[cosmicblizzard]

Hot. You can never have too much Fire Emblem. I was wondering when another one would be announced.

[mjemirzian]

Balance in the sense that most playable characters are roughly equal in terms of efficiency, yes, but how do you rate balance against enemy CPU opponents when it's supposed to be an uneven fight from the get-go?

There are numerous methods game designers use to ensure that the systems they add are both balanced and encourage strategy rather than reduce it.

But once you go beyond that you have to rate it subjectively, otherwise you're left without a value judgment that isn't worth anything.

First, I think you meant "with" not "without". Rating the balance and strategic difficulty of a combat system has value on its own, otherwise fields like game theory and complexity and books on game design would have no reason to exist.

Rewards for controlled player-character death can encourage strategic thinking, as can a system where keeping everyone everyone alive rewards the player. And one can like one, both or neither.

Technically true, but the Fire Emblem series rarely rewards the player for keeping everyone alive. In comparison to the majority of Fire Emblem entries, the optional chapter requirements increase the amount of strategy required and do not 'reward failure' or poor playing. In comparison to the two FE games that reward keeping everyone alive, it's just different as you stated.

[ILikeFeet]

bah, why not a new Nintendo Wars? :(

[ToxicAdam]

Good to see all the Shadow Dragon hate. Even though I bought it for 10 dollars, it was still disappointing.

Not sure if I will buy this one. Hopefully they give this game a bit more replayability and flexability.

[Pureauthor]

First, I think you meant "with" not "without". Rating the balance and strategic difficulty of a combat system has value on its own, otherwise fields like game theory and complexity and books on game design would have no reason to exist. Technically true, but the Fire Emblem series rarely rewards the player for keeping everyone alive. In comparison to the majority of Fire Emblem entries, the optional chapter requirements increase the amount of strategy required and do not 'reward failure' or poor playing. In comparison to the two FE games that reward keeping everyone alive, it's just different as you stated.

Okay, I think we might be arguing different things here. I'm saying that it's entirely valid for someone to like or dislike a game or a gameplay mechanic on an entirely subjective level, regardless of the balance, depth, or (insert term here) it adds to the game (relate to the post about the person not liking character death It's entirely subjective, and I believe it's entirely valid, regardless of the strategic value). Yes, I am aware of things like game theory, etc, but that appears to be rather outside the scope of what I was talking about.

[Shadow Red]

It's about time for another Fire Emblem.

[tiff]

No, the classes did not offer higher growths, they just complimented their original insane growths in the first place. If their growth rates weren't so high, changing the class wouldn't matter -- like the rest of the class. So no, reclassing isn't the issue.

eh, you're right. class bases were a bigger problem than growths. the horsemen got a 4 point bump to Skl and Spd by going to Hero (and lost nothing aside from the horse), and gained 9 Def by switching to General.

I never rated the 'goodness' or 'badness' of the system, which is subjective and impossible to prove. I said it was balanced and encouraged strategic thinking.

i was reading too deep into your post, then. sorry for misinterpreting you.

Incorrect. You will still be heavily punished for allowing the stronger characters to die. The system adds strategy in the form of choosing exactly who you want to live and allowing you to use some units as cannon fodder or choose whether to recruit them or not.

i see your point. i see the fact that there are stronger and weaker characters as a game balancing problem, but it isn't related to the two mechanics you're defending.

It's not the general class that's overpowered - if those two units had more average growth rates switching them to generals would still be a good idea, but it would not make the game significantly easier. If other characters had such growth rates they too would become 'overpowered' if switched to an optimal class. So your observation is not correct.

their personal growths are the direct cause of them being overpowered, sure. the problem is that their growths are actually reasonably balanced for the horseman class. it's when you switch them into a better class (Hero) or more specialized class (General) that they become broken.

i suppose that's not a problem inherent of the class swap system, but rather a problem caused in part by the class swap system.

