Was anyone else deeply disappointed with Fire Emblem: Awakening/Kakusei?

[XTheElegantShadowX]

Allow me to elaborate:

Note that this is my opinion and as such, isn't meant to offend nor should offend anyone reading this and yaddy yaddy yadda.

(Warning: giant essay approaching. You have been warned.)

Now then:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Story:

Spoilers ahead!

The complete lack of choice and lazy decisions that ultimately lead to the same outcome.

Let's start with the easiest complaint to address. Now, I do realize that Fire Emblem games are a bit hit and miss when it comes to story, and that some stories may resonate with some more than others, but the story of this game feels a bit cheap. What I mean is that it gives you choices as to what you want to do at a certain point in the game, yet those "choices" do not have any real effect on the outcome. Let's take the scene where Emmeryn sacrifices herself for the sake of her country and people. Now, this scene is quite touching and a strong testament to how far someone would go to protect that which they cherish. However, the problem with this arises when you go back and select a different choice, but gain the same outcome. Literally nothing changes whether you choose to hand over the Fire Emblem to Gangrel or not, it still happens the same way with the same outcome. This happens several other times in the game. In fact, the only time that your decision does effect the outcome is at the very end when you have to decide whether to sacrifice/kill yourself/MU to Grima to keep him from resurrecting in the far off future, thus saving your future descendants from facing the same problems as you did or to spare his and your own life and leave the future of the world in the hands of said descendants. However again, the problem with this is that while the outcome is different you live either way. In fact, the option of sacrificing yourself IS the better one, since it's the ending that gives the greater sense of closure.

What I'm saying is, why add choices to a game, if at the end of the day, they don't matter and the experience is as linear as if you had no choice to begin with?

All in all, the story of this game is simple, and quite honestly only exists to pay homage to the stories of its predecessors. (Alright, that statement may be a bit harsh, the story is alright, but it "Borrows" a bit too much from other Fire Emblem titles to be anything unique."

The clear favoritism towards Mothers in the aspect of parenting.

This part is just a pet peeve, but WHY in the name of Yggdrasil are the mothers so important in the whole child/parent system? I find it a missed opportunity that the child you get is completely left up to the mother who bears them. The fact that the father could be anyone and the only thing that changes is the child's hair color makes it seem as if fathers are overall less important or worse, just plain don't matter. This is made worse when the only people who CAN recruit the child are either the mother or Chrom. So, a child wouldn't recognize their own father, but would recognize their mother? What The Actual Frank. I'm not one who usually pulls the "Dis is sexiest!" card, but... It could have been done better, that's all I'm saying on this matter, since this IS just a pet peeve.

Game-play:

The game-play of this game, while fluent and very streamline, lacks any strategic depth and seems a bit devoid of balance and... alright, I'm starting to sound like someone hating on Brawl... I'll just let my points speak for themselves:

Overall Game Mechanics:

Now, while this game is very polished and has a lot to offer in terms of mechanics, said mechanics lack refine and feel tacked on. Let's take a look at the Pair-Up System:

Two units, with any level of support, including none at all, are able to pair-up and eccentrically become one unit. That's a fantastic idea, it really is, but the way that they implemented it turned a good idea into the most broken thing about this game. The fact that the Enemy seems to NEVER Pair-Up means that you already hold an advantage to them, but it's made worse because there's no reason not to Pair-Up. You get boosted Stats, you get a chance of your partner attacking in tandem with you, and you get a chance of your partner protecting you and negating all damage. What is the reason you shouldn't Pair-Up? Why shouldn't I pair-up my entire team at the start of the battle to achieve better results, and even fight battles that are far beyond my current state due to the boosts I acquire?

There's also the whole Rally and Skill Systems in general:

The Rally System, while an interesting and innovative system to employ, is a complete failure in one aspect. Rally Spectrum. This single handedly makes every other Rally completely obsolete (Unless the unit it's on is a Rally bot, then the other Rallies are still useful since they stack with Rally Spectrum), it also seems strange that Rally Spectrum Boosts are stats (Excluding Movement) by 4 and all the other Rallies only boost one stat by 4 (Or in Luck's case, 8), why make Rally Spectrum so powerful? Why not make Rally Str, Def, Mag,etc boost by 8? That seems more than fair considering what Spectrum does.

And on the subject of the Skill System:

I'm sure that many people can agree that some Skills are just a bit... too overwhelming while others seem to pale at every turn. Let's take a look at Str + 2, why does it only boost by two? Why can't it go up according to the wielder's level? Why is it that choosing something like Sword Flair or Limit Breaker is an all together better choice? They made that group of Skills so underwhelming, so unworthy of use, that they aren't even useful in early game. Not to mention, All Stats +2 which makes Str, Mag, etc + 2 look even worse. Why not make it + 4 or even just go up by two and reaching a maximum of 10 at Level 20, Second Class? Anything would have been better than this.

My closing argument on this topic is, Galeforce, Armshift, Rally Spectrum, Bond, Limit Breaker, Astral and Aggressor. Why wouldn't I use any of these over the likes of what I pointed out?

Weapons: Speaking as someone who very much enjoyed playing Radiant Dawn, I can't help but wonder why they removed so many new and innovative weapon types in favor of fleeting old school nostalgia. They removed light magic, meaning that Valkyries, War Clerics, and the like are forced to wield Anima magic. They removed Knives, forcing Thieves and other swift classes to equip Swords and lose any reason of using one over a Hero or Swords Master (I'll elaborate further on these in Classes and Skills.) Now, the latter isn't as bad as the former, since Knives where a very niche Weapon, however, removing Light magic does two things: It makes normal Light Magic wielding Classes nothing more than Horse bound Mages/Sages (Valkyries and Dark Knights), or forces them to equip physical Weapons (War Clerics and strangely enough, Tricksters). This also destroys the Trinity of Magic, meaning that Anima and Dark magic have no weakness nor strength, and this ends up making the former a much less viable option when compared to the latter (I'll explain that soon enough). Also, the fact that Light Magic was removed makes very little sense when you consider that what they fight in the story (The risen) would be the perfect targets to blast with divine rays of destruction and purge their evil, dark souls to ashes. Taking out Light Magic really does hurt the balance of this game, and it throws away several years of well defined class weapons.

One other thing of note when it comes to Weapons is that Dark Magic is God. The very fact that Dark Magic Tomes potentially have the highest damage (Excluding ValFlame) of any magic based attack WITH added affects such as, Stealing the opponent's HP, Hitting four times with buffed up damage, Having a high Critical Hit Rate without sacrificing damage, and stealing more of the opponent's HP. Not to mention that Dark Magic users are the only magic using Classes able to attack at long distances via Mire. Yes, you heard me, they removed Bolting, Blizzard, and Meteor (And Purge), yet kept Mire, making Dark Tomes even better, and making Anima magic users look even worse in comparison, made even worse when you realize that the majority of Magic Users only wield Anima. Did I mention that Armshift makes all of this even worse? Because it does, due to it allowing you a potentially infinite amount of HP Stealing goodness, and I'm not talking about Nosferatu, I'm talking about a Forged Aversa's Night that has a MT of 18 when fully maxed out. Also, Armshift works on Mire, so your Sorcerer can pick off enemies at a distance and heal him/herself at close range via Nosferatu/Aversa's Night.

