Fire Emblem: The Discussion Thread (keep FE Fates story under spoilertags)

[Raziek]

... It just dawned on me that I chose most of the bad Pairings in Awakening:

I had Virion X Sully, Vaike X Mirie,l Lan'qu X Lissa, and Nowi X Donnel... On the bright side, I did Pair Tharja with my Avatar. XD

NowixDonnel's actually pretty good, but the other ones are pretty buns.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

If they remake Genealogy of the Holy War, which they definitely should, I'd definitely buy it just to try it.

If they remake FE4, I hope it comes along with an FE5 remake.

Though really they should remake Tearring Saga

 

[Rutger]

If they remake FE4, I hope they fix the whole horses only thing.
They can start by getting rid of canto movement.
Maybe then I'll be able to get into that game.


Anyways, starting chapter 4 of FE6 HM, time for the real star of this game to make his appearance!

 

[Raziek]

For a second I was like, "Who is he talking abou-.... wait. Rutger. Duh."

 

[Rutger]

And he did his job perfectly.
Well, he only landed crits on the second hit with his killing edge, so I spent more uses of that than I would have liked. Still, he's already one of the best I have.

This is actually my first run through hard mode for this game, I rarely ever get around to finishing a FE more than once. I'm surprised at how smoothly it has gone so far, it helps that I don't care about my turn count.

I may try to work in all the Swordmasters, because why not, otherwise I don't really have a plan. It's been so long since I last played this that most maps will be as if I'm going in blind, should be fun. :3

 

[camerino1]

So, I've got this love for Shadow Dragon and I want to see if anyone else here does.

I can't help but reclass everyone to see how well they do. I've been working on Tomas, Dolph and Bord this latest playthrough. I wanted Matthis as well earlier on, but I can never seem to get him up to snuff even though his growths really aren't bad.

Anyone else here love the reclassing system as much as I do here?

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

So, I've got this love for Shadow Dragon and I want to see if anyone else here does.

I can't help but reclass everyone to see how well they do. I've been working on Tomas, Dolph and Bord this latest playthrough. I wanted Matthis as well earlier on, but I can never seem to get him up to snuff even though his growths really aren't bad.

Anyone else here love the reclassing system as much as I do here?

I haven't played the game in question in a while, but I do remember enjoying it quite a bit when I did play it. It was about as fun as playing Blazing Sword, for me at least.

Oh, and just a piece of advice. Reclass Caeda into a Myrmidon/Swords Master and watch her clear the entire Map. XD

 

[Raziek]

I dislike SD because the sprites are bland and lifeless and none of the characters have much real CHARACTER.

I realize that is because it is old, but I think it a piteously missed opportunity that SD was simply ported and not "brought up to snuff", so to speak.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

I dislike SD because the sprites are bland and lifeless and none of the characters have much real CHARACTER.

I realize that is because it is old, but I think it a piteously missed opportunity that SD was simply ported and not "brought up to snuff", so to speak.

Bear in mind that I haven't played the older, Japan only titles as of yet, but I believe that Fire Emblem didn't quite get its character groove going until maybe Binding Blade. It could have been earlier than that, however, but that's my educated guess. :I

I do agree that they could have updated things a bit more. I mean, it isn't a complete port, to my knowledge, but it would have been nice to see some newer mechanics in it aside from Reclassing.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I dislike SD because the sprites are bland and lifeless and none of the characters have much real CHARACTER.

I realize that is because it is old, but I think it a piteously missed opportunity that SD was simply ported and not "brought up to snuff", so to speak.

While I will admit that there are a good deal of characters in SD that don't have much, or any, character development, the development that is there is gold.

 

[majora_787]

I enjoy Shadow Dragon a good deal. I wouldn't call it my favorite game, but I liked a number of the characters and the class design choices. I also prefer the sprites to the GBA battle animations with their absurdly ridiculous palette swaps. Even though, I did like Sacred Stones' monster sprites well enough. So there's that. I'd say I actually enjoy it a little more than Radiant Dawn, which I feel tries too hard in a lot of ways.

