Fire Emblem Fates Review - Big Shoes To Fill

[major_chaos]

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]

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]

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]

Oh man, I forgot to mention that Fates does have one major improvement over Awakening. Characters have feet!

Spoiler: Awakening

Spoiler: Fates

 

[Hawki]

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]

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.

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]

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.

The majority of games do not feature perma-death, after all.

The majority of games aren't turn-based strategies, either.

 

[xaszatm]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

snip

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]

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.

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]

Snip

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]

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]

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.

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]

Snip

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.

Chapter 13 or so of the Birthright path

Then that's just really, really bad level design.

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]

Snip

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?