Also, why was Fire nerfed and Lightning buffed again like in PoR? There's no point in using Fire now (Excluding Valflame) since it neither has the highest damage, Hit Rate, nor Crit Rate. I can't even say that it's the middle-ground between Lightning and Wind because it both elements aren't that bad in other fields besides the one they specialize in. Basically, Lightning and Dark Magic rule everything, it just so happens that Dark destroys Lightning in every field. :I

Classes

Ohohohoho, now, I'll admit right here that this is where the whole of my gripes manifest. The Classes of this game are so very unbalanced, so very uninspired, and lack any form of differentiating characteristics that I wonder if while coming up with ideas for these Classes, they used a dartboard to choose what weapon each class could wield and what stats they'd be able to cap.

Now, here's an example of what I mean: Let's compare Valkyries and Sages. Both wield Anima Magic, both wield Staves, one rides a Horse. Now, let's look at their stats:

Valkyrie: Str, 32, Mag, 44, Skill, 38, Speed, 43, Luck, 48, Def, 27, Res, 44

Sage: Str, 30, Mag, 50, Skill, 43, Speed, 44, Luck, 44, Def, 28, Res 41.

Now, looking at the both of these, what have you noticed? They both have almost identical caps, meaning that in the long run, the Valkyrie would end up being the better choice due to having the higher mobility of a horse bound unit. The only time that the Sage would be superior would be in a battle that takes place in sand. I'm hardly even splitting hairs here, can you honestly name a reason as to why, in an average battle, you'd use the Sage over the Valkyrie that doesn't involve Class preference? They have the same weapons, but the Valkyrie has more mobility meaning that she'd be able to keep up with the group better than the Sage and act as both healer and magic users at the same time. Bear in mind that I do realize that caps slightly differentiate from character to character, and that some characters may have stats more specialized for certain classes than others. However, the fact that the Caps are so similar becomes quite disturbing when you realize they really do possess the same weapons, thus making them almost identical. This is why the Light Magic thing annoys me.

Oho! But it doesn't stop there, this game also spits upon any positive changes that were made to past Classes or variations on past Classes:

Dancers/Bards: Thanks to The Tellius series and Herons, these two Classes were buffed immensely by introducing several new abilities in such as Vigor, which builds upon what these Classes were originally known for, allowing a unit to move again, the difference is that it could now work on four units at once when the Heron was Shifted (Well, in Reyson and Rafiel's cases, at least). They also gained Bliss, which boosts an Allied Unit's Bio Rhythm to its peak and Sorrow, which can decrease an Enemy Unit's Bio Rhythm to its lowest point, yes, I know that Bio Rhythms aren't in Awakening, but they could have changed these abilities to do something completely new. There's also Recovery ( I won't even touch on Valor, since like with Sorrow and Bliss, it would have to be changed COMPLETELY for it to work in Awakening) which fully heals all surrounding Allied Units and cures them of statuses. Had they included these abilities alongside older ones such as being able to boost stats (Something that used to be unique to them, but they could of had some Skill that made them more efficient at it than any other Class) instead of just making... Olivia.... it could have been quite a fearsome Class, but sadly, the only thing Olivia is capable of is giving one Allied Unit a second turn, and occasionally KOing or lowing the HP of an Enemy Unit.

Archers and Snipers: *Sigh* Now, while this Class has always been hit or miss when it came to liking or hating them, they've always had the same pros and the same cons throughout almost the entire series.

Bows are able to hit 2 spaces away without losing Accuracy or having a low amount of uses, some bows are even able to attack from three spaces away. However, no bow is able to attack at close range, meaning that you're left a sitting duck without proper tactics applied.

Now, here's what they did right with Bows:

Creating Cross Bows made Archers and Snipers slightly better, since they could attack at close-range with them and still hit two spaces away.

Allowing Marksmen to make any normal bow (Brave Bow, Killer Bow, etc) hit three spaces away without it having to be a Long-Bow.

These two, very slight and simple, additions made Bow wielding Classes much more viable and even made them somewhat of killing machines at high levels. I honestly cannot think of a reason as to why these were removed, well, alright, I can see why Cross Bows could have been removed, but taking away something that would make Snipers far more superior to Archers in anything that doesn't involve stats seems a bit questionable. The very fact that Archers and Snipers are, much like Bards/Dancers, now reduced to their former inglory for whatever convoluted reason Intelligent Systems would come up with if asked, only shows that this game was made more with the thought of flash and wow, than balance and fair play.

There are many other cases, but I shall state only one other,,,

One of my biggest problems with this game is the inclusion Taguels and the fact that they're a halfhearted attempted at recreating Laguz (Laguzes? Laguzies?) and/or trying to make a second Manakete that only pales when compared to them. It's no wonder that they almost went extinct, it isn't that good of a Class, and it only spits in the face of Laguz and Manaketes everywhere. Yes, I do hold a strong distaste for this Class, hence why I'm harping on it so hard. Moving on...

In game Characters V.S DLC Characters:

I'm just going to be blunt, DLC characters are broken. Moving on... Okay, I'll elaborate:

DLC characters, like our very own MU/Robin, are able to use every non-gender specific and non-Character specific Class in the game. Considering this, and that the In Game characters are limited to three Class paths each, makes them seem horrible underwhelming when you realize that ALL DLC characters are able to get Armshift and Rally Spectrum, and all Female DLC characters have access to skills like Galeforce and Bond. This means that you could build an army of DLC characters with almost an unlimited amount of Skill, Class, and Weapon options. Yes, DLC characters can't support, but they still gain bonuses from Pair-Up, which makes you wonder why the in game characters are so restrictive when compared to DLC ones. It really doesn't make sense, the characters that you're meant to use throughout the game become automatically obsolete as soon as you have access to the Outrealm Gate. DLC characters are basically 2 gen characters, but don't require the work and effort it takes to make those characters good. This is made even worse when you consider that some of the DLC characters come at level 20 automatically, and are easy to get in the second playthrough if you managed to meet a few requirements. All this considered, DLC characters are just too broken.

Basically, you can have an entire army of My Units running around.

Also, please note that DLC characters all have access to Skills such as Flare, Ignis, Astral, and Lethality

Oh, and I'm also upset that Chrom doesn't have access to the Mercenary nor Hero Class. Which would have been a better and more fitting choice for him than Archer and Sniper.

Graphics and design choices:

I'll make this short. It isn't the chibified character designs, it isn't the bright, vibrant array of colors and clear love that went into the graphics. It's the fact that some few things lack detail. Let's look at Magic again, when a Mage casts a spell, shouldn't the circle be the color of the spell cast? Why does every Tome look like I'm casting a Fire Spell? And Why can't Ragnell shoot out a wave of blue energy? And why is the animation for the Bolt Axe and Levin Sword the same? It's just those little things that irk me.

Overall:

This game is good, but I'm always hearing about how "It's the best Fire Emblem game ever!" and "This game is just plain perfect in every aspect."