[mjemirzian]

Okay, I think we might be arguing different things here. I'm saying that it's entirely valid for someone to like or dislike a game or a gameplay mechanic on an entirely subjective level, regardless of the balance, depth, or (insert term here) it adds to the game (relate to the post about the person not liking character death It's entirely subjective, and I believe it's entirely valid, regardless of the strategic value). Yes, I am aware of things like game theory, etc, but that appears to be rather outside the scope of what I was talking about.

There are two ways to analyze a game with plot/charaters. You can rate it objectively as in game mechanics (how balanced or strategic it is), or you can rate it subjectively as in plot/characters. Just calling the whole system 'bad' because of a subjective opinion about not wanting to kill off your units isn't a valid argument. Both aspects of the game system should be considered when forming an opinion.

[Pureauthor]

There are two ways to analyze a game with plot/charaters. You can rate it objectively as in game mechanics (how balanced or strategic it is), or you can rate it subjectively as in plot/characters. Just calling the whole system 'bad' because of a subjective opinion about not wanting to kill off your units isn't a valid argument. Both aspects of the game system should be considered when forming an opinion.

Fine, I can respect that.

[Starwolf_UK]

I'm not saying they didn't change artstyles, but I would bet against it.

My optimistic side is going "Advance Wars DS and Days of Ruin had different graphics" (speaking of Days ruin will Japan ever get that or is it like Kirby Wii as filler on those release thingys on the shareholder reports) but the pessimistic side says "Dual strike was the GBA graphics basically". The lack of gameplay footage might have been intentional to get people talking on this point...

- shoving and...what was it called in English, protecting? I forget -- when you basically grab an adjacent unit and cover it

Rescue was the name of the command. One I things I like to do is chains with it. Character B rescues Character A then character C takes Character A from character B and drops them (or moves to a character D to act as the drop-off).

My thoughts on this are a bit mixed. Its like I predicted in my post-play survey comments section except on a longer timeframe. My other concern is a bit of an odd one. Sales-wise the series needs a boost or some new blood at the very least (it isn't a particularly big franchise sales-wise) and I don't know if this is the right way to go about it. On the plus side it is a remake of what was the most popular Fire Emblem games in terms of sales (if you look at Japan only its SFC version had sales of about 600k, Shadow Dragon on the other hand managed less than a quarter of that last I checked).

Why I'm concerned about sales is that if sales decline (especially on a global scale) then budgets allocated/time allocated for the franchise will also decline. I seem to remember in the Iwata I mean,Sakurai Asks or maybe the Cubed 3 interview it being said that Shadow Dragon took 10 months...maybe 18 at most (but it overlapped with Radiant Dawn). While Sacred Stones and Blazing Sword took similar timescales the end results seemed well, better (as most would say).

All that said I look forward to the translation and I wonder if the dismount command will be gone. If it is it'll make the second map very interesting for me as my tactic for getting the Lady Sword was to fly Katua right next to the thief, dismount, kill the thief, take damage on enemy turn and slowly retreat using vulnaries as I went (without dismounting the damage would be fatal)

[Codeblue]

I'm really excited to hear the news. My initial reaction when I read it was a remake of FE3 was disappointment because I really wanted a new game, but then I realized this gives a remake of FE 4 a better chance of happening.

They only part I absolutely hated about the last one was the multiplayer.

[Boney]

bah, why not a new Nintendo Wars? :(

I like you.

I'll probably get it, but fuck SD with killing your characters and class change.

[tiff]

All that said I look forward to the translation and I wonder if the dismount command will be gone. If it is it'll make the second map very interesting for me as my tactic for getting the Lady Sword was to fly Katua right next to the thief, dismount, kill the thief, take damage on enemy turn and slowly retreat using vulnaries as I went (without dismounting the damage would be fatal)

that's an interesting point. i would figure dismounting would be in since it was in FE3 (the reason it wasn't in Shadow Dragon was because it was a remake of the first game and not Book 1, i think). then again, they might go another route in nerfing mounted units on indoor maps like they did in Radiant Dawn.

