day and age as they did the exact same thing as FE: Fates, but were only physical and didn't have a discount like this does. And that's before we get into WHY Nintendo gets a "free pass" with this: because they are indeed that good. Which is hilarious considering how they only got into DLC a few years ago.

Anyway, I've already had my order locked down for months and now all I have to do is wait for the game to actually come out. For all the complaining people made over one thing or another is the runup to release we all know that'll be drowned out with the game finally hitting store shelves.
 

Kitsune Hunter

What a beautiful Duwang!
Dec 18, 2011
1,072
0
0
StormShaun said:
That's great.
Can't wait to pick it up.

...
...
...

Now when are other countries getting it?
'Cause as we know, Europe and Australia's copies are usually gone for a month or two. >.>
Well look at the bright side, at least we're getting Bravely Second first when it comes out here next week, which makes me think it was done in order to make up for the fact the UK has to wait for Fates.
 

StormShaun

The Basement has been unleashed!
Feb 1, 2009
6,948
0
0
Kitsune Hunter said:
Well look at the bright side, at least we're getting Bravely Second first when it comes out here next week, which makes me think it was done in order to make up for the fact the UK has to wait for Fates.
Well, it's good for those getting it.
Personally, I'm not, I didn't get the first one either.
After playing the demo, I decided it just wasn't my thing.

Still, that's not the problem. We don't even have a date for Fates. Even the US has a date for Braverly Second. D':
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
Interesting interview with the FE team, even getting into what Kibayashi contributed to the narrative.:

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/what-fire-emblem-needs-to-continue-its-mini-renaissance
 

Paragon Fury

The Loud Shadow
Jan 23, 2009
5,161
0
0
Question;

Did they cut out the bullshit archer, sniper and sniper cavalry spam from Awakening in Fates? Because in Awakening they filled the maps with soooo many archers you basically could not use air units except for Cordellia, and basically had to use Rescue on her after every attack or make sure she never ended a turn where she could possibly be attacked.
 

Random Argument Man

New member
May 21, 2008
6,011
0
0
I bought birthright last Friday. I can honestly say that I have some fun, but find a few things a bit annoying. Sure, it's like Awakening and it's fun. You can basically grind and break the game easily, but I wished it had more mission variation like Conquest has. Also, I recommend switching to "Classic Mode" when you have a good feel of the game.

My biggest nitpick is how much characters this game has. Every main characters has his own group joining you. I haven't done half the game and I have like 15 characters and I still haven't unlocked the child characters that will probably break the game completely.

I used to compare this to pokemon, but someone taught me it's more like the Zelda " Oracle of X" games. Each has separate stories and details. However, once you buy a version, you can buy the other one half-price. Since every path has 30 hours of gameplay, you'll have some a lot of content. I'll probably buy Conquest since it will probably stop me from breaking game mechanics easily. I'm not sure about the revelations part since I'm not aware if the gameplay is like Conquest or Birthright.