As I said, this game is good, but it isn't the best of anything. It's more or less fan porn that panders to newcomers and veterans of Fire Emblem alike, but it is by no means perfect. It has much in the way of polish, but lacks much refine and feels rushed. So it is a mixed bag at worst and an innovative experience at best.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

In closing, I would like to point out that I do not hate this game, nor anyone who enjoys it. This is my opinion and I'm simply wanting to see whether it's shared by anyone else. I encourage everyone to share their opinions of this game, contribute to this discussion, and above all else, be respectful of each other's opinions. Thank you.

Thoughts?

 

[Sarki Soliloquy]

Awakening being the only Fire Emblem game I've played, there isn't much justice I can do compared to other games in the series. It is a good gateway to the Fire Emblem series though. I really like the stance you take on criticizing its flaws though. Like Brawl, it isn't perfect, but great nonetheless.

I'm going to have to look at this one bit by bit.

Skipping over story. Don't want to spoil any other details than the ones have already revealed by accident.

A main problem I have with the gameplay is how grindy it feels and the emphasis that gets put on more experienced, stronger units than the squishier, growing ones. This is expected in a Fire Emblem game? Sure. But it really gets in the way of game progression and balancing out your army.

The Pair Up system is pretty nifty and it really only gets OP when you pair up units with higher supports. I would like to see the enemies pair up for the greater challenge or even a Skill like an assist killer that make it riskier to keep a unit as an assist often in battle where they are outranked. (Though I dunno where an assist-harming skill could be introduced. It could end up being a ***** to deal with especially early game.) Pair ups also feel like you can get a tankier, more offensive character to be the meat shield for a squishier one who maybe assists every now and then. This can end up negating a lot of EXP for the weaker unit to filter off of until they are sturdy enough to separate. Pairing two units with high support and beneficiary stat boosts can make them outlast and entire battle too.

Not sure where you are getting at with 'lack of strategic depth.' I thought the strategy happened in your head. I mean, when I have enough units who can take a beating a can place them against each other in a position that forms a blockade and provides necessary assistance. You could say this is an alternate way to arrange supports, but at least it brings out a unit and not make them hide being a meatshield such as Frederick or Cherche.

A lot of the Skills a class gets early on is really just a buff to provide them a slight boost in their stat. The boost is added on with the scaling of a stat, so it compensates for a stat that would not be advantageous towards different unit classes without. Scaling the boost or even a Skill level up might be something looking into, but how I see it that it might make certain classes too viable against others.

Rallying has a greater buffing scale than applying a tonic or confect. I can see potential for abuse by the player though. Especially with Rally Spectrum taking everything into account, although this is very useful for bringing up undergrown units up to scale with the rest so they can actually fight. This can negate grinding and opportunistically shreding EXP and even kills off a stronger unit.

I don't know what removing Light magic did for anyone, considering Anima and Dark can function without the Trinity of Magic put in place. Heck, Anima magic's triangle isn't even there. I guess it feels lonely without having it (maybe except Book of Naga). Dark mages are the only one who feel like they are distinctly characterized amongst magic users and you even need a special skill if you want to use Dark tomes on certain characters otherwise.

The DLC and SpotPass characters I didn't find to be any better than the standard game units. Although they do have strong startups. You're right about the DLC characters not conforming to the reclasses within their genders and starting classes though. Same with having multiple Avatars at your disposal (granted I never use them). Also, the lack of detail put into the models and voices makes them feel less like the characters they are supposed to be. It's just hair and model reswaps! Not to mention, the silent dialogue. Characterizing this may mean more data to tack on, but it could have been a Fire Emblem fan's wet dream to have all those nostalgic characters at your disposal.

The characters have no feet! They must be walking on stilts with those things! This interview with the director states that the reason for this is the joints in the structure the character models are meant to follow. This will be addressed in the next game, however.

BTW, I know it sucks when you make an extremely lengthy, essay-like forum post and no one will comment on it immediately or even after they've read every detail. It makes you feel like all that time and effort was a waste and the community could give less a ****. But I don't want to make you feel that way.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

Awakening being the only Fire Emblem game I've played, there isn't much justice I can do compared to other games in the series. It is a good gateway to the Fire Emblem series though. I really like the stance you take on criticizing its flaws though. Like Brawl, it isn't perfect, but great nonetheless.

I'm going to have to look at this one bit by bit.

Skipping over story. Don't want to spoil any other details than the ones have already revealed by accident.

A main problem I have with the gameplay is how grindy it feels and the emphasis that gets put on more experienced, stronger units than the squishier, growing ones. This is expected in a Fire Emblem game? Sure. But it really gets in the way of game progression and balancing out your army.

The Pair Up system is pretty nifty and it really only gets OP when you pair up units with higher supports. I would like to see the enemies pair up for the greater challenge or even a Skill like an assist killer that make it riskier to keep a unit as an assist often in battle where they are outranked. (Though I dunno where an assist-harming skill could be introduced. It could end up being a ***** to deal with especially early game.) Pair ups also feel like you can get a tankier, more offensive character to be the meat shield for a squishier one who maybe assists every now and then. This can end up negating a lot of EXP for the weaker unit to filter off of until they are sturdy enough to separate. Pairing two units with high support and beneficiary stat boosts can make them outlast and entire battle too.

Not sure where you are getting at with 'lack of strategic depth.' I thought the strategy happened in your head. I mean, when I have enough units who can take a beating a can place them against each other in a position that forms a blockade and provides necessary assistance. You could say this is an alternate way to arrange supports, but at least it brings out a unit and not make them hide being a meatshield such as Frederick or Cherche.

A lot of the Skills a class gets early on is really just a buff to provide them a slight boost in their stat. The boost is added on with the scaling of a stat, so it compensates for a stat that would not be advantageous towards different unit classes without. Scaling the boost or even a Skill level up might be something looking into, but how I see it that it might make certain classes too viable against others.

Rallying has a greater buffing scale than applying a tonic or confect. I can see potential for abuse by the player though. Especially with Rally Spectrum taking everything into account, although this is very useful for bringing up undergrown units up to scale with the rest so they can actually fight. This can negate grinding and opportunistically shreding EXP and even kills off a stronger unit.

I don't know what removing Light magic did for anyone, considering Anima and Dark can function without the Trinity of Magic put in place. Heck, Anima magic's triangle isn't even there. I guess it feels lonely without having it (maybe except Book of Naga). Dark mages are the only one who feel like they are distinctly characterized amongst magic users and you even need a special skill if you want to use Dark tomes on certain characters otherwise.

The DLC and SpotPass characters I didn't find to be any better than the standard game units. Although they do have strong startups. You're right about the DLC characters not conforming to the reclasses within their genders and starting classes though. Same with having multiple Avatars at your disposal (granted I never use them). Also, the lack of detail put into the models and voices makes them feel less like the characters they are supposed to be. It's just hair and model reswaps! Not to mention, the silent dialogue. Characterizing this may mean more data to tack on, but it could have been a Fire Emblem fan's wet dream to have all those nostalgic characters at your disposal.

The characters have no feet! They must be walking on stilts with those things! This interview with the director states that the reason for this is the joints in the structure the character models are meant to follow. This will be addressed in the next game, however.

BTW, I know it sucks when you make an extremely lengthy, essay-like forum post and no one will comment on it immediately or even after they've read every detail. It makes you feel like all that time and effort was a waste and the community could give less a ****. But I don't want to make you feel that way.

