-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why are Strategy RPGS not as popular as the other RPG subgenres?
- Thread starter ULTROS!
- Start date
Cause it's a very niche genre that appeals more to people who wanna manage a big bunch of characters and each individual armour, skills, abilities and whatnot followed by a often slow and trundling gameplay that can feel very RNG unless you know what numbers you are juggling below the hood and also most have permadeath for individual characters which is quite annoying when you're into the game for story etc.
That is at least my experience with it, have tried Tactics Ogre and FF:Tactics and just never clicked with them.
That is at least my experience with it, have tried Tactics Ogre and FF:Tactics and just never clicked with them.
ThatStupidLion
Member
Shining force does ( particulrly 2) and its amazing. Its why i fell in love with rpgs in the first place... then i realized most rpgs arent strategy battles with 12 people on a team and a cast of 36....then i realized most srpgs are like fftactics and its a PIA.
I think the tactics games leave a bad taste in peoples mouths. Labeling with "Strategy" just makes a game sound slow or difficult to the layman.
'Players aren't smart enough to enjoy them' and 'they are boring' are both as reductive as each other. It's alright to just admit that some genres have wider appeal than others, with the top-selling games having been action-heavy for a very long time. Most players seem to prefer direct control of a single unit and immediate or fairly quick payoffs, rather than setups that don't reveal failure or victory until anything up to an hour later, which is why I think the 'lack of immediacy' argument holds more water than 'boring' or 'requires intelligence'.
I'd argue that's also why the top selling board games are the ones that are easy to learn and hard to master, rather than those aimed at people who play a lot of board games/wargames that take hours to resolve. It doesn't make those games boring because they sell less, when they are aimed at a small customer base that finds such things endlessly entertaining. My friends and I might book a whole day weeks in advance to play a tactical board game or tabletop rpg/strategy game, but we wouldn't do so for scrabble or connect 4, despite our wives and kids (and I imagine most of my other friends/colleagues) having a clear preference for the latter!
Like many niche genres, SRPGs often assume the player has an understanding of the concepts in play, which isn't always true and can make them impenetrable if they mess up the tutorial. What also scares players off is that they also tend to put the maths up front in terms of pages of stats and hit/evade percentages, something that's really useful when tweaking a force for effectiveness but can contribute to inaccessibility if the player is more interested in seeing cool characters do cool stuff than the raw numbers underpinning the results. Having to scroll through several pages of rules you don't understand and aren't getting optimal results from yet is hardly as reassuring as an action game tutorial that gives you one weapon, one enemy and tells you to kill it before learning step two.
It'll be interesting to see if Mario/Rabbids gets the balance right.
Having said all that maybe I shouldn't be taken too seriously as a voice of reason on this topic considering my favourite part of Total War is deploying the army...
I put it down to enjoying painting toy soldiers.Divinity being the next logical leap? We have had cRPGs like it for decades.
I feel that there is a push towards action gameplay than slower, more methodical thought out strategies. SRPGs are almost like a puzzle where you need to know how to play your pieces on each board to get to the next. A lot of the JRPGs are also turning more towards the action or flashier combat.
Also, the more characters (player, enemy and guests) on the map the longer that map will likely take. This can get incredibly draining. I remember going into a random encounter in Tactics Ogre LUCT against about 8 or 10 Octopi. They had huge health pools and were resistent to most of my attacks. They had a massive area attack that did huge amounts of damage... I could win but it wasn't worth the time so I fled.
I also think most players don't enjoy the feeling of loss and losing. Many SRPGs have perma deaths on some units or you often leave a unit for dead/sacrifice. One bad move could be disastrous. Or when you gamble and lose against RNG. This just seems like it'll lead to frustration for most.
As for SRPGs in general. I think the blend of RPG with tactical turn based combat (map positioning, attacking, attack directions, attack of opportunities and other such features) are a great mix. See Valkyrie Chronicles & Shadowrun. While combat is the weakest part of Shadowrun, one must wonder what could be if it was more fleshed out and generally better.
Also, the more characters (player, enemy and guests) on the map the longer that map will likely take. This can get incredibly draining. I remember going into a random encounter in Tactics Ogre LUCT against about 8 or 10 Octopi. They had huge health pools and were resistent to most of my attacks. They had a massive area attack that did huge amounts of damage... I could win but it wasn't worth the time so I fled.
