Fire Emblem: Divine Genealogy (FE4XNA)


I’ll add onto Arch’s post.

It’s really disappointing, for me personally, that FEXNA isn’t out yet. I totally agree with the community that I wanted it to be out this year, last year, or even five years ago. I’ve been too busy with my writing to make a game with it, and frankly the more people making fexna projects, the more fun stuff there is for me to play. From the perspective of my greed, I wish it were out years ago.

That being said, there are reasons beyond just elitism and whatnot that it isn’t out. Updating from one version of FEXNA to the next (Like from 1.0 to 1.1, as an example) is a tedious, annoying process. This process becomes ten times worse if you edit any of the source code (and you more than likely will, as several things like the ‘config’ files are still hardcoded) since there’s no EZ update button. You don’t just click a button and 30 seconds later boom, new version! It’s more of a multiple hour, and sometimes multiple-week process depending on if you skip a version or two or three.

There is the other issue Arch mentioned, which is that adding new stuff isn’t like GBA. You’re not editing an external file with a program that can be independently updated. You’re creating a game inside of said program. Adding new features is extremely difficult because it has no plugin system yet.

GBA: Update FEbuilder, continue working on ROM.

FEXNA: Port all project files over to new version. Load. Game fails to load. Spend two hours bugfixing. Load. Game loads but everything is wrong. Spend two hours bug fixing. Load. You fucked something up during that second batch of updates. Rinse and repeat.

It’s also missing several important features. Like, me, personally, I want some multiple promotions and choice branches. A bunch of items don’t function properly. The engine, last I checked, has no code for teleportation. Etc.

Well, that was not the case for the first two years of FEU. That has changed to be the case, but I assure you as someone who’s been a part of the FE community for … checks… 15 years (wow), this phenomenon is very new and only a result of the last two-ish years. Maybe three.

Edit: Worth reminding people that I, personally, pushed for a ‘community that shares’ back when FEU was first created. I was very unpopular for that opinion back then, and it took a few years for my opinion to gather broad acceptance. I’m not on the side of “hog all the resources,” not by a long shot.

See: 2015.


Since nobody asked, I’ll give my opion. Just be transparent. If shit is gonna break, let people know it’s gonna break, and if they’re okay with that they can do it anyways. At least have the option available. As it is now, it just looks like elitism. Maybe it’s not, maybe it is, I don’t know. That’s really the issue. We don’t know, and Yeti kind of just leaves us in the dark, and the people actually using the engine just seem like yet another member to the “cool kid’s club”. I can assure you nobody likes having something dangled in front of them.

As for resource sharing, I don’t particularly care what the mentality was, it was a bad one to have. We exist almost entirely on resource sharing, and this just adds on this pile of predescribed elitism that people view this community as having. If you want to move past that I’d advise not lingering on it, this is how social issues such as racism and prejudice are still defended. “When I grew up it was okay so it’s not my fault”.

And before I get yelled at; yes, it is Yeti’s work and he can do whatever he wants with it. That doesn’t mean anybody has to like it.


I have advocated and argued for Yeti to release FEXNA and open up the beta access. I’m sorry if you feel like it is distasteful for me to use a closed platform. You are someone that I have known for years, and I 100% respect your opinion and understand where you’re coming from. But I have approached this from a position of trying to support the values of FEU by supporting FEXNA, even if that may seem counter-intuitive. In my ideal world, FEXNA would already be open source. I don’t disagree with that at all, I’ve been saying it for years. However, having access to the system allows me to see its shortcomings first-hand and identify what needs to be addressed in order to adequately support a public release.

The way I’m looking at this is akin to a classic debate in politics: the “insiders changing the system vs. outsiders revolting against the system” debate. Is it better to have people involved in the FEXNA beta who are trying to look for the areas where the system needs to improve to become more inclusive and advocating for expediting an open beta? Or is it better to just go off and build a new system that is open source (i.e. Lex Talonis) and refuse to use anything that is not an open platform? And the truth is that there are virtues to both. For example, if FEXNA were available to the public it’s likely that the Lex Talonis developer would have supported that platform rather than building his own. There are certainly downsides to keeping the system closed. FEU is blessed with an abundance of capable individuals with an aptitude for programming. I have told Yeti that I feel like he is squandering this resource by keeping FEXNA as a closed beta. I have repeatedly argued these points both in private and in public. I have talked about what FEXNA needs to do in order to support a successful public release. A big part of the reason that I decided to start supporting the platform, after having it available to me for years but never doing so, is because I want to be able to contribute to building a base of documentation and tutorials to support the initial public release.

That’s where I’m coming from. It isn’t just: “oh hey look at me I have this cool platform and you guys don’t.” I am trying to advocate for a position that supports the values of FEU and that, I feel, will make FEXNA a better, more inclusive product. Sometimes things aren’t quite so clear cut.


God damn it people I asked for us to not go off on a tangent.

Plenty of resources/assets made by community members aren’t free to use, albeit people are generally happy to share their work with others (partly why I love you people). Also this is a hacking community. A public release of FEXNA would effectively kill that, wouldn’t it? You can always make a fan game using the Lion’s Throne engine which is entirely free to use.

By all means feel free to shoot me down and call me a total jackass or whatever here, but as a newcomer to the ROM hacking scene (naturally, I don’t know of the struggles of earlier ROM hacking), a tool like FEB does the job just fine (my only gripe would be the audio limitations of the GBA !reee).