Yes, well. My intent for making such a post was to get the opinions and views of others that have/had played, not to bash the game in general. I do agree that it's a good starter Fire Emblem game, and it even has the added convenience of still being challenging to veteran players.

I had meant to add Spoiler Tags to avoid spoiling some of the story parts, but they wouldn't work for some reason. :I

Yeah. The game is highly grindy, especially if you want the second gen characters to be worth anything. Somehow, it actually feels a bit more grindy than Sacred Stones, but at least grinding serves a purpose past: "Hey, I got all my characters to level 20, second class." That's one thing I'll give Awakening.

Yes! Something like the Skill you mentioned would have been a step in the right direction in terms of balancing a few of the fights. It would at the very least give point to not Paring-Up Every. Single. Time. Though, upon thinking about it, and upon reading your post, I realized that Paring up serves only two purposes that, I will admit, is both a clever idea, and may act as a huge boon for future Fire Emblem titles: It's literally a buffed up version of Rescue, so it can be used to transfer characters with low movement across the stage with ease, while instead of your Speed and Skill being cut in half, it gives boosts to the Lead and protects the Follower. The other purpose it serves is, as you said, making it safer for low level units to go head to head with higher level units without worry of being 1HKOed, since if the low level unit is pared with someone of even or higher level than the opponent they're facing, the higher level unit could do all the work and the low level one (With the proper skills equipped) would gain a ton of experience. Even with that, though, this system still needs both balance and to be made an option for Enemy units as well.

I misspoke when I said that, I meant "Lack of Strategic Options/freedom." If you refer to the part of my post addressing Classes, Weapons, and Skills, you should get what I mean, but I'll just explain myself in full here:

By lack of strategic options/freedom, I mean that the game literally tells you that this Skill or Weapon is better than this one, or that this Class is obviously better than this one, by making certain Skills, Weapons, and Classes overpowered to the point of you actually be at a disadvantage if you don't use them. I.E. Limit Breaker. :I

To expand on this, I also find that the stages in Awakening are, for the most part, lacking in any real challenge or alternative way of going about it. What I mean is, take RD for instance. In that game, they had a mechanic in it that (To my knowledge) hadn't been seen in any Fire Emblem previously. It was the Elevation system, which when to units were placed on two squares that were on different levels, the higher up one would gain a boost in damage and accuracy, whilst the lower one would gain a degrees. THAT coupled with the all the other stuff in that game (Mages having tones of differentiating characteristics, Bow users having the buffs I mentioned in my first post, and just the sheer amount of options that game gives you) made it a very free, and interesting game that you're likely to play differently every time you finish it, just because there was so much you could do. But enough with my gushing over RD, that's not the point. I'm just saying that game gave you a good amount of options that just aren't present in Awakening.

I suppose you're right, there's no reason that a Swords Master should be running around with Warrior or Berserker Str or a Mage being able to tank a physical attack like a General. XD
But, I think that we can both agree that particular set of Skills could have been done a bit better.

Yes, I agree. However, I must point out that Rallying, while as you said, being a good means to keep up with units far ahead of you in level, it lacks much use by opponents. By that, I mean that most enemy units will never have a unit specifically designed for that purpose, thus meaning that you have yet another advantage over the opponent, simply because the way the opponent(s) were built, they couldn't possibly utilize such tactics themselves.

All that removing Light Magic did was make Classes like Mages and Sages look like less mobile versions of Valkyries and Dark Knights. Removing both Magic Triangles just seems to make the whole point of using Magic moot, by removing the strategic elements that still play a part in the Weapon Triangle.

I do find it strange though, that two Classes (Dark Knights and Dark Fliers) use Anima Magic as opposed to their namesake. It also seems strange that Dark Magic has such low distribution among Classes in general. What were they thinking when designing some of these Classes, I'll never know (I'm looking at you, Tricksters >.>).

Again, the reason DLC characters seem/are overall better than In game characters is because of the vast amount of options they hold over the in game characters, and the fact that they don't suffer any kind of penalty for it. I can agree that the DLC characters do feel a bit... tacked on and lifeless, since they neither possess the qualities and personalities that we enjoyed about them in their own games, nor the differentiating characteristics that made them different from any other Mage or Fighter. Hopefully, if this type of thing appears in a future title, they'll breathe more life into our favorite characters of the past.

Oh my! I never even noticed the foot thing until reading that interview. I thought that it was just a matter of design choice, rather than them thinking the 3DS's hardware wasn't strong enough. XD

I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. It is a bit saddening when so much effort is put into typing out something that you're passionate about, and no one even bothers to respond. Again, thank you, you made my day.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Most games that are dedicated RPGs don't have an open choice system that really makes a difference in the course of the story for the game. If you take the Shin Megami Tensei series for example, there are three paths to choose 3/4 into the game where you get three different paths to the final dungeon and separate bosses. Games are made under the assumption that people are expected to only play the game once and form a decision based on that first play through. The only caveat is really games where alternative choices are the selling point of the game like Disgaea Infinite where you intentionally alter events in the game to get different plot points that you can spin off even further to get even different points in the plot. Fleshing out a plot to incorporate a choose it yourself story could potentially triple a budget and sadly story replay value isn't what current gen games are structured around.

Considering this philosophically there is something poetic about making a choice in a game and having the same result. It lends some aspect of realism with respect to human significance. How important are the choices we make and are they enough to result in a change in the people around us? In this category games are simplistic, often putting the player in a position of great influence, despite leaving little influence for the player themselves to make their own choices through the main protagonist. The game caters to itself, putting in elaborately prepared responses to questions it already knows will be asked. Choices in reality are a far more subtle thing that show a person's point of view and also shape a person's point of view. This level of subtlety though is completely missing from most games and especially story games that pander towards creation of artistic cutscenes to feature in trailers to get as many unit sales as possible.

Choices don't need to have significant results to be considered significant. The player choosing between choices themselves has value in putting the player in a position to choose something that could represent their values or rather experiment and play devil's advocate choosing something completely contradictory to their beliefs. There is intrinsic value in offering a choice to other people as it makes the player often consider the depth and scope of answering the question and also assess not only what they've gone through playing the game, but also what they think could potentially be impacted in the future. Even if these decisions have no bearing on the future of the game, it had a very real impact on the player. Which is why players likely display disappointment when they learn that many of the choices they make bear the same conclusion. It is because they expect the game to express a different result that met their questioning and introspect to see what the other side of the fence was holding the entire time they chose to dedicated themselves to the one path to the end of the story.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

Most games that are dedicated RPGs don't have an open choice system that really makes a difference in the course of the story for the game. If you take the Shin Megami Tensei series for example, there are three paths to choose 3/4 into the game where you get three different paths to the final dungeon and separate bosses. Games are made under the assumption that people are expected to only play the game once and form a decision based on that first play through. The only caveat is really games where alternative choices are the selling point of the game like Disgaea Infinite where you intentionally alter events in the game to get different plot points that you can spin off even further to get even different points in the plot. Fleshing out a plot to incorporate a choose it yourself story could potentially triple a budget and sadly story replay value isn't what current gen games are structured around.