[Llyranor]

Neat. Still need to play through Shadow Dragon, though. Can't say I care too much about the animations, either way, since I end up skipping through them anyway.

It's still possible IntSys changes the artstyle completely, much as they did for AW DS!

[viewtiful_dru]

Like others, I was hoping for a new game with new settings and protagonists, but to me any FE is good to me.

[Seda]

I really enjoyed Fire Emblems 6-10. I consider Fire Emblem my favorite Nintendo series (yes, moreso than Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, or Metroid) because of these games.

But Shadow Dragon was awful. I was at first excited at the news of this new game, but now I have nearly zero interest in this game if its anything like SD.

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

That may be true, but still, separating them again is pretty inexcusable. Shadow Dragon should have included the whole game of FE3, not just the first half.

I don't disagree that that would have been ideal, but the way they did it really isn't bad at all. It's not like you can say "they sold both games together back on the SNES" because Book 1 isn't the same as the actual first game. It was more of an extra.

The plot is simplistic compared to newer FE games and most of the character selection less interesting (so many generic guys...)

What were they going to do about the plot or generic characters? FE1 probably has so many generic characters because the developers didn't think anyone would try to keep everyone alive, and it does seem like the Shadow Dragon developers tried to do the same thing (which is how the gaiden chapters came about, I hate the requirements but it's clear what they were thinking and it does make sense). They did greatly improve on FE1 already - Shadow Dragon is a lot better than Book 1 (except for the art). They took the original unrefined game and made it a pretty balanced and solid game.

And like I said earlier, I wouldn't complain if things like developed supports or rescuing were in the game (rescuing in particular is great), but it's not necessary for every Fire Emblem to have all of the features of every previous one, and Nintendo seems to feel the same way. The latter two SNES games are very different from the GBA games, which are different from the GCN and Wii games.

They succeeded spectacularly at remaking the original Fire Emblem - I don't think it needed to be expanded on all that much. The only problem is the same problem of the orignal, which is that the map design of the series didn't start to get interesting until FE3.

The Hero of Shadow is most likely Hardin.

No, it makes it sound like it's (FE3 spoiler) someone who fought against Akaneia during FE3. That couldn't be Hardin.

I'm thinking they're going to expand on (spoiler for those who haven't played FE2 or 3) Camus. He was definitely the most developed character in the first three games (read: the only one with any development other than Hardin) and there's probably a lot they could do with his story.

[johnsmith]

I will purchase this Nintendo DS software.

[Doorman]

I enjoyed the GBA Fire Emblems as well as FE9. Planned to get the Wii installment but never got around to it, and I'm disappointed to say never really cared about the first DS remake mostly due to the horrendous art style. Just hearing about some of the systems in place, I'm glad I didn't make that investment (having to "tactfully sacrifice" units, while interesting for strategy purposes, just doesn't strike me as a particularly fun gameplay choice. You can try to remove that subjectivity if you want, but part of Fire Emblem's appeal over something like Advance Wars has always been the fact that your army is made up of individual characters and not purely generic units. It's been built to get you to identify with who you're using, so of course a lot of people will feel bad about sending them off to die).

So far, I don't know of anything that will turn me around on this installment. With the odd timing of the announcement and the recent history of the series, I fully expect this to reuse a lot of map and battle assets, and I have a hard time imagining that they'll update the actual play either. I guess I'll just have to wake up once they actually announce a new game, with a fresh continent and cast and some modern tweaks to the formula.

[Cow Mengde]

No, it makes it sound like it's (FE3 spoiler) someone who fought against Akaneia during FE3. That couldn't be Hardin. I'm thinking they're going to expand on (spoiler for those who haven't played FE2 or 3) Camus. He was definitely the most developed character in the first three games (read: the only one with any development other than Hardin) and there's probably a lot they could do with his story.