I also think most players don't enjoy the feeling of loss and losing. Many SRPGs have perma deaths on some units or you often leave a unit for dead/sacrifice. One bad move could be disastrous. Or when you gamble and lose against RNG. This just seems like it'll lead to frustration for most.
As for SRPGs in general. I think the blend of RPG with tactical turn based combat (map positioning, attacking, attack directions, attack of opportunities and other such features) are a great mix. See Valkyrie Chronicles & Shadowrun. While combat is the weakest part of Shadowrun, one must wonder what could be if it was more fleshed out and generally better.
Crankshaft
Member
From a lot of posts I read on GAF, people don't like turn based rpg's let alone the awesome planning of a SRPG battle.
That's a lot of hubris for beating a Fire Emblem
Just to move the conversation on to comparisons, looking at popular communities on Gaf like League of Legends, Overwatch, Hearthstone etc, I feel that the linking elements there are online/social play and immediacy, not a lack of depth or planning. Amongst single player games, one of the most often debated part of them is story/narrative, and SRPGs have a habit of removing the combat/game mechanics from that entirely, with battles taking place in closed arenas.
Perhaps SRPGs also tend to put the mechanics up front rather than character, which means that presentation is an issue in addition to immediacy and accessibility. That goes a long way to explain how FE: Awakening managed to gain new players for both the first and third of those points, if not the second to any greater extent than previous games.
Perhaps SRPGs also tend to put the mechanics up front rather than character, which means that presentation is an issue in addition to immediacy and accessibility. That goes a long way to explain how FE: Awakening managed to gain new players for both the first and third of those points, if not the second to any greater extent than previous games.
I found the narrative side of Banner Saga, with its tough decisions and consequences, meant that I was far more invested in the story and characters and wanted to protect my units more than any Fire Emblem or Xcom campaign. However, I did find the battles a little basic. As a package though, it was a breath of fresh air, as much as I can knock the battle system afterwards, while I was playing I was really invested in it and couldn't put it down, that's the thing I really remember about it. I find that a lot with RPGs, where the mechanics aren't really doing it for me but I'll persevere if the narrative draws me in, and vice versa.
I find myself much more invested/engaged in SRPGs than a lot of other RPGs out there. I enjoy experimenting until I find the right mix of stratagem - especially in battles where I'm at a clear disadvantage. It's a shame there aren't more games in this subgenre, but at least we have some really, really good games with sufficient replayability. I really don't get the "boring" comments from people, but to each their own.
I think SRPG series suffer heavily in the 'opportunity cost' decision when upper management at a publisher looks at what projects to fund. They pretty much have a harsh cap on the upper limit of sales, which isn't what any publisher wants to hear right now when their mobile games in the same franchise rake in the cash week in, week out, and the mainline JRPGs have a wider appeal.
Looking for something similar, I found Mercenary Saga 2 and 3 on the 3DS eshop to be quite good when you consider they are only £4 each, and God Wars is worth a look too.
Rabid Dwarf 76
Member
Damn...this is an incredibly accurate observation. I love srpgs and loath baseball and your statement really hit home with me.
Lots of them currently work on FFXIV. The director of things like FFTA and FFTA2 etc is the lead UI planner, while the director of the PSP version of Tactics Ogre (and one of the directors of FFXII) is the lead UI designer on that game.
The director of the War of the Lions version of FFT was also one of the directors on DQ IX.
Valkyria didn't sell well on the PS3. It bombed in both Japan and USA. It only managed to eke its way past 100k in North America by lowering its price to sub $30, then it managed to get to 200k by lowering its price to sub $20 (bargain bins). Same for Japan, it only managed to surpass 100k once the price got slashed tremendously a week after release.
While I admittedly don't know much about XCOM, I did hear many rumors that the console version of XCOM flopped so badly that they skipped console for XCOM 2 for a while, only to release it as a token release down the line.
DeathbyCheerios
Member
I would love a Final Fantasy Tactics like Shadowrun in that sense. You have a world and map you can run around and explore but when you run into combat, it becomes a grid based SRPG.I feel that there is a push towards action gameplay than slower, more methodical thought out strategies. SRPGs are almost like a puzzle where you need to know how to play your pieces on each board to get to the next. A lot of the JRPGs are also turning more towards the action or flashier combat.