Considering this philosophically there is something poetic about making a choice in a game and having the same result. It lends some aspect of realism with respect to human significance. How important are the choices we make and are they enough to result in a change in the people around us? In this category games are simplistic, often putting the player in a position of great influence, despite leaving little influence for the player themselves to make their own choices through the main protagonist. The game caters to itself, putting in elaborately prepared responses to questions it already knows will be asked. Choices in reality are a far more subtle thing that show a person's point of view and also shape a person's point of view. This level of subtlety though is completely missing from most games and especially story games that pander towards creation of artistic cutscenes to feature in trailers to get as many unit sales as possible.

Choices don't need to have significant results to be considered significant. The player choosing between choices themselves has value in putting the player in a position to choose something that could represent their values or rather experiment and play devil's advocate choosing something completely contradictory to their beliefs. There is intrinsic value in offering a choice to other people as it makes the player often consider the depth and scope of answering the question and also assess not only what they've gone through playing the game, but also what they think could potentially be impacted in the future. Even if these decisions have no bearing on the future of the game, it had a very real impact on the player. Which is why players likely display disappointment when they learn that many of the choices they make bear the same conclusion. It is because they expect the game to express a different result that met their questioning and introspect to see what the other side of the fence was holding the entire time they chose to dedicated themselves to the one path to the end of the story.

While you do have a point in regards to having multiple paths in a story that branch out according to what choices you make/what your actions are can become a bit pricy at a certain point. That's the only part of your post that I agree with.

Now, allow me to direct you to two games known as Mass Effect and Dragon Age.

Throughout each Mass Effect and Dragon Age game, you are given several choices in dialog and sometimes, even in how you approach certain enemies/conflicts and with each choice you make, a different outcome will occur. This outcome will usually be drastically different from the one(s) you would have gotten had you chosen a different option. The game gives you options that have moral, political, and even sexual impacts on characters and the world you live in. These choices also affect what the situation will be like in the next game. Now, while some paths will either meet the same ends, or are entirely scripted to happen, and therefore unavoidable no matter your path, you'll still get a different, lasting outcome that affects what happens in the game(s) overall and even how everyone will look at you to a point.

Even the smallest choice, like who your partner will be, can impact what events may take place either in that game, in the next game, or even both.

Awakening's means of giving choice is to trick you into believing that your choices matter, yet, no matter the "Path" you choose, it will always have the same outcome without even so much as a different character being acquired depending on your choices. The very fact that this game can't get right what so many games did before it I.E. Rondo of Swords and it's 4 different endings, with two paths being drastically different and having a strong impact on the characters and story is insulting at best, and deceptive/lazy at worst. And even a game like Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor, and it's vastly different paths that, while some may lead to a similar outcome, there will always be that hint of difference because you decided to or not to do something.

If something gives you a choice and it has no impact, you're not even given the Illusion of choice, you're not even given any form of moral conflict the very second you look online and see that all other outcomes to your choice are the same. The game is the same throughout every playthrough in terms of story, and that's why the choice system in Awakening feels redundant.

I do see what you're saying, and your argument is very similar to what this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45PdtGDGhac video is saying. However, Awakening failed at even capturing something as simple as what's stated in that video.

The fact that there are no branching paths, no real decision that you can make, and no way of changing the ending, character views on you, or anything makes the choice system in this game hollow, and leaves the player feeling not only disappointed, but also that they had no real impact on the story whatsoever.

 

[HeavySmashGuy]

Personally, I found it to be an OK game, about a 7.5/10 by my standards. I abused Pair Up until Chapter 17, when I saw the game was too easy due to it. And, about the story, you are very right, but SRPGs are much more often than not very linear. I didn't even listen to the story anyway, because, you know, JRPG stories are usually pretty bad.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

This part is just a pet peeve, but WHY in the name of Yggdrasil are the mothers so important in the whole child/parent system? I find it a missed opportunity that the child you get is completely left up to the mother who bears them. The fact that the father could be anyone and the only thing that changes is the child's hair color makes it seem as if fathers are overall less important or worse, just plain don't matter. This is made worse when the only people who CAN recruit the child is either the mother or Chrom. So, a child wouldn't recognize their own father, but would recognize their mother? What The Actual Frank. I'm not one who usually pulls the "Dis is sexiest!" card, but... It could have been done better, that's all I'm saying on this matter, since this IS just a pet peeve.

Well, the mother decides the child in pokemon

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The fact that there are no branching paths, no real decision that you can make, and no way of changing the ending, character views on you, or anything makes the choice system in this game hollow, and leaves the player feeling not only disappointed, but also that they had no real impact on the story whatsoever.

There is no such thing as story impact.

When people discuss what they felt were important story elements, they are really discussing which elements had the most impact on them. Do you know why you feel upset? You're upset because you thought that when you were going through playing the game on the first time that the choice you made would be important because you realized that making this choice could lock you into circumstances that would be different if you chose the other option. Under this pretense, it created a scenario where you may have considered how you personally wanted to proceed and then made the decision. This decision although leading to the same conclusion isn't meaningless, because it has an impact on the player that makes them treat the circumstance as if there were serious outcomes attached. Also from what I viewed on the FE Awakening wikia, there are alternating paths with respect to certain characters in terms of developing relationships between two characters which leads to different scenes for them in the game. It seems more like the variation wasn't of the nature you wanted and the extent you would prefer, however not all games were created with the purpose that you mentioned previously and still among canon as being above average among their peers.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

@HeavySmashGuy:

I feel the same. It was about... a 6/10 for me. As stated in a few of my posts, I did find certain elements of the game shallow, and quite a few things irksome about it. However I cannot, in all honesty, give it anything lower than a 6. I actually didn't need to use the Pair-Up mechanic that much in the story at the point that Master Seals and Second Seals were made available, by that point, I had power leveled half my units to second class a few times, so there wasn't much need for an extra boost, save for some good trolly fun. XD

Hmm... Really? Most of the SRPG that I've played had an alright, to fantastic story. Though, I've been spoiled by the likes of the Ogre series and Final Fantasy Tactics (Not A2. :I), so mayhaps I've just missed out on some of the more... less than impressive games of that genre in terms of story. :o

@Psychoincarnate:

Haha, you got me there, I'll admit. However, I do find it irksome every time in a video game that a mother and father is present, the mother is usually the one who leaves the stronger impression of love and such towards the child, while the father is usually just either there or worse, horribly distant towards the child. That's not always the case, of course, but I do find it simply abhorrent whenever that scenario presents itself.

The thing specifically in Awakening that bothered mean about that was as I stated, that only the Mother or Chrom could recruit the child characters. So they wouldn't to their own father after seeing them die/not seeing them for so long, but they'd run to their mother or CHROM? Yes, the Chrom thing is what bothers me most, I'll admit. XD

Hmm... this may require its own separate thread, this could be an interesting topic of future discussion.

There is no such thing as story impact.

When people discuss what they felt were important story elements, they are really discussing which elements had the most impact on them. Do you know why you feel upset? You're upset because you thought that when you were going through playing the game on the first time that the choice you made would be important because you realized that making this choice could lock you into circumstances that would be different if you chose the other option. Under this pretense, it created a scenario where you may have considered how you personally wanted to proceed and then made the decision. This decision although leading to the same conclusion isn't meaningless, because it has an impact on the player that makes them treat the circumstance as if there were serious outcomes attached. Also from what I viewed on the FE Awakening wikia, there are alternating paths with respect to certain characters in terms of developing relationships between two characters which leads to different scenes for them in the game. It seems more like the variation wasn't of the nature you wanted and the extent you would prefer, however not all games were created with the purpose that you mentioned previously and still among canon as being above average among their peers.