I didn't see the translated details until later. It's definitely not Hardin. I figured they might develop him further though for obvious reasons. Hardin didn't do what he did on his own free will.

Camus is a possibility. They made it sound like he's pretty dead in the first game, but we all know it's not true. He does wear a mask, so it would make sense he's hiding his identify and fighting in the shadows, but that still doesn't make sense seeing as how he clearly joins Marth and it's kinda hard to fight in secret while fighting in the open.

[Mejilan]

Shadow Dragon was easily the weakest of the handheld FEs so far, but it was still a great game. I was annoyed when the DS remake of FE1 didn't include FE3, so I'm pretty happy that we're finally going to get the second half, so to speak.

[Sinople]

I don't think the new scenario is about Hardin, though I'd like to have some more details about what happened.

I see they backed away from hiring popular hentai artist Shirow Masamune this time around.

:(
I hope you know him for other things, like, you know, Ghost in the Shell or Applessed...

[Prax]

I don't think the new scenario is about Hardin, though I'd like to have some more details about what happened. :( I hope you know him for other things, like, you know, Ghost in the Shell or Applessed...

Yah, he's known for that other stuff too, but you have to admit that he like.. totally goofed around for Shadow Dragon's promotional art and stuff. Perhaps medeival fantasy is just not his strong suit.

[Sinople]

Not arguing with that. It's the "popular hentai artist" part that makes me sad.

[tiff]

nothing wrong with being a popular hentai artist.

[lupin23rd]

nothing wrong with being a popular hentai artist.

Isn't that Langrisser / Growlanser dude a hentai artist? He's pretty good too :lol

[bon]

I think Shadow Dragon's main problem is that most people outside of Japan didn't grow up playing Fire Emblem from the start, so it can be hard for them to see it as a faithful remake of a classic game, even if they're aware that it's a remake.

[mjemirzian]

I've been seeing a lot of wrong statements regarding Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon's added gameplay systems with the recent announcement of the new FE 3 DS remake. First, a game is a test of skill with game mechanics that exist independent of plot and characters. There are two ways to analyze a game that has plot/charaters. You can rate it objectively as in game mechanics (how balanced or strategic it is), or you can rate it subjectively as in plot/characters. Just calling the whole system 'bad' because of a subjective opinion about not wanting to kill off your units isn't a valid argument. Both aspects of the game system should be considered when forming an opinion. Now whether you like the systems or not, it is a fact that they add strategic depth and difficulty compared to most other FE entries.

The reclassing system adds strategic depth in the form of figuring out optimal classes for each character and setting up your party with classes that compliment each other The only balance issue are the two units Sedgar and Wolf who have unusually high growth rates that make them overpowered if reclassed, but that is a problem with those two units growth rates, not the class change system.

The optional chapter requirements adds strategic depth compared to most Fire Emblems. In this system you need to keep a maximum army size of 15 units to access the optional gaiden chapters. The system adds strategy in the form of choosing which characters you want to live and allowing you to use some units as cannon fodder or choose whether to recruit them or not. Most Fire Emblem games make no distinction whether you lose units or not, except for Fire Emblem 6 and 7, where you are graded on a Survival rank. All Fire Emblem games are easier if you keep the best characters alive, it's no different with SD, you're just more encouraged to kill off the worse or inferior ones, which makes it a strategic choice about what units to keep. The game handing out replacement units is just a way of preventing very poorly skilled players from being unable to progress in the easier difficulty modes - you will still be in trouble if you start losing the best units in hard mode, just like any other Fire Emblem. Thus claims like "the system rewards failure" or "it's less strategic than most other FEs" are objectively false.

As for the games difficulty, it is one of the most difficult FEs on Hard 5. The only FEs more difficult are FE5 SSS rank, FE6 HHM S rank, and FE9 Mania mode. The map design is average for a FE game and provides for a decent amount of strategy. FEDS is a mostly balanced and strategic SRPG. Yes there are some cheap things you can do to reduce the difficulty, but like most FE titles it's not a legitimate challenge anyway since you have limitless turns to grind.