Also, the more characters (player, enemy and guests) on the map the longer that map will likely take. This can get incredibly draining. I remember going into a random encounter in Tactics Ogre LUCT against about 8 or 10 Octopi. They had huge health pools and were resistent to most of my attacks. They had a massive area attack that did huge amounts of damage... I could win but it wasn't worth the time so I fled.
I also think most players don't enjoy the feeling of loss and losing. Many SRPGs have perma deaths on some units or you often leave a unit for dead/sacrifice. One bad move could be disastrous. Or when you gamble and lose against RNG. This just seems like it'll lead to frustration for most.
As for SRPGs in general. I think the blend of RPG with tactical turn based combat (map positioning, attacking, attack directions, attack of opportunities and other such features) are a great mix. See Valkyrie Chronicles & Shadowrun. While combat is the weakest part of Shadowrun, one must wonder what could be if it was more fleshed out and generally better.
tiebreaker
Member
Nah, it's different. Some of the designs are questionable, but there is no character shipping, no social link, or anything like that. I finished the game just now and I can't tell you a thing about some of the characters.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Fundamentally, they're a little harder than most people want. You take the typical complexity of a turn based strategy game and layer on top of that a boatload of per-unit stats and abilities to keep track of and things get complex fast. Then there's the typical genre conventions like permadeath... yeah. Most of the time, challenge-seekers go more for stuff like Dark Souls where reflexes factor in as well as planning.
(Note that I'm in no way casual-shaming here. I drop games all the time if I feel like they require more effort than I'm willing to give them. Perfectly reasonable response.)
There's also the fact that the genre is kind of de-facto split between Japanese and non Japanese examples in a kind of unusual way. There's a lot of turn based strategy games like XCOM that you could totally call SRPGs but because they're not anime they rarely get labeled as such. Makes the genre feel even smaller than it actually is.
(Note that I'm in no way casual-shaming here. I drop games all the time if I feel like they require more effort than I'm willing to give them. Perfectly reasonable response.)
There's also the fact that the genre is kind of de-facto split between Japanese and non Japanese examples in a kind of unusual way. There's a lot of turn based strategy games like XCOM that you could totally call SRPGs but because they're not anime they rarely get labeled as such. Makes the genre feel even smaller than it actually is.
bonesmccoy
Banned
XCOM 2 seems to be pretty well popular. 1.6m on Steamspy.
I think it's because they're slow burn. I'm a big fan of the genre and I go through spells where I can't muster up any interest in playing a 15-25 minute single battle, and then wait 10-15 mins for another one.
Battle Brothers is a wonderful little game, and a great example of an EA project that was executed intelligently.
I think it's because they're slow burn. I'm a big fan of the genre and I go through spells where I can't muster up any interest in playing a 15-25 minute single battle, and then wait 10-15 mins for another one.
Battle Brothers is a wonderful little game, and a great example of an EA project that was executed intelligently.
Maintenance
Member
Now this is a top tier shite post.
Using a keyboard won't automatically make you good either.
More_Badass
Member
After how good Battle Brothers was, I'm even more excited for their next game. Looks like they're doing sci-fi mercenaries. And legs
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Loved Wild Arms XF, but I think the micromanaging & need to switch up classes for specific battles drove a lot of people away. Reviews that complained about the game needing actual strategy were laughable but I will admit that some aspects were clunkier than they should have been (like having to re-equip everything whenever you switch classes which is something that happens frequently).
My personal guess is that to be more popular, SRPGs need to be faster-paced AND be more than just combat + story segments. Add some exploration like Shining Force or some dating sim stuff like the newer Fire Emblems.
My personal guess is that to be more popular, SRPGs need to be faster-paced AND be more than just combat + story segments. Add some exploration like Shining Force or some dating sim stuff like the newer Fire Emblems.
I like SRPGs as a rule but most of them are boring as fuck. By this I mean the story, or world. It's all about this and that made up country having some kind of war over the murder of a king or some mystical mumbo jumbo and the characters are all like cardboard. They also tend to spend WAY too much time expositing the history of the world and what is currently going on. It really isn't for me.
The battle systems themselves, I like a lot. My favourite SRPG is Shining Force II - the story is simple and stupid, the characters are colourful and distinct (personalities are still cardboard), and you can just get movin and get fighting nice and fast.