No such thing as story impact? I beg to differ.

While you are right that story elements impact the player, the story itself and the choices you make within it (when you're given the option, of course) are also a point of the game that affects the player. Saying that there is no such thing as Story Impact completely disregards the point of the story itself. A story is meant to leave an impression on the reader/player. Some stories even have the power to change lives, to change views, and so on. Story Impact more than exists, it's one of the key elements that make a game or book worth playing or reading (If the player cares about the story, that is). Another thing that I'd like to mention is that the various actions, words, and so on made by the player through the character DOES impact the story, and since the player is experiencing the story through another person's eyes (Hence, why it's referred to as Role Playing Game) it also impacts the player as well, since it does affect them, not directly, but through the character that they're playing as.

And yes, I did think that my choices in the game would impact the story in some way, which it didn't. However, what you fail to grasp is that once you do play the game a second time, or look up the various decisions and outcomes of the game, the illusion the game sets (That you have choice) is completely unraveled. The decision does in fact become meaningless because the impact it may leave on some is fleeting at best, or completely destroyed at worse once you do realized that it doesn't make a difference.

You're referencing Support Relationships between various characters and MU's partner, I assume. While you are right that those do/may lead to some different cut-scenes/outcomes/etc between certain characters, namely Chrom, MU/Robin, and Lucina (I'm not too clear on that one), those decisions made do not have an effect on the overall story of the game.

And yes, the choice system in the game was not what I was expecting at all. Simply put, a choice based game should always strive to have at least a small shred of difference depending on your choices you made, while I am aware that not all games fit this criteria, the ones that do allow you to make choices should always make an effort to have as many choices and outcomes/consequences as possible. Awakening took the lazy rout with this, and that is why I'm complaining about that aspect of the game so much.

Also, you mentioned that you looked on the Fire Emblem Wikia, yes? Have you played this game all the way through at least once? I'm just asking out of curiosity. If you have played it, then surely you do understand what I'm talking about and where I'm coming from.

Also, also, if you have played the game, besides story elements, did you enjoy it, and if so, what did you enjoy about it?

 

[BlueSuperSonic1]

This was one of my first Fire Emblem games (I had previously only played Sacred Stones), so upon initially playing it, I realized it was grindy, but did not see much else that was necessarily "wrong" with it. I do agree with you, and I'll explain why.

However, I then played the earlier games. One thing that bothers me about Awakening is the removal of some older features (Light magic and the two trinities of magic as well as the Rescue feature). Since Light Magic does not exist, there is no downside to using Dark Magic. Unlike the three main physical weapons, you do not have to worry about having a disadvantage, since Magic is completely outside of the main triangle and lacks its own. This leads to Dark and Wind (mainly Celica's Gale) being the dominant types of magic, due to Dark having access to Nosferatu/Aversa's Night (which loses its main disadvantages due to the lack of weight and the Pair-Up feature boosting accuracy by quite a bit), while Wind is effective on fliers.

Speaking of Pair Up, I dislike how it replaced the Rescue feature of previous games (granted Rescue was removed in FE11, not Awakening). Rescue was more strategic, as it allowed you to protect a unit in exchange for the rescuer having stat drops. Pair Up, however, has no such disadvantage. In fact, pairing up actually benefits you. Pair Up not only boost stats, but it also has the Dual Guard and, more importantly, Dual Strike, features. Simply put, Dual Strike is ridiculous. Especially when things like Brave weapons and Celica's Gale are taken into account, allowing for enemies to be destroyed with little effort (though this is mainly referring to the post game).

Awakening isn't a bad game. However, I feel like it's certainly behind some of the other games in the series. I can't blame it too much, since quite a few of its features (the removal of Light magic, Rescue, and Weight) were from FE11 and FE12. It's a great game for introducing newcomers to the series, due to its difficulty options (mainly Casual mode, though this was introduced in FE12), along with the fact that several characters from previous games appear as recruitable Spotpass units and also as enemies in the Series 1 DLC Maps. I do think, however, that future Fire Emblem games should try to reintroduce the complexity and options that earlier Fire Emblem games had, but without dropping the beginner-friendly options that Awakening has.

 

[finalark]

I was going to come in here and talk about how much I enjoyed the game, but then I saw walls upon walls of text.

Short version of my opinion, as someone who was greatly disappointed with Shadow Dragon I saw Awakening as a return to the high quality that I expected from the FE series. I'm a casual fan of the franchise, meaning that I've only played the games localized in the US and don't really know anything about the Japan exclusive titles, but IMO Awakening is a solid contender for best game in the series. I don't think I liked it more than International FE1 but then again, that might just be nostalgia and the initial "wow factor" of that game.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

This was one of my first Fire Emblem games (I had previously only played Sacred Stones), so upon initially playing it, I realized it was grindy, but did not see much else that was necessarily "wrong" with it. I do agree with you, and I'll explain why.

However, I then played the earlier games. One thing that bothers me about Awakening is the removal of some older features (Light magic and the two trinities of magic as well as the Rescue feature). Since Light Magic does not exist, there is no downside to using Dark Magic. Unlike the three main physical weapons, you do not have to worry about having a disadvantage, since Magic is completely outside of the main triangle and lacks its own. This leads to Dark and Wind (mainly Celica's Gale) being the dominant types of magic, due to Dark having access to Nosferatu/Aversa's Night (which loses its main disadvantages due to the lack of weight and the Pair-Up feature boosting accuracy by quite a bit), while Wind is effective on fliers.

Speaking of Pair Up, I dislike how it replaced the Rescue feature of previous games (granted Rescue was removed in FE11, not Awakening). Rescue was more strategic, as it allowed you to protect a unit in exchange for the rescuer having stat drops. Pair Up, however, has no such disadvantage. In fact, pairing up actually benefits you. Pair Up not only boost stats, but it also has the Dual Guard and, more importantly, Dual Strike, features. Simply put, Dual Strike is ridiculous. Especially when things like Brave weapons and Celica's Gale are taken into account, allowing for enemies to be destroyed with little effort (though this is mainly referring to the post game).

Awakening isn't a bad game. However, I feel like it's certainly behind some of the other games in the series. I can't blame it too much, since quite a few of its features (the removal of Light magic, Rescue, and Weight) were from FE11 and FE12. It's a great game for introducing newcomers to the series, due to its difficulty options (mainly Casual mode, though this was introduced in FE12), along with the fact that several characters from previous games appear as recruitable Spotpass units and also as enemies in the Series 1 DLC Maps. I do think, however, that future Fire Emblem games should try to reintroduce the complexity and options that earlier Fire Emblem games had, but without dropping the beginner-friendly options that Awakening has.