So if you happen to see these things returning in this new FE3 remake, remember that they are not unstrategic or poorly designed. You might hate them because you don't like killing your units off or you think a characters identity should be tied to their class, but that's a matter of opinion.

[McNum]

SD does reward failure. That's not a subjective claim.

The objective of any confrontation in a Fire Emblem game is to reduce the opponent's HP to 0 and eliminate them from the map while preventing the same thing happening to your own characters. If you win, your character(s) in the fight gains EXP and can increase in stats. If you lose, that character is gone forever. This is basic Risk/Reward, even if it's slightly disproportional. This is not opinion either, it's how every Fire Emblem works.

However, when you start rewarding people for losing their units, the system breaks. Then it becomes Reward/Reward, and the only character you need to worry about is Marth. It's also the opposite of the GC and Wii Fire Emblems, where you get rewarded for keeping your characters alive through the Base conversations. Often they'll give you unique items, like Master Seals or Occult Scrolls in PoR. Not to mention the Support systems. Keeping characters alive and in battle together gives a substantial stat boost. This is also missing from SD.

The other Fire Emblems are designed so every character is precious, since you only get one, maybe two of each class. So if Soren falls, you'll have to use Illyana if you still want a mage. Resource scarcity is also a Fire Emblem classic. Exp is limited, the number of troops and classes are limited, and there's no way to farm for money, although you usually have just enough.

In SD, you've got unlimited characters, except Marth, you can Exp and gold farm in arenas and all the hard to find items can be bought online. Shadow Dragon is a Monty Haul, but only if you kill off your troops. I mean, who cares, you can always use the spares.

So, no, it's not about character identity. It's about having limited resources. The one thing that really separates Fire Emblem from Advance Wars. With unlimited troops, it more or less stops being Fire Emblem.

[mjemirzian]

However, when you start rewarding people for losing their units, the system breaks. Then it becomes Reward/Reward, and the only character you need to worry about is Marth. It's also the opposite of the GC and Wii Fire Emblems, where you get rewarded for keeping your characters alive through the Base conversations. Often they'll give you unique items, like Master Seals or Occult Scrolls in PoR. Not to mention the Support systems. Keeping characters alive and in battle together gives a substantial stat boost. This is also missing from SD.

Support convos give some minor stat boosts, not enough to make the game suddenly horribly imbalanced and less strategic - the game is balanced around not having support convos and there isn't much strategy in figuring out who to pair up other than looking up a short list. The main complaint about lack of support convos is just that people liked reading them. It is a strategic give and take with removing support convos and requiring the player to kill off their units, but the optional chapter requirement in FE DS is not a negative value in the strategy category.

And just try playing Hard 5 with all recruits - not so reward/reward when your generic replacements can't do more than 1 HP of damage to an enemy, is it? It's not a reward so much as it's a way to keep poorly skilled players on normal mode from getting stuck, and it shouldn't concern experienced players about 'reducing strategy' on a difficulty mode that isn't meant to be strategically difficult in the first place.

Resource scarcity is also a Fire Emblem classic.

Wrong. The only way you encounter 'resource scarcity' in a Fire Emblem game is if you are playing for an end of game ranking that limits the number of turns you can spend. Otherwise you can boss/arena abuse all day long. This is not unique to FE DS. Also it's harder to arena abuse in H5 because the arena enemies have very high stats which makes it very hard to win a match, let alone a bunch of matches.

Sorry but you're wrong.

[Cep]

Could never get past the first 4 chapters in FE: SD.

I liked much of the new mechanics that were implemented, but the story/characters/'graphics' were all completely unappealing and the entire thing put me to sleep.

H5 was fantastic though (for the limited amount of time that I played it).

[KittenMaster]

Ugh. So much Shadow Dragon hate is making me depressed.