I don't really reclass units though. I like to keep units as they are and just promote them.

 

[Raziek]

Your opinions continue to boggle my mind.

How can the faceless "Everyone looks the same especially if you reclass" sprites be better to you than FE7's? Many of the units in FE7 even have unique sprites compared to the enemies (Guy, Raven, Lucius, Serra, just to name a few)

How is RD trying too hard...? >_>

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

I think that the, "trying too hard," part is in reference to just how... cinematic the story in RD technically was. Though, I wouldn't call that trying too hard, I actually thought that RD was attempting to one up its predecessor, which it did in some aspects.

Though, I must say that there is a fairly large line between, "Effort," and ,"Trying too hard," so I'm just as confused as you are about that. :I

Also, in terms of the older, handheld FEs, Sacred Stones tops both games, IMO.

 

[Raziek]

I personally have....

Top tier: Awakening, 7, 10
High tier: 9, 6
Mid tier: 8
Low tier: Shadow Dragon

Anything else i left off, I haven't played.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

I personally have....

Top tier: Awakening, 7, 10
High tier: 9, 6
Mid tier: 8
Low tier: Shadow Dragon

Anything else i left off, I haven't played.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who loves RD's graphics.

Though, how is PoR higher than Sacred Stones in terms of graphics? O_O! I mean, they aren't horrible, but they most certainly lack polish and refine, and this is coming from someone who LOVES that game. XD

 

[Raziek]

That's not a graphical rating, that's an overall rating. Sorry I was unclear on that.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

imo PoR > RD. Final boss is a human. What a concept :O

Other than that I completely agree with your rating Raziek

 

[Raziek]

imo PoR > RD. Final boss is a human. What a concept :O

Other than that I completely agree with your rating Raziek

I give the edge to RD primarily because I think RD is a better balanced, and better polished game. If PoR had identical mechanics to RD (no broken Canto, better balanced classes), and graphics that are on par with it, I'd probably give the edge to PoR. It is flawed mainly as a result of being the first foray into console Fire Emblem.

 

[majora_787]

I mean it was trying too hard in the sense that it felt like it did a lot of things just for the sake of making things complicated. In how they set up chapters, how they rotated armies around so you may have some units in one part and some in another, and... Well all in all, if Radiant Dawn wasn't a sequel to Path of Radiance, I wouldn't like it. Also, I don't like crossbows because they are mean creations.

My overall rating so far is something like...

Path of Radiance, Sacred Stones, and Awakening are pretty good.
Radiant Dawn and Shadow Dragon are alright for pretty different reasons. Genealogy also seems alright but I haven't had much time to get into it.

I'd grade Blazing Sword as something but I'd be lying to myself a little bit. You can go ahead and complain about how I don't see the true art behind such unlikeable characters, such a patchwork prequel plot, and such an unbelievably disappointing ending if you really want to. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you can go right on ahead and stop acting like I should. I am honestly just as flabbergasted that people can convince themselves that there are good things to be found aside from maybe a favorite character or two, and maybe some of the soundtrack. But I don't sit here and demand you explain yourself. Because you're going to go off and play your games and I'm going to go off and play mine regardless of how that conversation goes. We really may as well not have it.

I am surprised though. I knew Genealogy was going to have large maps, but a 60x30 tutorial map... well that's certainly something. I wish I had gotten to it sooner when I would have more time to put into it.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

I mean it was trying too hard in the sense that it felt like it did a lot of things just for the sake of making things complicated. In how they set up chapters, how they rotated armies around so you may have some units in one part and some in another, and... Well all in all, if Radiant Dawn wasn't a sequel to Path of Radiance, I wouldn't like it. Also, I don't like crossbows because they are mean creations.

My overall rating so far is something like...

Path of Radiance, Sacred Stones, and Awakening are pretty good.
Radiant Dawn and Shadow Dragon are alright for pretty different reasons. Genealogy also seems alright but I haven't had much time to get into it.