I never really got the impression that FEXNA projects were inherently better than hacks (e.g. I don’t understand why FEXNA is associated with elitism); I’ve played a little of FE7x and FR, they’re fun and all. Like FE7x is cool and all with supposedly not having any limits, but have you ever played EN? That shit broke ground within limitations.

Back on track though…

Glac’s mugs are looking dope.


Nice mugs, Glac.


Those mugs are looking hella fine though.


Y’all are kiss asses.


It’s everything I wanted Conquest to be

Thank you for replying Arch. I’m satisfied with this response.

@Glacoe you’re amazing


:heart: you, Mattypoo.

Ouch. That cold shoulder, babe. It is sharp and icyyyyyy.


Good talk, but lets get back to to the real discussion here-

Is petting Arvis’ face going to be a feature



Truth be told, I’ve never completed the original as of typing this, and it’s been ages since I’ve tried to losing your save at the start of gen 2 is heartbreaking. I know some of the major plot points take a guess, characters, music, etc., but even then, a majority of it is still blind for me.
With that being said, the Jugdral games have my favorite aesthetic in the entire series. To see any sort of attempt to have them adapted to meet newer standards brings me joy.

I look forward to the release.


Due to the engine I assume we’ll be able to have units use Rescue and Trade, right? Just checking, those were my biggest gripes with FE4


Yes, I will be keeping the Rescue and Trade mechanics. The goal is to modernize FE4’s gameplay. With the prevalence of mounted units, Rescue is a useful mechanic to help with unit mobility. I’m trying to think of ways to repurpose the Pawn Shop. It might take the form of a shop that appears periodically with rare items that can be purchased once, similar to Aimee’s rare items shop in FE10.


I have a couple of ideas/thoughts/notes on that front that might spring an idea on your end (or from others)?

Aimee’s Bargains is a great system inherently (well, outside of always wanting stuff and not being able to afford all of it at times), since it’s limited-stock and generally interesting items. Would make sense to have castle-specific items - not just at the main Castle Town for a map, but in any of the ones you visit/capture in a chapter. (In general, the inventory and stock quantity of regular shops at each different Castle should be unique* and the opponents in an Arena should also change (but keep the limit of victories per map allowed)?) (*See Pawn Shop for more.)

Pawn Shop - Since it wasn’t an issue with the original design (outside of logic), being able to get new stuff as well as anything you sold at any Castle was great. Was thinking that it should at least stay around in the event you need to sell something for money to pick something else more important up but might want it back later - kind of like when you sell Artifact-quality items in the Golden Sun series, if you’re familiar with that. (The shopkeepers hang on to them and you can buy them back later on if you need/want to, at any of the shop types that carry items of the type you sold.) Perhaps mix #1 and #2 here, with the always-remembered Pawn Section being “separate” from the changing main shop? (Still doesn’t alleviate the “how does a shop in Silesse have an item I sold in Verdane” logic, but hey, I think gameplay trumps that one.)

Probably the one that might be the most contentious, even considering I just said that gameplay simplicity trumps other things - piggybacking off of #2 and the need for Gold, I think that units should still have separate Gold storage… except only for purchasing items from non-main castles or using Churches. The main castle keeps the army’s total coffers and you can add/remove from it at will while at the main castle (ditto with swapping between units at any time). Buying anything from the main castle’s shops takes from the unit’s personal Gold first, and then the coffers second. But, when you’re away from the castle, you can only use what you have on you. If the unit dies, they lose all of the gold they’re carrying.

This lets several things happen - Using a low-durability, high-cost weapon and want to repair it at another castle? Well, better carry enough gold to repair it later, but be careful not to die and lose it all. Or, carry a light load and sell something else you have to the Pawn Shop to get the money you need to repair it now, and just buy the item back later. You can also give enemies their own amounts of gold (like in vanilla FE4 - which you can steal or claim via defeating them), but pull a page from FE5 and let the enemies retreat to the castle town and buy gear with their own gold. (If they’re smart enough to run away and regroup or get more reinforcements, they should be smart enough to purchase additional gear…)


Maybe something like a tithing system? Any time a unit obtains gold, something like 10% of it goes to the castle, while the rest goes to said unit’s personal inventory?


Anyways, onward and upward!

Yes, I would give each shop its own inventory. It’d be difficult to make a “universal shop” for each map anyways, and this allows for me to make new weapons available for purchase mid-chapter which would add a new dimension to the gameplay progression.

Yes, I’d considered doing something like this. I do like the idea of being able to buy back your sold items. So that would give it an additional functionality beyond simply being the “rare items” shop.

I’m not quite so sure about this. The personal gold mechanic seems a bit pointless to me? Especially if it was a two-tiered personal and party gold system. “Sorry, Alec, I know you need this new sword but you don’t have enough personal gold on you and the army won’t cover it unless you buy it from main castle. And we won’t cover your hospital bills either so be careful out there.”

While this would be pretty neat, I think Dancer_A would kill me if I asked him to implement something like this.

Which makes me realize, I can’t believe I haven’t given @Dancer_A shout out yet! He’s been helping me get a feel for game design with FEXNA and has helped with making modifications to the engine. So thank him as well for being a huge part of making this all possible.


You should ask Skitty to make a revamped world map with Wonderdraft. It’s capable of making beautiful world maps (here’s 2 simple examples of what it’s capable of from my Pathfinder campaign setting, albeit they’re still WIP):


What’re your thoughts about the second generation/children/pairings?

Anything you’ve decided to differently from FE4?


Holy crap! Wonderdraft looks awesome! I didn’t know this existed O_O