I think there's the potential for a really great SRPG to get made but they all end up being boring on the aesthetics, world-building or story and that is a real killer. Someone should make an SRPG with a decent battle system that focuses on those other aspects and then you'd be cooking.
The battle systems themselves, I like a lot. My favourite SRPG is Shining Force II - the story is simple and stupid, the characters are colourful and distinct (personalities are still cardboard), and you can just get movin and get fighting nice and fast.
I think there's the potential for a really great SRPG to get made but they all end up being boring on the aesthetics, world-building or story and that is a real killer. Someone should make an SRPG with a decent battle system that focuses on those other aspects and then you'd be cooking.
funroll-loops
Member
I think the difficulty hurts the ones that aren't reliant on grinding. Like, a lot of gamers feel that they need to win everything straight away, and that by losing they've "wasted" their time. But many SRPGs are set up as a series of tactical puzzles where you have to figure out the right way to approach each scenario (or at least the right way to configure your army), so if there was no way to lose, they wouldn't be nearly as interesting
I guess Fire Emblem kind of worked around this by bolting on a waifu simulator and a difficulty setting that auto-raises your units, I don't know how popular it was but it seemed like they sold more games since Awakening
I agree that there are also some plot and interface problems. Controlling an entire army feels more abstract and less personal than controlling a single character.
I guess Fire Emblem kind of worked around this by bolting on a waifu simulator and a difficulty setting that auto-raises your units, I don't know how popular it was but it seemed like they sold more games since Awakening
I agree that there are also some plot and interface problems. Controlling an entire army feels more abstract and less personal than controlling a single character.
It's a heavy time commitment, and many people aren't willing to invest that in a single game.. there are also other genres and games that scratch that same "itch" on a more grand scale, (Civilization for example) and typically attract the same kinds of people who want the menus, depth, and complexity a SRPG would offer.
It's a shame as SRPGs are some of my favorite games, but you'll have to really dig around in the niche of the niche to find them, there are quite a few niche japanese SRPGs that get revealed frequently, but many of them are lacking in depth and thought required, and end up being slogs, because they miss the "point" of a SRPG -- spending time thinking, developing strategies and planning each move.
Fire Emblem is so successful in part because of marketing, but also the attachment to the characters and the fact the game has been streamlined to appeal to a wider audience, while still keeping many of the aspects that drew in fans of the older games, which many games in the genre these days are lacking.
A lot of SRPGs today you'll find released are simply "grind until you 1 shot everything" type games, or they artificially extend the amount of time you need to clear a level with little to no strategy or thought actually required, which in turn leads to less sales due to no, or bad word of mouth, and an impression that players aren't interested in those games to begin with.
It's why games like XCOM are still successful -- the audience is there for a game like XCOM, and it has all the necessary strategy and required thinking involved as well as many of the hooks that draw in players, because they understand what audience they're targeting, and what their audience wants, and deliver on that.
I still mourn the loss of games like FFT, but the bigger publishers are incredibly risk averse, and many of the lesser known SRPGs simply don't understand the core appeal of the genre, and therefore deliver an unsatisfying experience. There are still a few gems that pop up here and there, like Chroma Squad for example, but the current market climate is such that niche games will become increasingly niche, and it'll be in the hands of indie developers or smaller studios to attempt to deliver those experiences.
It's a shame as SRPGs are some of my favorite games, but you'll have to really dig around in the niche of the niche to find them, there are quite a few niche japanese SRPGs that get revealed frequently, but many of them are lacking in depth and thought required, and end up being slogs, because they miss the "point" of a SRPG -- spending time thinking, developing strategies and planning each move.
Fire Emblem is so successful in part because of marketing, but also the attachment to the characters and the fact the game has been streamlined to appeal to a wider audience, while still keeping many of the aspects that drew in fans of the older games, which many games in the genre these days are lacking.
A lot of SRPGs today you'll find released are simply "grind until you 1 shot everything" type games, or they artificially extend the amount of time you need to clear a level with little to no strategy or thought actually required, which in turn leads to less sales due to no, or bad word of mouth, and an impression that players aren't interested in those games to begin with.
It's why games like XCOM are still successful -- the audience is there for a game like XCOM, and it has all the necessary strategy and required thinking involved as well as many of the hooks that draw in players, because they understand what audience they're targeting, and what their audience wants, and deliver on that.