Don't forget how Fire Magic is completely obsolete (Save for Valflame) the very second you come into possession of any Wind, Thunder, or Dark Magic. XD

Yeah, the Pair-Up system could have been done much better. For instance, in an earlier post someone was talking about adding a Skill that would make it dangerous to Pair-Up, even that would make it a bit more balanced in terms of how and when it's a good idea to use it and when it isn't. I too miss Rescue, for most of the same reasons that you stated. However, and I forgot to address this in my first post, so I'll just say it here, what I really miss is Shove. Shove was a great addition to the Fire Emblem series that added strategic depth by allowing you to move a character, even after they've moved. The possibilities that Skill possessed were astronomical, and I just find it quite disappointing that it was removed for no, apparent reason.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm just hoping that the next Fire Emblem game takes more from the old and new. Awakening took some of the more popular/well received features from older Fire Emblem games, and that's not all together bad, but they completely ignored some of the lesser appreciated features and mechanics such as the ones you and I have mentioned, and a few others, like Dismount.

I was going to come in here and talk about how much I enjoyed the game, but then I saw walls upon walls of text.

Short version of my opinion, as someone who was greatly disappointed with Shadow Dragon I saw Awakening as a return to the high quality that I expected from the FE series. I'm a casual fan of the franchise, meaning that I've only played the games localized in the US and don't really know anything about the Japan exclusive titles, but IMO Awakening is a solid contender for best game in the series. I don't think I liked it more than International FE1 but then again, that might just be nostalgia and the initial "wow factor" of that game.

Shadow Dragon was... very basic (though, what would you expect from a remake of the first game(s) in the series? XD) I honestly can't name a single feature, save for that one Unit that could transform into other characters, that really jumped out at me. Even Reclass was done better in Awakening.

That aside, I'll say that it's a solid contender for best Strategy RPG on the 3DS, but I, in complete honesty, cannot call it the best in the series. HOWEVER, I will say that it is better than it's more recent predecessors, Shadow Dragon and Heroes of Light and Shadow.

Oh, and on the subject of the JP-Only games, an Emulator is one way of being able to experience those games without Importing or having to go through a huge amount of trouble. However, I would advise that you found a Rom with an English Patch, that is, unless you can already read Japanese.

 

[ZelDan]

Eh, Fire Emblem Awakening was good, but not as amazing as many make it out to be.

in FE Awakening it was too easy to get overpowered, and anything above hard mode is pretty much "PLEASE BUY OUR DLC" mode. Awakening was also lacking in variety in terms of missions and stage hazards. These things together made it so later chapters felt more like a chore and just going through the motions.

That being said, Awakening was still a nice step up after Shadow Dragon and Radiant Dawn.

 

[TrainerLITTLER]

My only complaint was the fact I couldn't play spotpass with any DLC, and that there was no 1v1 or online play. And those are huge complaints, as they serve to show what you do in the game will never matter.

But I still went on and beat Lunatic +...

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

Eh, Fire Emblem Awakening was good, but not as amazing as many make it out to be.

in FE Awakening it was too easy to get overpowered, and anything above hard mode is pretty much "PLEASE BUY OUR DLC" mode. Awakening was also lacking in variety in terms of missions and stage hazards. These things together made it so later chapters felt more like a chore and just going through the motions.

That being said, Awakening was still a nice step up after Shadow Dragon and Radiant Dawn.

Haha, indeed it was. I remember that the very second that I was able to buy Second Seals and Master Seals in bulk (Due to the DLC Map that gives a ton of money), the game became quite easy, at least, in terms of the story chapters. The thing is, the game actually wants you to power level the hell out of your Units, all for the sole reason of the Second Gen characters being anything more than extra Units.

Agreed. The game did lack a lot in the way of stage variety, especially compared to Path of Radiance, Radiant Dawn, and even Blazing Sword, which all had quite a few unique maps.

Shadow Dragon... I don't remember playing well enough to really comment on. However, in the case of Radiant Dawn, I'll say this: I very much enjoyed RD, save for the Terrible Support System that spits in the face of Fire Em... Where was I? Ah, yes, yes. I was saying that I enjoyed it, since it was the follow up to my favorite Fire Emblem game, Path of Radiance. However, I can see how you would see it as worse than Awakening, in terms of game-play, I feel that it is the superior title, but everything else... they're about even, or Awakening is superior. Mind stating why you feel the way you do about RD? Is it the Support System? Micaiah, perhaps? Or something else entirely?

My only complaint was the fact I couldn't play spotpass with any DLC, and that there was no 1v1 or online play. And those are huge complaints, as they serve to show what you do in the game will never matter.

But I still went on and beat Lunatic +...

Huh? Really? I remember making a team with at least two or three Spotpass characters on it... Hmm... I'll check later and see if I'm just recalling it incorrectly. But yes, a 1 V.S 1 mode would have been nice, especially when you could have two Avatars go up against each other. That would have been awesome! XD

Congratulations!... I got Fire Emblem burnout before I was able to even get to Lunatic Mode. XD

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

Pair up shouldn't exist. I'm playing Lunatic without Pair Up in order to get a challenge out of the damn game.

"Why are mothers so important?" = Coding and budget decisions. Seriously, it's a handheld game, how much do you think they had to work with? There are no underlying themes or implications that emphasize motherhood or the importance of maternity/unimportance of fathers. It's a choice that had to be made. Mothers are attached to kids, fathers give classes and stat cap mods.

Lack of choice: The Emmeryn thing was extremely poetic, quite frankly. The take-away from that was that it wasn't YOUR decision. It was never your decision. Emmeryn did what she did because she didn't want Chrom (through whom the player acts) to make a decision he would never be able to live with. She made a choice. Chrom had set out to save her from Gangrel's schemes, but it was Emmeryn who ended up saving him from an impossible situation. It was quite beautiful.

When this happened again with Lucina, it was significantly more pointless. The ending was fine, though.

Agree with the rest of the points.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

Pair up shouldn't exist. I'm playing Lunatic without Pair Up in order to get a challenge out of the damn game.

"Why are mothers so important?" = Coding and budget decisions. Seriously, it's a handheld game, how much do you think they had to work with? There are no underlying themes or implications that emphasize motherhood or the importance of maternity/unimportance of fathers. It's a choice that had to be made. Mothers are attached to kids, fathers give classes and stat cap mods.

Lack of choice: The Emmeryn thing was extremely poetic, quite frankly. The take-away from that was that it wasn't YOUR decision. It was never your decision. Emmeryn did what she did because she didn't want Chrom (through whom the player acts) to make a decision he would never be able to live with. She made a choice. Chrom had set out to save her from Gangrel's schemes, but it was Emmeryn who ended up saving him from an impossible situation. It was quite beautiful.

When this happened again with Lucina, it was significantly more pointless. The ending was fine, though.

Agree with the rest of the points.

I think that at this point, we can all agree that Pair-Up could have been done a bit better/Could have been done in a way that doesn't break the game, and isn't usually required to beat harder difficulties, or DLC Maps.

I'm aware of this. As I stated, it is but a pet peeve, I know that this game is on a handle held console and that there are coding and budget limits, and therefore Every. Single. Aspect of parenthood and all of that couldn't possibly be represented in it. However, if you refer to this post I made:

"Haha, you got me there, I'll admit. However, I do find it irksome every time in a video game that a mother and father is present, the mother is usually the one who leaves the stronger impression of love and such towards the child, while the father is usually just either there or worse, horribly distant towards the child. That's not always the case, of course, but I do find it simply abhorrent whenever that scenario presents itself.

