true hit rates are all kinds of jank, gaiden especially but come on is fire emblem really complete without axe bros?
I’d argue it isn’t. That’s why i think fire emblem has far too many games under its belt to really try any major experimantations with its structure at this point.
Any massive gameplay change such as the original pursuit skill or mounted units forced to dismount indoors would be met with incredible backlash nowadays.
2 Likes
to be fair though mario wouldn’t be mario without being able to jump on enemy heads, killing bosses in three hits, starring some sort of plumber in a green or red variety with the occasional yellow variety
I think three houses introduced a good amount of new features to not alienate new and old players with battalions and new stats that isn’t too hard to get a grasp on, the class tree system also works well because of the familiarity of the classes, everyone being able to go into every class is not as alienating to old players when you see classes like myrmidon, mercenary, cavalier, wyvern rider, and swordmaster because they’re such well known classes.
As long as the series doesn’t further create a gap between casual and hardcore fans or alienate the fans experienced with the series I’d say experimenting with gameplay can be nice. Sure if mario all of a sudden couldn’t kill enemies by jumping on their head in odyssey and you needed to use the living hat it would cause a little bit of a stir but because the experimental gameplay doesn’t detract from what players are used to it’s seen as a good addition.
Don’t forget three houses had the weapon proficiency skills to compensate for the loss weapon triangle. All of which grant higher hit with those weapons.
Gameplay experimentation can be good, just remember that those very gameplay experiments is how we ended up with thracia fog, pursuit 1.0, rain maps, and roy promoting so late in the story its painful.
Sure, the features introduced in 3H don’t alienate old or new players, but they’re certainly taking out what makes FE an FE more than the supposedly “controversial” Genealogy could ever done. In fact, it can be released without “Fire Emblem” in its title.
1 Like
three houses added new stat points, a new special action you can do limited number of times in battle, and gaiden/echoes stuff. If you think that’s bad then wait until you play fe2/15 or hell even 8, that adds a whole world map and skirmishes!
1 Like
And yet genealogy is the game that would have to be completely rebuilt if it got an echoes version. The arena abuse was at its worst since units didn’t die, every unit has its own gold for the pawnshop trade which could only be used at an allied castle (i.e trading a javelin around took two different units three turns to finish.) which calling clunky is an understatement, weapons upgrade into killer weapons the more their used, the entire holy blood system is ass. And the ring system, fuck the ring system.
There is only one change in genealogy i like and that villages take three turns to be pillaged.
2 Likes
You see, I can get down with the arena getting changes that make it not abuse-able; anything that makes FE harder is always a welcome thing to me. The individual gold and strict trade system, killer weapon and holy blood system should stay, though.
1 Like
Ehh, world map ain’t much of a significant thing. The skirmish, though, I agree it’s bad since it allows grinding.
The combat art is a terrible addition in 3H since only player unit can use it and therefore turning the game into a heavily player-biased one and takes away what makes FE an FE: challenge & difficulty. Same goes for the battalion system which favors the player a lot as enemies can’t use them effectively and player will have better ones (aside from the lord boss unit). Then there’s that so-called “QoL upgrade” Targeting Line that blatantly tells you not which enemy can attack your unit, but which enemy will attack which unit of yours.
1 Like
who said I thought it was bad? It’s an optional way to give benched units exp, if you use it it’s on you if you made the game too easy
the game’s designed around combat arts being used by only the player, and do you know what else is player exclusive? Level ups, a prep screen, a convoy, trading, promotion, a save system, a wiki, I can keep going
FE isn’t FE because it’s ‘‘challenging and difficult’’ that’s not even close to being true, you can solo fe4 gen 1 easily with sigurd, there have been easier difficulties since fe8. this isn’t fire emblem, and by saying combat arts are bad because fire emblem is supposed to be challenging and difficult above all else just makes you sound like an elitist arguing why casual mode shouldn’t even exist and that the only way to play fire emblem is through ltcing on the highest difficulty.
this is, again designed around, this wasn’t retrofitted into fe6 or anything this game was made with battalions in mind, it’s like saying cav units are too op because the player units have free thought and can effectively use high movement units better which is a stupid argument
yes, because a quality of life feature is a terrible addition that makes fire emblem too easy because it takes the trial and error away from a game that has no right to be a trial and error game.
this whole comment sounds very elitist which I don’t think was your intention but it is something to note
2 Likes
I don’t know if you’ve ever asked what FE is to non-FE players back then, they’d certainly say it’s the Dark Souls of SRPG with permadeath and punishing RNG, hence the identity of FE is “difficulty”.
You missed the point and even brought up stuff that is outside of the game (the wiki). The combat art and battalion made the game too easy and devoid of challenge because of it empowers the player so much. Let’s take Swift Strikes from 3H, for example; it allows you to strike twice, making SPD irrelevant, and boosts your damage output as well, at what price? Just a couple of weapon uses, which is irrelevant when the game gives you lots of money and free equipments. If that doesn’t scream player-bias or making the game too easy, I don’t know what is/will. And yes, I wouldn’t find this to be a problem if the enemies can use it as well.