I'd grade Blazing Sword as something but I'd be lying to myself a little bit. You can go ahead and complain about how I don't see the true art behind such unlikeable characters, such a patchwork prequel plot, and such an unbelievably disappointing ending if you really want to. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you can go right on ahead and stop acting like I should. I am honestly just as flabbergasted that people can convince themselves that there are good things to be found aside from maybe a favorite character or two, and maybe some of the soundtrack. But I don't sit here and demand you explain yourself. Because you're going to go off and play your games and I'm going to go off and play mine regardless of how that conversation goes. We really may as well not have it.

I am surprised though. I knew Genealogy was going to have large maps, but a 60x30 tutorial map... well that's certainly something. I wish I had gotten to it sooner when I would have more time to put into it.

No truer words have ever been spoken.

--------------------------
Now, on the subject of Path of Radiance Vs. Radiant Dawn, when it comes to these two games, it comes down to this:

Path of Radiance had a better story, more character development/better developed characters due to somewhat lengthy Support Conversations, and also the added feature of Info which is like a Support, but you get both an Item (on Three Star ones) and a character interaction, rather than a Support bonus, and a better Lord, for obvious reasons. However, it suffers from mediocre graphics that look like it was ported from the Nintendo 64 (which, if the rumors are true, it was to some extent), and lacks polish and refine in certain aspects such as game-play and mechanics, also, Skills vanish if you take them off of a Unit, which is a HUGE con, IMO.

Radiant Dawn has by far the most polished game-play I've seen in Fire Emblem so far, it has quite a bit of strategic depth and gives you many options in terms of what Units you want to use and what your gameplan for a map will be. It also lends itself to being the only Fire Emblem game to date that, instead of sticking to the basic Weapon formula, branched out and made some changes such as Crossbows, Knives being an actual Weapon, and adding a second Trinity of Magic. However, where Path of Radiance succeeded, this game fails miserably. The Support Conversations are, for the most part, generic and boring, something that's quite an alien concept to Fire Emblem. It's story is also lacking in detail and proper set up, though, I've heard that this is a result of the American version of the game getting some watered down version of the Japanese game, so this is a slight moot point. It also makes the same mistake as awakening in that, while adding plenty of awesome, new/interesting features to the series, it neglected to balance them in a way where the game both proves challenging, but fair. However, unlike Awakening, this problem arises, not with Skills, but with some of the Classes and the Laguz Royals.

Note that I did my best to point out the individual pros and cons of the games instead of just the problems/great things that are seen throughout most titles in the series. So if I didn't list something like, "Archers are under powered" (They aren't), that's due to it being a common complaint amongst the Fandom.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

"Archers are under powered" (They aren't),

...wait, are you serious?

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

...wait, are you serious?

Yes. Yes I am. I've used an Archer/Sniper in everyone of my playthroughs of every single Fire Emblem game I've played, and they have always served me well. Hell, in Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn Rolf, yes Rolf, is usually one of my strongest units, and usually racks up the most kills by the end of the game. Do I need to baby him? Hell yes. Is it worth it? Hell to the yes. I mean honestly, I laugh a bit every time I hear how "terrible" Archers are, because the argument used to call them that is one that's easily remedied by paying attention to your surroundings and, like with most fragile units, having a bit of support to bag them up in the event they come under attack and can't escape easily. I mean, it's a strategy game, not a Beat 'Em Up, you wouldn't rush your opponent half-cocked using a Myrmidon or Mage, so why in the world would you do so with an Archer? It just seems that people put them in bad situations just to justify calling them mediocre. :I

That being said, I'm not saying that the Class has no flaws, it obviously does like many other Classes, but saying that they are the end all, be all of mediocre is just a step too far, IMO.

Yeesh! Sorry for the wall of text. XD

 

[Robert of Normandy]

Nice to know that 2 year old argument still hold water here. Why should I bother babying any unit with bases as terrible as most* FE archers when there are other units who start out better and turn out just as good? Not to mention that almost all archers are locked to 2 range, a handicap that means you're probably going to need to baby them even after you've trained them up. Mages and any unit with a Hand Axe or Javelin will usually fulfil any role that Archers could, but better. And no, having innate effectiveness against fliers does not help them enough, especially since wind magic can usually do the job just as well, if not better, than most archers can.

