Fire Emblem 3DS

[Eusis]

Shadow Dragon was shit, let's hope this one is better.

It was a good strategy game. People whining about the lack of plot/character development should stick to traditional RPGs.

Yeah, cause I think 'good strategy game' when I am forced to kill off my units to get better ones. That is the exact opposite of what you should do.

Works for Game Dev Story! And most Kairosoft games I think.

[Akanbe-]

How was Radiant Dawn for the Wii?  Any good?  I got a Wii for Christmas so I'm thinking of checking it out.  I'll have to read RPGFan's review of it as well.

[Ashton]

Radiant Dawn was pretty damn good, IMO. I really need to track down the GC version. Ike is a stud.

[Aeolus]

How was Radiant Dawn for the Wii?  Any good?  I got a Wii for Christmas so I'm thinking of checking it out.  I'll have to read RPGFan's review of it as well.

Radiant Dawn could probably be placed between FE8 and FE7 in terms of the series western tier list (i.e. not including the games that never left Japan). It tries to pull off a multiple perspective story kinda like FE2 did but less simultaneous and it unfortunately suffers from availability issues (there are some characters who get like one or two stages to show up in prior to endgame nevermind others who show up literally right before) as well as having entire stages serve as little more than a chance to grind the units stuck in the party the game neglects. The game is unbalanced as hell (more so than usual) since you'll have a ton of characters who'll favor Axes over other weapon types like Magic and Swords. And to top it all off the endgame consists of choosing 16 characters (out of 60~70 possible) to bring with you for the final 6 chapters and benching the rest (and many of those spots are called by plot important characters (some of whom either sucked, have bad availability, or both) and you can easily fill most of them with the crutch characters the game throws at you at this point).

Additionally there was no GC version. That was FE9.

Shadow Dragon was shit, let's hope this one is better.

It was a good strategy game. People whining about the lack of plot/character development should stick to traditional RPGs.

Yeah, cause I think 'good strategy game' when I am forced to kill off my units to get better ones. That is the exact opposite of what you should do.

Say what will you about killing off 75% of your army just to recruit 5 extra characters and replacing one other but truth be told those weren't the most byzantine extras the series has offered (spoilers in the links).

I haven't enjoyed FE since the first one hit the GBA years ago, but it doesn't mean I've learned from past mistakes. Will definitely get a 3DS for this.

FE7 is my favorite as well, but I think it's more because it was the first time any of us had ever been exposed to FE. On a personal level, I also liked that they drew you into the story by making you have an actual physical presence in the game in some capacity- it helped you care about the characters a lot more. I certainly have a much deeper impression of Lyndis, Eliwood and Hector than I do Ephraim, Eirika, Roy or Marth. That was one thing I wanted to see in that remake to FE3 they made, but that never made it over, so I'm not too confident this one will, either.

Didn't all of Eliwood's story consist of him looking for daddy, banging then pwning a dragon, then killing a wizard? Still I liked him better than "Here. Have the thing my father was killed, country was sacked, and another country relentlessly hounded me and my brother for guy who has been taken over by the Demonlord." Erika. Marth on the other hand does get better developed but the game that covers that is still stuck in Japan. Ephraim's alright and Roy sucks (just like they do gameplay-wise).

[Ashton]

Yeah, I meant FE9, I never got around to it when it came out, and I can't find it anywhere now.

And I dunno, I don't mind having to fulfill certain objectives to get to side chapters, but killing your own characters just seems so contraindicated for these games.

[mjrpgfan]

Shadow Dragon was shit, let's hope this one is better.

It was a good strategy game. People whining about the lack of plot/character development should stick to traditional RPGs.

Yeah, cause I think 'good strategy game' when I am forced to kill off my units to get better ones. That is the exact opposite of what you should do.

First of all, the game does not force you to meet the party size limit. Second, the units you get in gaiden chapters aren't necessarily better than ones recruited during the main campaign. Third, the party size limit presents a valid strategic challenge to the player, asking them to strategize and choose which units are the least efficient, and use those disposable units as sacrifices. It's a fairly original concept for FE and provided some variety.

Or you know, you can just go back to sandbox party building FFT/TO mush, since you don't seem to understand the concept of strategy or why SRPGs are supposed to have strategy in them.

[Ashton]

Calling TO mush pretty much invalidates your entire argument.

[mjrpgfan]

Calling TO mush pretty much invalidates your entire argument.

Congratulations on your logical fallacy.

[Ashton]

You're treading dangerously close to ad hominem attacks there, ace. I suggest you dial down the passive-aggressiveness. Insulting mods gets you on the fast track to banned city.

[mjrpgfan]

You're treading dangerously close to ad hominem attacks there, ace. I suggest you dial down the passive-aggressiveness. Insulting mods gets you on the fast track to banned city.

The "congratulations" was a bit of sarcasm in response to your dismissal, which only managed to pollute the forum with nonsensical logic. You're compounding on that with some odious abuse of authority and belittling name calling ill befitting of someone with a moderator position.

[Aeolus]

Let it go Leyviur. MrJrpgFan is the kind of person who bemoaned the lack of a ranking system in Shadow Dragon thus preventing him from achieving an S Rank. His interests lay in games that present ROM hack level challenges or the closest equivalent thereof. If there were an "I Wanna Be The SRPG Guy" game he'd go through it with a fine tooth comb and there's nothing you can do to stop him.

You on the other hand Leyviur seem to prefer games where there's more focus on characters and how they interact with and respond to the game's plot as well as having options available to the player on what to do with them. It doesn't matter if it's a dungeon crawler set in a Japanese Highschool with Rock, Paper, Scissors style gameplay as long as the characters develop and grow according to their archetypes you'd be set.