[Pappasman]

I'd rather have a new FE with the class branching and the overworld like Sacred Stones. That was the best FE.

[Pureauthor]

Ugh. So much Shadow Dragon hate is making me depressed.

NA people were raised on FE7 onwards. Of course Shadow Dragon was going to feel stripped down. Ask how many would feel like playing a remake of Dragon Quest 1.

[jay]

I've been seeing a lot of wrong statements regarding Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon's added gameplay systems with the recent announcement of the new FE 3 DS remake. First, a game is a test of skill with game mechanics that exist independent of plot and characters. There are two ways to analyze a game that has plot/charaters. You can rate it objectively as in game mechanics (how balanced or strategic it is), or you can rate it subjectively as in plot/characters. Just calling the whole system 'bad' because of a subjective opinion about not wanting to kill off your units isn't a valid argument. Both aspects of the game system should be considered when forming an opinion. Now whether you like the systems or not, it is a fact that they add strategic depth and difficulty compared to most other FE entries.

You can objectively rate game mechanics? There are two ways to judge a game like this? What if I want to judge a game based on how the plot and characters mesh with the mechanics?

[mjemirzian]

You can objectively rate game mechanics? There are two ways to judge a game like this? What if I want to judge a game based on how the plot and characters mesh with the mechanics?

Yes you can objectively measure game mechanics.

Judging a game based on how the plot and characters are applied to the game mechanics is just a way of saying you're considering both of those things when forming your opinion. So you could say in your review "while the optional turn requirement system involves some strategic thinking, it's unpleasant that I have to kill my own party members."

[GodDuckman]

I just want Seisen no Keifu, dammit.

[Starwolf_UK]

No, it makes it sound like it's (FE3 spoiler) someone who fought against Akaneia during FE3. That couldn't be Hardin. I'm thinking they're going to expand on (spoiler for those who haven't played FE2 or 3) Camus. He was definitely the most developed character in the first three games (read: the only one with any development other than Hardin) and there's probably a lot they could do with his story.

Personally I think the character outline in the logo of the shadow hero compared with the official Shadow Dragon art for Camus, the hairstyle does look the same (or maybe it doesn't and my memory is failing me but the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the silhouette was Camus

[turnbuckle]

After the excellent gamecube and wii versions, the first ds game left me severely disappointed. Seems a lot of people enjoyed it but it felt too "basic" and I stopped playing after the 10th level or so. With what little we know, should we expect it to be more like shadow dragon and less like modern fire emblems?

[jay]

Yes you can objectively measure game mechanics. Judging a game based on how the plot and characters are applied to the game mechanics is just a way of saying you're considering both of those things when forming your opinion. So you could say in your review "while the optional turn requirement system involves some strategic thinking, it's unpleasant that I have to kill my own party members."

Measure or rate? You originally used an inherently subjective word and now you've moved to a more objective one, though with time and space all being relative measurement is still not exactly an objective concept.

You seem to be arguing that we should judge A and B separately and that by doing so we will be judging how A and B work together. I disagree and think that the interaction of the separate parts is what often makes game and other art to be more than the sum of its parts.

[McNum]

Support convos give some minor stat boosts, not enough to make the game suddenly horribly imbalanced and less strategic - the game is balanced around not having support convos and there isn't much strategy in figuring out who to pair up other than looking up a short list. The main complaint about lack of support convos is just that people liked reading them. And just try playing Hard 5 with all recruits - not so reward/reward when your generic replacements can't do more than 1 HP of damage to an enemy, is it? It's not a reward so much as it's a way to keep poorly skilled players on normal mode from getting stuck, and it shouldn't concern experienced players about 'reducing strategy' on a difficulty mode that isn't meant to be strategically difficult in the first place.

I wasn't talking about Hard 5, but since you insist: If the game only works on the hardest difficulty, it's still a broken game. Normal to Hard 5. All should work. You get more or less unlimited resources on Normal. That is an error.