Literally the only class in FE that I think might get it worse than archers is armours. Maybe.

*there have been a few decent FE archers. Jamke and Midir in FE4 come to mind, due to having combinations of skills that will basically allow them to keep shooting until the enemy dies. Briggid and Faval are decent, but that's mostly dew to Yewfelle. Shinon is okay in RD from what I've heard due to being an amazing dodgetank. Also apparently snipers are good in FE12.

 

[Raziek]

Do I need to baby him? Hell yes.

This and no enemy phase is why Archers are bad.

But they're bad for EFFICIENCY, not bad in general. In a direct "X vs. Y" situation, Archers are almost always the worse choice, but that doesn't mean I never use them. They've got great utility and safety, so I'll usually just bring one.

Shin (or Klein) in 6, Rebecca (and later Louise) in 7, Neimi or Innes in 8, Shinon in 10. I don't usually use one in 9 because I don't think Rolf is worth it in the long run simply by comparison to other units. Paladins and fliers run that game so hard that I just use Soren or Ilyana to fill the utility role.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

Rebecca is mildly better than Wil due to actually having a respectable speed growth, though her strength leaves something to be desired. Also she's a decent support unit(especially for Dart). Still doesn't completely make up for having to baby her(especially not in Hector mode).

Shame that most Archers take after Gordin instead.

 

[Raziek]

In HHM (rankings runs) I usually justify her use on a couple things:

1) In the first few chapters, she's 0-cost.
2) Pot-shots help me raise other more critical units, like Eliwood (even though I don't WANT to use him).
3) She's great for the exp rank.
4) I just ditch her later for Louise (who gives Pent dat free A-rank) if she turns out bad.

I typically don't go out of my way to feed her much. Maybe 1-2 kills a chapter.

I do, however, shamelessly justify favoritism towards Heath, because he's my favorite unit in FE7 and IMHO the best Afa's drops candidate. That, and the return he provides is worth it. Flying Tank go go go.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

Nice to know that 2 year old argument still hold water here. Why should I bother babying any unit with bases as terrible as most* FE archers when there are other units who start out better and turn out just as good? Not to mention that almost all archers are locked to 2 range, a handicap that means you're probably going to need to baby them even after you've trained them up. Mages and any unit with a Hand Axe or Javelin will usually fulfil any role that Archers could, but better. And no, having innate effectiveness against fliers does not help them enough, especially since wind magic can usually do the job just as well, if not better, than most archers can.

Literally the only class in FE that I think might get it worse than archers is armours. Maybe.

*there have been a few decent FE archers. Jamke and Midir in FE4 come to mind, due to having combinations of skills that will basically allow them to keep shooting until the enemy dies. Briggid and Faval are decent, but that's mostly dew to Yewfelle. Shinon is okay in RD from what I've heard due to being an amazing dodgetank. Also apparently snipers are good in FE12.

Oh, I'm not saying that you have to baby anyone. Seriously, use the Units you like and have fun. That being said, Archers have one thing that no other Class can do, to make up for the fact that they lack any means of attack in front of them, they are blessed with Long Bows, which have the benefit of allowing Archers/Snipers to attack from 2-3 spaces away. If you think of it as they're sacrificing close-range for unmatched long-range (Ignoring Bolting, Meteor, Blizzard, Mire, and Purge, which, while having greater range, are FAR rarer and have far less usage than the more common Long Bow), you can see how they may come in handy.

Also, if your definition of, "babying" is giving extra attention to a particular Unit so that they may become stronger... welcome to Fire Emblem, the game that encourages you to give as much attention as possible to that one Unit or group of Units that you care for and want to see grow stronger. XD

But eh, at the end of the day, the Units you use are completely up to the player, and if you really want to use a Unit, despite popular belief of them being considered not worth it, I assure you that You Will Find A Way. XD

Rebecca is mildly better than Wil due to actually having a respectable speed growth, though her strength leaves something to be desired. Also she's a decent support unit(especially for Dart). Still doesn't completely make up for having to baby her(especially not in Hector mode).