I still mourn the loss of games like FFT, but the bigger publishers are incredibly risk averse, and many of the lesser known SRPGs simply don't understand the core appeal of the genre, and therefore deliver an unsatisfying experience. There are still a few gems that pop up here and there, like Chroma Squad for example, but the current market climate is such that niche games will become increasingly niche, and it'll be in the hands of indie developers or smaller studios to attempt to deliver those experiences.
I just started playing Disgaea: Hour of Darkness a couple days ago. This is my very first Disgaea game and only the second SRPG I've ever played since FE 7 on the GBA many years ago.
The game has got me hooked like there's no tomorrow. After coming fresh off of the TiTS series this game is like a breath of fresh air. I love TiTS but I was getting quite bored of all the extra long dialog. With Disgaea, the story takes a back seat and the focus is 90% on battles, which is more of what I'm after these days. The game is a serious time drinker and I can't get enough of it.
How could anyone not like SRPGs and call them boring? Lately I've been in the mood for a game with a battle system that requires well.....strategy and thinking, and Disgaea: Hour of Darkness is providing that is spades!
Not sure why SRPGs aren't as popular as normal JRPGs, but if the gaming world gave more games like Disgaea a try, I bet they would be.
The game has got me hooked like there's no tomorrow. After coming fresh off of the TiTS series this game is like a breath of fresh air. I love TiTS but I was getting quite bored of all the extra long dialog. With Disgaea, the story takes a back seat and the focus is 90% on battles, which is more of what I'm after these days. The game is a serious time drinker and I can't get enough of it.
How could anyone not like SRPGs and call them boring? Lately I've been in the mood for a game with a battle system that requires well.....strategy and thinking, and Disgaea: Hour of Darkness is providing that is spades!
Not sure why SRPGs aren't as popular as normal JRPGs, but if the gaming world gave more games like Disgaea a try, I bet they would be.
TC McQueen
Member
Honestly, I'm super interested in how Mario x Rabids will handle storytelling. It seems a lot like the Harebrained Schemes Shadowrun games, where you have a free roaming section where you can interact with stuff, but the battles themselves are good turn-based strategy fights. I feel like that might be the power combo that makes the genre way more accessible, but it sucks that it needed a AAA game to get the formula into the public's attention.
Well, to be honest, I like jRPGs for how mindless they are. The story is mostly incomprehensible or very shallow, the battle systems might be complicated but are very easy to brute force through. They are my comfort food games and I love them for this.
Strategy RPGs are completely different as they do not let you grind (or limit this possibility) so you have to think strategically.
Strategy RPGs are completely different as they do not let you grind (or limit this possibility) so you have to think strategically.
Riposte
Member
The qualities that make SRPGs special are generally overlooked outside of their immediate fanbase. The SRPGs that tend to grab a larger audience usually have something else to hook people in (and sometimes, or maybe even often, at that the expense of those aforementioned SRPG qualities).
Falls apart when it mentions Ogre. Ogre/FFT fans barely have any ground to stand on to insult JRPG fans.
Falls apart when it mentions Ogre. Ogre/FFT fans barely have any ground to stand on to insult JRPG fans.
Sumio Mondo
Member
It's really due to the complexity and despite the experiments with the genre that came, it wasn't really enough to keep them alive on home console, at least. The genre survives on handheld and PC but honestly, the genre kind of needs the next kick up the arse to crawl on since the sales aren't there unless you're a mega hit like Fire Emblem. Even Disgaea is becoming more and more niche nowadays. I say this only because I care, but the genre really needs to do something fresh, all of these grid based SRPGs aren't doing any favours, as much as I love them (and I really do). I still think the likes of Growlanser series, the new XCOM games, Lost Dimension, Valkyria Chronicles, Breath of Fire V and Natural Doctrine all have the right idea, even if the execution wasn't always perfect (or was extremely flawed). More experiments like those until one clicks (VC did gain a cult audience). You've got to move on from these esoteric SRPGs at some point (not that those can't exist too either).
Kind of a shame we're no longer seeing home console SRPGs anymore, hence why I'm excited for the new Fire Emblem on Switch.