There’s a difference between QoL and this. QoL doesn’t take away difficulties, it makes things that are not the intended part of the gameplay less complicated (like checking enemy range). This one makes the game easier. Also, I don’t get why you complain about trial and error on this one when the system at fault is RNG.
My comment sounding elitist is only natural, as I do enjoy everything people consider “elitist” stuff (permadeath, super imbalanced stats/gameplay/enemies, hardcore difficulties, Judgral and Kaga’s works in general) and nowadays, preferring difficult/punishing stuff will have you called that immediately. I don’t condone gatekeeping or casual-calling people, though (that’s just being mean). I just criticize the modern games for being mostly terrible.
2 Likes
fe should experiment more and force people out of their comfort zones
3 Likes
That’s where the rub is. You’re coming off as if your opinion is right. Fire Emblem still caters to the way you want to play but it’s unfair to think that’s the way the game should always be designed.
Edit: what you think is criticism is very easily readable as gatekeeping. As an example: if the next FE game decided to go that route and give the enemy more advantages then the player (their archers get 1-3 range yours get 2 range, enemy only weaker brave weapons, enemy only effective tomes and good combat dancers) that would push away A LOT of casual players and rub even alot of veteran players the wrong way, while “elitists” would praise the bad ideas as praiseworthy additions since it makes the game hard solely for the sake of being hard, and since it actively pushed away the casual player it would in fact be gatekeeping.
The difference of what makes you come off as an elitist in this whole debacle is that it seems like you look down on people who don’t play the game like it’s actively trying to kill your dog, as though people should only play FE on maddening/Lunatic+ Ironman with their genitals hooked up to a car battery for the “true fire emblem experience”.
I’d like to think that isn’t what you think, but its how you’re coming off.
2 Likes
Hey man, that applies to you as well; your opinion sounds as if it’s wrong for Fire Emblem, an SRPG, to design a game where players have to think instead of just breezing through it with minimum effort, to quote your own words, like it’s actively trying to kill your dog (While also coming off as if your opinion is right. I mean, try reading them).
Also, nobody said anything about giving the enemy such stupid advantages. You made that up on your own and that is just a plain bad argument/assumption. I literally just said it’s wrong to give player all the advantage, better to make the player have equal ground so strategy is actually the thing that makes the difference here, not because the game pampers the player with all the powerful exclusivity.
Imagine thinking “they should design the game to be more challenging” as “newer players should never be able to play this one”. Heck, that’s why I did not protest about the Casual Mode; it allows newer players to learn and improve. So I don’t really know what you’re getting at here ¯_ (ツ)_/¯
1 Like
I found a new analogy
1 Like
I’m not saying its wrong for a SRPG to make you think, I’m saying i think it’s wrong to praise some of kaga’s worst gameplay designs, that actively hampered the gameplay, as good design. If he thought double attacks needed to go it should have been all or nothing, but pursuit showed he was unsure about it, it was received negatively and was never used again.
My statement on the enemy getting advantages the player doesn’t was actually in direct response to
in which everything i listed would qualify.
You also seem to misunderstand the negative connotation associated with being an “elitist” since in just about every fandom the “elitist” is the most aggravating, gatekeeping, snobbish, fart huffing, entitled, mongoloid to ever have to be delt with.
At this point I don’t even care what your original intent was, you’ve basically been talking down to at least me and possibly ghost and I’m not willing to just ignore it.
Never used again? It was once more used in Berwick. Also, I think it didn’t hamper anything since unit without pursuit has compensations as well and if you think no pursuit = hampering, that proves my point that SPD meta is a plague design because a unit without it (or simply can’t perform one) is considered useless by the player (not making this up).
I don’t see how that translate to enemies having exclusive weapons where the player have the weaker ones. You are indeed making that up. If you want a taste of what I write there, Thracia and Genealogy part 2 are what you should seek (more on Thracia, however).
I’m starting to see why some people intentionally wear that name and use it to annoy people. They’re literally minding their own business and simply handing out opinion and then there are people like you who intentionally attack their opinions.
“Oh man, I went in a Hot-Take thread and saw someone with opinions I don’t agree with, I should express mine (cold takes!) and mine has to be the objectively the right one otherwise, Elitist!!”
Bruh.
1 Like
this thread is funny
- youtuber makes youtube video about hot takes
- a few hot takes are said, some being absolute dogshit, others being less than that
- ???
- world war III
2 Likes
alright, I’m done arguing this whole thing since we’re both too pig headed to know when to stop since at this point we’re basically just yelling back and forth at each other.
Since it all started over me nitpicking how fire emblem would be impacted on raising accuracy and effectivley giving every unit weary fighter (could be a hack idea strangely enough), and for that i apologize.
Also what in the 7 layers of hell does berwick saga have any bearing on talking about fire emblem. I’m fairly certain that it isn’t fire emblem, and if it is that’s news to me. Please don’t tell me its solely because kaga made it, because if it is then thats a very loaded statement. I’m asking this as a serious question and not trying to start a new argument I’m just curious.
It’d be like saying Bloodstained is a castlevania game solely because Igurashi made it. (i say this knowing full well about the recent mode that in fact makes it literally castlevania.)
why did I make this?
the man only wanted to promote his newest video
1 Like