Shame that most Archers take after Gordin instead.

I agree that Rebecca is better than Wil. If memory serves though, Wil is slightly more bulky than Rebecca, yes?

This and no enemy phase is why Archers are bad.

But they're bad for EFFICIENCY, not bad in general. In a direct "X vs. Y" situation, Archers are almost always the worse choice, but that doesn't mean I never use them. They've got great utility and safety, so I'll usually just bring one.

Shin (or Klein) in 6, Rebecca (and later Louise) in 7, Neimi or Innes in 8, Shinon in 10. I don't usually use one in 9 because I don't think Rolf is worth it in the long run simply by comparison to other units. Paladins and fliers run that game so hard that I just use Soren or Ilyana to fill the utility role.

Yeah, I'll have to agree with you on that. In a 1 on 1 fight... Archers are horribly handicapped, but many tend to forget that, while the enemy will usually out number them, they have more than just an Archer on their team.

Shinon... has never ended well for me. Literally in all my playthroughs of both games, Rolf ends up better in almost every category, but mayhaps I just get lucky. XD

 

[Raziek]

Rolf pretty much IS better in general (in 10), but it's by so little (pretty much just his more reliable strength growth) that I just opt for Shinon, who starts 12 levels higher and has a better affinity (thunder vs. Rolf's wind)

That makes him less prone to RNG screwage, require less babying, and lets me feed some of the exp in the Greil Merc's chapters to other units who could use it more, like Mia.

In 9 I don't really use either, but Shinon at least has usage softening **** up in the early game. As I said before, given my playstyle and how PoR is structured, I just can't justify training him when I can have a wall of Paladins + Jill, Marcia & Ike + a Handful of Mages.

Mages do pretty much everything I need to, considering Longbows never really felt critical, they have an enemy phase, and I can give them staves later on, making them useful at all phases of the game.

Edit: And yes, Wil is more bulky, but it's barely the difference between a 2HKO and a 3HKO, and oftentimes his lack of speed is enough to get him doubled anyway. I consider Rebecca to have better "effective durability" between her Fire affinity (and supports with Dart/Raven) and her much more reliable dodge. Neither should be getting hit at ALL, so I prefer the one who gets hit LESS.

When they only get to take 1 attack per turn, I want them to be getting a kill. Bad speed severely limits the number of units Wil can 1-round, just as a result of cutting out everything fast. That leaves him doubling like.... Warriors (who might survive because HP), Generals (who probably WILL survive because defense), Druids (who cause him great pain in return) and maaaaaybe a slow Paladin or two.

 

[Ussi]

They seriously need to buff archers to be 1-2 range. Only one i ever us is Shinon in 10 cause double bow has 1-2 range, and tier 3 has a bonus +1 range giving a 1-3 range attack which is amazing.

Another point is that Radiant Dawn made very good use of defense maps which archers aren't bad on. Archers are just bad on offensive maps.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I don't think giving archers 1-2 range is the solution. Really they just need to stop giving archers such terrible bases.

Also, the +1 range on all bows sounds like a nice buff. would be really handy on Snipers.

 

[Raziek]

I'd agree. I don't think I'd want to see Archers homogenized by giving them 1-2 range.

Rather, I'd like to see their strengths further fleshed out to make them competitive through something nobody else can provide, to off-set their lack of 1-range. Longbows, while neat, are also inaccurate, fairly heavy (in the games where that applies) and not very strong, so they're kinda sub-par.

I'd like to see Archers have 2-3 range on all bows, with the Longbow/DoubleBow being 2-4, but very rare. A buff to base stats would also go a long way, as shinpinchu said.

If nothing else, consistent 2-3 range would at least give them a convincing reason to be used over mages.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

I don't think giving archers 1-2 range is the solution. Really they just need to stop giving archers such terrible bases.