The tl;dr of this post is that whether I got your preferences wrong or not, it doesn't matter; because what matters is that the two of you knock it off and stop shitting up this thread.

[Ashton]

You're treading dangerously close to ad hominem attacks there, ace. I suggest you dial down the passive-aggressiveness. Insulting mods gets you on the fast track to banned city.

The "congratulations" was a bit of sarcasm in response to your dismissal, which only managed to pollute the forum with nonsensical logic. You're compounding on that with some odious abuse of authority and belittling name calling ill befitting of someone with a moderator position.

Considering you were the one who made unsavory implications in your post when I made a statement about your precious precious game, I think my responses were fitting. Nowhere did I name call, and don't act as if you're some innocent victim. I can respect that you have different opinions as me, but not when you make snide remarks about me when you come to the defense of whatever game you prefer. I am well within my rights to warn you, considering.

Anyway, don't want this derailed any further, so let this be the last post on the Shadow Dragon sucks debate. Let's agree to disagree, and respect others' opinions in the future.

Anyway, Aeolus, I just don't see how killing your own characters can possibly be considered a good fit for a strategy game. I mean, yeah, you don't HAVE to do it, but it's strategically the best thing to do in Shadow Dragon, and I don't recall any tactician in history using the tactic 'kill own army members to get better characters.' I dunno, it seems really problematic, both in a gameplay sense, as it's counterintuitive, and in a story sense, as it makes no sense at all.

[Fadedsun]

Calling TO mush pretty much invalidates your entire argument.

Congratulations on your logical fallacy.

Were you the guy that got banned from the Atlus forums for ranting about SRPGs in the Gungir thread? Just curious.

I've never played a Fire Emblem game in full, but I'm starting my first since I got Sacred Stones on my 3DS. So far it seems really good and this 3DS game is looking to be great as well. Can't wait to see more.

[Aeolus]

You're treading dangerously close to ad hominem attacks there, ace. I suggest you dial down the passive-aggressiveness. Insulting mods gets you on the fast track to banned city.

The "congratulations" was a bit of sarcasm in response to your dismissal, which only managed to pollute the forum with nonsensical logic. You're compounding on that with some odious abuse of authority and belittling name calling ill befitting of someone with a moderator position.

Considering you were the one who made unsavory implications in your post when I made a statement about your precious precious game, I think my responses were fitting. Nowhere did I name call, and don't act as if you're some innocent victim. I can respect that you have different opinions as me, but not when you make snide remarks about me when you come to the defense of whatever game you prefer. I am well within my rights to warn you, considering.

Anyway, don't want this derailed any further, so let this be the last post on the Shadow Dragon sucks debate. Let's agree to disagree, and respect others' opinions in the future.

Anyway, Aeolus, I just don't see how killing your own characters can possibly be considered a good fit for a strategy game. I mean, yeah, you don't HAVE to do it, but it's strategically the best thing to do in Shadow Dragon, and I don't recall any tactician in history using the tactic 'kill own army members to get better characters.' I dunno, it seems really problematic, both in a gameplay sense, as it's counterintuitive, and in a story sense, as it makes no sense at all.

My point wasn't that it was or wasn't good strategy but that FEDS1 isn't the only game in the series with bullshit access requirements.

The two examples I linked among other things mention having to grind one particular character up to level 7 (from level 1) in the space of four stages (that aren't that big in comparison to some of the later stages) and the character in question only gets 10 exp (out of 100 needed to level) per turn; then you need to access a side stage and kill off a particularly difficult enemy to kill; all to see a bit of backstory on a couple of characters; and that's just in FE7, the most well liked game released outside of Japan thus far. The other requires you to have both played through an entirely separate game (that many people skipped over due to the GameCube dying around that time) and made sure that you had the proper supports built up to be able to recruit a single additional character for the last stage, and you don't even get this opportunity until the second run, and even then you have to fulfill two other requirements that are both difficult to pull off on their own.

Throwing a bunch of pallet swaps that you'll never use or never recruit into the blender for a few extra mediocre characters (the best of which is the first non normal mode only one) is downright child's play in comparison to the hoops you have to jump through in the other examples. The fact that most of them come in from chatting it up on the battlefield basically means that you just skip that part and help yourself to some free exp for the guys you intend to keep. Also in regards to the sacrifice during normal mode's prologue if you don't do this you'll end up with more characters than at the start of the game proper under any other circumstances. Besides if you think of it as trading in your mostly useless Jeigan for somebody who doesn't hog exp then you're basically coming out ahead. Or you could opt to go with the actual OG crew and return the extra character to where he belongs (though you can still bring him back if you feel like dealing with a second Est/Nino during the end game). For story reasons the entire purpose of the prologue was to compensate for the dying medium of instruction manuals where most of these details originated from originally that nobody would ever know if they remained there instead of being brought into the game itself. It's kind of the game's way of setting the mood and acclimating new players into the idea that unlike other games where death is a slap on the wrist at worst this game isn't nearly as forgiving. Besides it's not like you have to purposefully sacrifice anybody when you could just let the endless waves of behemoths just murderize their way though your entire rank and file (it even changes the scene if you do).

And you know what? This game did have something to show me gameplay wise in this when I fucked up during a HHM run and couldn't save Wallace during that Four Fanged Offense mission in FE7 due to him being surrounded by murderbeasts out for blood (and I didn't promote him because that was always annoying during Lyn's segment). Before FEDS1 I'd scrapped the entire run for a better chance to save him but instead I pressed on and finished my run.

[mjrpgfan]

If you let someone die in FE7 your survival rank goes down. Completely different strategy mechanics.

I suppose it must be hard for your average RPG player to figure out strategy, skill, and scoring systems when they mainly play games that have no scoring systems and reward grinding.