cosmicblizzard
Banned
Hot. You can never have too much Fire Emblem. I was wondering when another one would be announced.
Pureauthor said: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?
Pureauthor said: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.
Pureauthor said: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.
mjemirzian said: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.
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.Cow Mengde said: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.
i was reading too deep into your post, then. sorry for misinterpreting you.mjemirzian said: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 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.mjemirzian said: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.
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.mjemirzian said: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.
Pureauthor said: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.
mjemirzian said: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.
My optimistic side is going "Advance Wars DS and Days of Ruin had different graphics" (ShockingAlberto said:I'm not saying they didn't change artstyles, but I would bet against 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).john tv said:- shoving and...what was it called in English, protecting? I forget -- when you basically grab an adjacent unit and cover it
I like you.ILikeFeet said:bah, why not a new Nintendo Wars?
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.Starwolf_UK said: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 forgetting 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)
A Black Falcon said: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.
The plot is simplistic compared to newer FE games and most of the character selection less interesting (so many generic guys...)
Cow Mengde said:The Hero of Shadow is most likely Hardin.
Sir Ilpalazzo said: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)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.Camus.
Regulus Tera said:I see they backed away from hiring popular hentai artist Shirow Masamune this time around.
Sinople said: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...
Legendary Warrior said:nothing wrong with being a popular hentai artist.
McNum said: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.
McNum said:Resource scarcity is also a Fire Emblem classic.
KittenMaster said:Ugh. So much Shadow Dragon hate is making me depressed.
mjemirzian said: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.
jay said: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?
Personally I think the character outline in the logo of the shadow hero comparedSir Ilpalazzo said: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)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.Camus.
mjemirzian said: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."
mjemirzian said: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.
mjemirzian said: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.
Oh, not that fight. I'll put it like this there is one way to really lose:McNum said:(Like Mist aiding in an otherwise extremely tough fight, even on Easy.)
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?mjemirzian said: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.
Starwolf_UK said: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
Pappasman said:I'd rather have a new FE with the class branching and the overworld like Sacred Stones. That was the best FE.
Sir Ilpalazzo said:Try Gaiden (FE2). That's probably where Sacred Stones got those from.
McNum said:works on the hardest difficulty, it's still a broken game. Normal to Hard 5. All should work.
McNum said: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.
McNum said:This is an example of resource scarcity
Legendary Warrior said: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?
jay said: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.
Sir Ilpalazzo said:They reference FE2 in FE3, so I wonder if they'll keep that in.
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.