Kind of a shame we're no longer seeing home console SRPGs anymore, hence why I'm excited for the new Fire Emblem on Switch.
coredecepts
Member
Echoing this. The reward loop sucks. Play for 30-60 minutes, win, get a few rewards. Play for 30-60 minutes, lose, reset and try again. In JRPGs and WRPGs, the playtime to reward payout is much tighter. And the punishment for losing is much more lenient.
That, and SRPGs can be really fiddly. Lots of menus per turn.
Overall, not enough return for my time and energy.
Next Fire Emblem to have waifus AND loot boxes.
Basically XCOM, I'd imagine.
coredecepts
Member
I did enjoy and finish both Metal Gear Ac!d games though, and I've played a good chunk of Steamworld Heist, which are simpler, quicker twists on strategy games.
So I'm not totally against the idea of playing a SRPG.
zenspider
Member
Fire Emblem Echoes.
For an old ass game, it's really progress for the genre and more creators should take note.
OuterLimits
Gold Member
Arc the Lad? Well, except the first and last game in the series. However, Arc 2,3 and Twilight of the Spirits had some traditional RPG aspects like exploring towns and dungeons while the battles were focused on strategy.
Flying Toaster
Member
Niche genre that is usually slow and boring to the majority of players. I absolutely love SRPG's but I also like games that Paradox makes and Football Manager.
Disgaea is a really awesome series because it takes the concept of an SRPG and just blows it to insane numbers. But I I can see why people do not like them.
Disgaea is a really awesome series because it takes the concept of an SRPG and just blows it to insane numbers. But I I can see why people do not like them.
Been playing this recently. The amount of menus you have to constantly go in and out of to weigh your options for a single unit's best class/skill/equipment combination for the current map is kind of ridiculous.
Turin Turambar
Member
Diviniity is just a game in a very established Computer RPG genre. Real time world exploration with turn based combat.
Like Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, for example. So not exactly new or "the next leap!".
Hell, there were games in the 80s with the same system.
Someone mentions DRPG's, those certainly aren't as popular as SRPG's.
I think the issue with many SRPG's is accessibility. Fire Emblem Awakening was able to rejuvenate the series because it was accessible.
Tactics Ogre for the PSP is not accessible. The skill list is daunting. It takes a really long time to level them up and the item shop actually stops selling stronger weapons after a certain point forcing you to recruit enemies to steal items.
People like to feel that their time is valued, and since SRPG's are a slow burn, it takes a long time for that payoff.
Valkyria Chronicles 1, 2 and 3 if you can play via a translation patch are great examples interactivity and a lot of fun even if 2 had an annoying certificate system.
The Disgaea series is overshadowed by the grinding narrative, even though you don't have to do that during the main story.
SRPG's are one of my favorite genres, but as I've gotten older, I don't have the time to devote to understanding the systems at play. I still play Fire Emblem on classic mode and it's my favorite video game series but the first game that came over here was mean. Characters died if you made a mistake, hard work and time spent on a map thrown away if you restarted. So I can understand why people were hesitant to jump in.
I think the issue with many SRPG's is accessibility. Fire Emblem Awakening was able to rejuvenate the series because it was accessible.
Tactics Ogre for the PSP is not accessible. The skill list is daunting. It takes a really long time to level them up and the item shop actually stops selling stronger weapons after a certain point forcing you to recruit enemies to steal items.
People like to feel that their time is valued, and since SRPG's are a slow burn, it takes a long time for that payoff.
Valkyria Chronicles 1, 2 and 3 if you can play via a translation patch are great examples interactivity and a lot of fun even if 2 had an annoying certificate system.
The Disgaea series is overshadowed by the grinding narrative, even though you don't have to do that during the main story.
SRPG's are one of my favorite genres, but as I've gotten older, I don't have the time to devote to understanding the systems at play. I still play Fire Emblem on classic mode and it's my favorite video game series but the first game that came over here was mean. Characters died if you made a mistake, hard work and time spent on a map thrown away if you restarted. So I can understand why people were hesitant to jump in.
Please, you all know SRPGs fans are a bunch of chronic savescummers.
Only the filthy casuals not playing on Ironman.
Neoleo2143
Member
Fire Emblem's probably harder if you don't ironman it and just restart when someone dies.
I couldn't resist this stuff when I started playing the genre on emulators and stuff. Also really bothered me when I learned how slow the genre actually was outside emulators lol. Fire Emblem tier speed up is pretty much a must have for the genre at this point.