Concerning support conversations, that's as much a game as the rest. Here's a challenge: Get the ending in Radiant Dawn that reveals who Soren's parents are. Here's a hint: It involves setting up the right supports in both games of the Radiance series and playing on an imported save.

And yes, I'll happily admit that part of the fun in Fire Emblem for me is the base and support conversations. The series has pretty good writers, especially considering how many characters are usually in each game.

Wrong. The only way you encounter 'resource scarcity' in a Fire Emblem game is if you are playing for an end of game ranking that limits the number of turns you can spend. Otherwise you can boss/arena abuse all day long. This is not unique to FE DS. Also it's harder to arena abuse in H5 because the arena enemies have very high stats which makes it very hard to win a match, let alone a bunch of matches. Sorry but you're wrong.

This is an example of resource scarcity: It's the recruitable character list from Path of Radiance. Lose or miss any of these and your options become more limited and you miss out on any potential rewards that'd come with that character. (Like Mist aiding in an otherwise extremely tough fight, even on Easy.) Count the number of Fighters, too. There's one. It's also impossible to level all of these to 20/20 as there simply aren't enough enemies in the game. In the Japanese version you didn't even get enough Master Seals to promote a full army. That is scarce resources.

Playing through PoR on the standard difficulty, means taking care of your characters so you don't end up in a cascade-failure scenario where you're unable to complete a chapter without losses because the characters you needed for that were already lost. Imagine losing all your Priests/Clerics. You won't be able to use staffs until either a Mage promotes or you recruit the final staff user three chapters before the end. Or your Heron. You only get one and he's really useful, and fragile.

I kind of get the feeling we're getting slightly off track here, though... I hope the new Mystery of the Emblem game is more like the console versions than Shadow Dragon. If not, I might still buy it, to encourage them to remake the next game in the series, because I do want an updated and translated Genealogy of the Holy War.

[KittenMaster]

Being a remake of FE3 Book 2 will make it much better than Shadow Dragon by default (better story, much better map design), though I stand that SD was still a good game despite its flaws.

[Starwolf_UK]

(Like Mist aiding in an otherwise extremely tough fight, even on Easy.)

Oh, not that fight. I'll put it like this there is one way to really lose:
-Ike dies.
Sure you "lose" if you failing to defeat the target in 5 turns which is the same outcome if you retreat on turn 1.

The main problem with the fight is victory is decided by 1 thing and 1 thing only (assuming Ike has enough attack speed and a certain amount of strength); Aether is activated twice (so its luck in the end). Now Mist does help with this but not greately as Ike can still heal himself using elixers in the player phase. It only halves the opportunities (to activate Aether) at the most. Also the Black Knight and Luna makes some players extremely cautious about even attacking in the player phase. So if you bring Mist along you might effectively end up doing nothing you couldn't do with just Ike alone

Well back to FE3. I just realised one thing that is easily forgotten. Book 2 had no playable Axe using units (though you did end up getting axes from time to time...probably for you to sell). Since this remake is bound to have the weapon triangle I wonder if they'll add some new (or old :D ) playable axe using units or just end up keeping reclassing and going "if you want axes just reclass some people to fighters or something".

[tiff]

So if you happen to see these things returning in this new FE3 remake, remember that they are not unstrategic or poorly designed. You might hate them because you don't like killing your units off or you think a characters identity should be tied to their class, but that's a matter of opinion.

so in other words, you don't think that anyone can actually disagree on the quality in design of a mechanic, because it is beholden to some objective truth?