I actually agree with this. Augmenting their Bases and Caps a bit would help. I recall that Archers, while they have always had high/the highest Skill among any other Class, they were also known to have solid Defense and Resistance in older iterations, enough to brave through quite a few attacks, in fact. In all honesty, if they just gave them slightly better Defense and Speed, I don't think that so many would be so quick to judge them as bad.

Also, the +1 range on all bows sounds like a nice buff. would be really handy on Snipers.

I'd agree. I don't think I'd want to see Archers homogenized by giving them 1-2 range.

Rather, I'd like to see their strengths further fleshed out to make them competitive through something nobody else can provide, to off-set their lack of 1-range. Longbows, while neat, are also inaccurate, fairly heavy (in the games where that applies) and not very strong, so they're kinda sub-par.

I'd like to see Archers have 2-3 range on all bows, with the Longbow/DoubleBow being 2-4, but very rare. A buff to base stats would also go a long way, as shinpinchu said.

If nothing else, consistent 2-3 range would at least give them a convincing reason to be used over mages.

Agreed. Giving Archers exclusively higher range on Bows would be a great boon to the Class overall. It would also help to set them apart from other Bow wielding Classes such as Warriors and Bow Knights/Rangers. This was actually a HUGE problem I had with Awakening, you'd think that if they were trying to bring back some of the more beloved elements from past iterations, they wouldn't neglect to add something that, I'm sure most would agree, was a VERY good idea on Intelligent Systems's part. A Skill or something that Snipers acquired, mayhaps instead of Hit +20, would have made more than enough sense.

Though, I must that it is a bit unfair to compare Archers to Mages, since they both possess the same base idea (always having access to Weapons that hit from a distance), yes, but they are utilized in different ways that kind of can't be compared.

 

[Rutger]

Increasing Archers/Snipers range sounds like a reasonable buff. I'm kind of surprised Intelligent Systems have not done that yet, considering long range units in Advance Wars are not restricted to just two spaces away.

As it is now, I only use bow users that have or will have access to another weapon.

 

[Raziek]

Though, I must that it is a bit unfair to compare Archers to Mages, since they both possess the same base idea (always having access to Weapons that hit from a distance), yes, but they are utilized in different ways that kind of can't be compared.

Mind elaborating on this? How are they not comparable?

 

[Robert of Normandy]

Mind elaborating on this? How are they not comparable?

The only thing different is that Mages tend to have less Defense and skill than Archers. though I'll be honest, after a certain point skill stops mattering that much.

Mages also have the advantage of hitting Res, of which most enemies have squat, and being able to attack from 1-2 range. Also, siege tomes>Ballistas.

 

[Raziek]

Yeah, I know, that's why I'm wondering why he says they AREN'T comparable. They do pretty much the same thing.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

Mind elaborating on this? How are they not comparable?

I just meant that the fact that Mages deal Magic Damage, while Archers deal Physical Damage is one of the factoring element in what makes them different. I don't know, I just don't see it as fair to compare a Magic Class to a Physical one. :I

 

[Robert of Normandy]

Something else that might help archers is if they got skills that didn't suck.

I mean, seriously. In SS their class skill is "sure shot", which is pretty much redundant with their ridiculous skill. Same deal with Deadeye, and all the hit and skill boosting skills that they get in Awakening.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

Something else that might help archers is if they got skills that didn't suck.

I mean, seriously. In SS their class skill is "sure shot", which is pretty much redundant with their ridiculous skill. Same deal with Deadeye, and all the hit and skill boosting skills that they get in Awakening.

Well, to be fair, Deadeye did have the added affect of putting the opponent to Sleep. That said, the opponent was more likely to die from the attack than suffer from the Status, so yeah... Something not Skill/Accuracy related would be nice. XD

 

[Robert of Normandy]

Something I'd like to be brought back are the class/"Soldier" skills of FE4/5/8/9/10. i.e. skills that certain classes got without taking up any allotment for personal skills. Imagine if Generals got Pavise/Aegis or something without needing a skill slot for it.