[McNum]

Oh, not that fight. I'll put it like this there is one way to really lose: -Ike dies. Sure you "lose" if you failing to defeat the target in 5 turns which is the same outcome if you retreat on turn 1. The main problem with the fight is victory is decided by 1 thing and 1 thing only (assuming Ike has enough attack speed and a certain amount of strength); Aether is activated twice (so its luck in the end). Now Mist does help with this but not greately as Ike can still heal himself using elixers in the player phase. It only halves the opportunities (to activate Aether) at the most. Also the Black Knight and Luna makes some players extremely cautious about even attacking in the player phase. So if you bring Mist along you might effectively end up doing nothing you couldn't do with just Ike alone

Actually, Mist has one other purpose in that fight: On turn... 4? Three enemy units arrive. One is a Priest who will heal the Black Knight. Valkyrie Mist can use swords, so her role is to intercept that priest and take him down. The two soldiers that spawn shouldn't be a problem for her, if she's level 20/10-ish. But it all pretty much boils down to opportunities again. That said, having two characters instead of just one is an advantage. That battle is luck based, though. All you can do is improve the odds.

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

I'd rather have a new FE with the class branching and the overworld like Sacred Stones. That was the best FE.

Try Gaiden (FE2). That's probably where Sacred Stones got those from.

[bernardobri]

Try Gaiden (FE2). That's probably where Sacred Stones got those from.

That's right. Too bad Nintendo is apparently ignoring FE2, because IMO, Celica is one of the most versatile main chars in the franchise.

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

They reference FE2 in FE3, so I wonder if they'll keep that in.

[mjemirzian]

works on the hardest difficulty, it's still a broken game. Normal to Hard 5. All should work.

No, it's a part of the multiple difficulty system. It's there to help poor gamers on the easier difficulty modes. That's the whole point of multiple difficulty levels - the lower levels are supposed to be easier. It's a very simple concept to grasp and if you can't appreciate Nintendo or other developers aiming for players of all skill levels then you're going to be wrong every single time you point to something they do to make the game easier for less skilled players on lower difficulties. The lower difficulty levels can be as casual as the developers want them to be, and the game still 'works' and isn't 'broken' - you cannot judge the whole game based on a feature that only functions in the lower difficulty levels as a way to help casual gamers.

And get used to it. Casual difficulty levels are here to stay. It's that or the genre goes extinct.

Concerning support conversations, that's as much a game as the rest. Here's a challenge: Get the ending in Radiant Dawn that reveals who Soren's parents are.

Uh yeah.. pressing the right support buttons during intermission. Sounds really difficult.

This is an example of resource scarcity

You get unlimited resources in every mode of every FE. The only time you have limited resources is if you are playing for rank. And again, you have limited recruitment resources on the harder modes because the generic replacements are effectively worthless. FE DS H5 is more strategically difficult than FE9 Mania mode and FE10 Hard mode in my experience. I've played through them all without boss/arena abusing. Even if your complaints about 'resource scarcity' were valid, you're pointing at the wrong games in the series, because FE9 and 10 have no ranking system. And boss/arena abusing makes FE DS, FE9, and FE10 all much easier.

so in other words, you don't think that anyone can actually disagree on the quality in design of a mechanic, because it is beholden to some objective truth?

It's the developers responsibility to cater to players of all skill levels so everyone is satisfied with their subjective enjoyment of the games 'quality', or level of fun, or whatever you want to call it. There exist fields of mathematics to study game theory and complexity, looking at all possible valid moves and optimizations, etc. which ties into creating AI for games. So yes, you can look at a games mechanics and strategic depth/difficulty objectively, even if nobody has applied rigorous mathematical analysis to the games we're talking about.

You seem to be arguing that we should judge A and B separately and that by doing so we will be judging how A and B work together. I disagree and think that the interaction of the separate parts is what often makes game and other art to be more than the sum of its parts.

Those two words are fairly interchangable. You can weigh your opinion one way or the other, but you can't change facts about game design. The biggest complaint about game design in a game is frustration when it seems too difficult, which is remedied by catering to different skill levels.

[bernardobri]

They reference FE2 in FE3, so I wonder if they'll keep that in.

I wouldn't mind having Gaiden in the same cartridge than FE3R, but then again the possibilities are really low to none.