The thing specifically in Awakening that bothered mean about that was as I stated, that only the Mother or Chrom could recruit the child characters. So they wouldn't run to their own father after seeing them die/not seeing them for so long, but they'd run to their mother or CHROM? Yes, the Chrom thing is what bothers me most, I'll admit. XD

Hmm... this may require its own separate thread, this could be an interesting topic of future discussion."

You can see that, while I do understand that there Is Not any intentional bias or implications presented in the scenarios to which you acquire the children, I just find stupid that Chrome is able to recruit anyone's child, but the father isn't able to even recruit their own flesh and blood. Again, I'd like to emphasize that this is not me saying that the game is trying to get a message across or anything, I'm just addressing a pet peeve, something small the irked me about the game.

"Extremely poetic"? Eh, I suppose that it just depends on who you ask. I honestly find the scene simply lacking, because it takes the choice away from you. Yes, it is beautiful that Emmeryn would do that, just to keep her brother from having to make a choice that he would end up hating himself for. However, here's how I see it, the fact that the game takes the choice away from you means that, you, playing as Chrome, seeing everything through Chrom's eyes, (Note that I do know that The Avatar/Robin is meant to be you, but I feel that Chrom, being the Lord of the game, is also your window into that world) are spared that choice, meaning that any impact that it could of had, you sacrificing your sister for the sake of your country, or sacrificing your country for the sake of your sister, and self, is taken away. That being said, I don't have a problem with the scene itself, since it is quite touching, it's the fact that they give you the choice to begin with, when the outcome will be the same no matter what, meaning that you, the player, have just been shafted out of the chance to make a decision that would not only affect Chrom, but also the future of his kingdom. ALSO, (SPOILERS AHEAD) Emmeryn comes back, so any form of poetic effect that scene might of had is completely destroyed when, again, she dies no matter what you choose and comes back no matter what you chose. That, to me, turns what could of been a testament to her dedication to her kingdom and family, into what I can only call a cop out that leaves you feeling completely detached from the story emotionally.

The ending, as I stated, just feels bland and pointless when you realize that the choice you are given doesn't matter, it doesn't affect anything that happens in the game itself, only what I could say might be a means of bating a sequel in which Grima returns.

Haha, sorry to lay the huge wall-o-text on you, I just wanted to get my point across.

 

[D-idara]

Probably like 1% of the world's population was dissapointed with Fire Emblem: Awakening.
That game's the definition of good game design, polish and love for making videogames...it IS the best Fire Emblem on the series and it's probably within my personal Top 10 games of all time simply because of the charm it posseses, great difficulty with variable settings to fit every player's needs, lovable characters, colorful, charming graphics, writing that manages to be funny, serious, sad as it wants to...

 

[Mega Bidoof]

*reads title*

 

[smashbroskilla]

I just bought a 3ds this weekend and my first game was Fire Emblem: Awakening. I love the fire emblem on GBA back in the day so I know I would spend hours laying in bed playing this one. So far I'm about an hour and 20 minutes into the game. The only worry I have about the game so far is if I shouldn't have chosen the perma death to my roster option. Other than that the game is fun. I don't care about the story as much as you do but I play the game more for it's strategy part and art/animation.

Edit: Nintendo please come out with a final fantasy tactics 3ds or tactics ogre 3ds and I would go nuts.

 

[Pokerhappy]

I was incredibly disappointed with Awakening for the simple reason that it seems to be too ambitious, but only in the worst way possible. Every character has a support with the Avatar; every female character has a child. Every character can, and should, be reclassed in order to get at least 5 skills, and ideally reclassed through all of their classes to accumulate "the best" skills.

The issue being that on my first playthrough, on the second-highest difficulty, I reclassed the Avatar twice and the rest of my 11-or-so characters once each. I got maybe seven A supports with the Avatar, and managed 5 marriages. And then I beat the game.

You're encouraged to grind, but there's not much reason to because the game is laughably easy. Two tanks paired up will run through every chapter. The children are absolutely unusable during the story arc -- they're basically just excuses to play an extra chapter. And once you run out of paralogues, then what? Pretend that using Reeking Boxes is fun? Getting the best build means nothing when you've already beaten everything. That's when I realized I was duped into a microtransactions scam. There's no choice but to buy the DLC or else feel underwhelmed by how little gameplay there really is in this game.

I went with the latter.

 

[D-idara]

I was incredibly disappointed with Awakening for the simple reason that it seems to be too ambitious, but only in the worst way possible. Every character has a support with the Avatar; every female character has a child. Every character can, and should, be reclassed in order to get at least 5 skills, and ideally reclassed through all of their classes to accumulate "the best" skills.

The issue being that on my first playthrough, on the second-highest difficulty, I reclassed the Avatar twice and the rest of my 11-or-so characters once each. I got maybe seven A supports with the Avatar, and managed 5 marriages. And then I beat the game.

You're encouraged to grind, but there's not much reason to because the game is laughably easy. Two tanks paired up will run through every chapter. The children are absolutely unusable during the story arc -- they're basically just excuses to play an extra chapter. And once you run out of paralogues, then what? Pretend that using Reeking Boxes is fun? Getting the best build means nothing when you've already beaten everything. That's when I realized I was duped into a microtransactions scam. There's no choice but to buy the DLC or else feel underwhelmed by how little gameplay there really is in this game.

I went with the latter.

No, Fire Emblem Awakening: Best thing ever.

 

[Pokerhappy]

No, Fire Emblem Awakening: Best thing ever.

Why didn't I see it sooner?

 

[ChunkyBeef]

I loved Fire Emblem: Awakening, and it's easy to see why it was a good game. It wasn't the story, the characters, the art style, or the gameplay. Those were all par for the course.

What made this Fire Emblem successful was the addition of two things: a simplified dating simulator and Casual Mode. That allowed the game to essentially reach out and snag two new audiences with fairly minimal effort on the designer's parts. You get the people that love Fire Emblem, but always hated losing characters to silly mistakes back. Then you reach a whole 'nother audience with the dating stuff. I mean, the game ENCOURAGES you to build relationships with your allies for stat bonuses, actually INVEST in the characters via character interaction, and then inevitably marry them off. It's the video game equivalent of giving your kids G.I. Joes and Barbies and seeing which ones your kids pick to marry off. It's so simple and such a Hail Mary pass on their part. It was kinda do or die. Weren't they going to shelf the series if Awakening failed?

Either way, honestly, it's genius, and I'm not saying that to seem sarcastic or derisive. I think people are looking into it too deeply. Fire Emblem is Fire Emblem. None of that changed, but we can attribute Awakening's success to the things that WERE changed and added.

tl;dr: Casual Mode and Waifu Simulator sold Awakening like hotcakes.

 

[mimgrim]

I like the game. But I was still disappointed by it.

It had a rather weak story. But this is FE and aside from PoR and RD the games have never really been strong on story. I disliked the whole time travel aspect however. However I do like most of the support convos.

However that isn't really that much of an important part.

The gameplay is where I was ultimately disappointed. There is a huge difficulty gap between Hard mode and Lunatic mode that doesn't make sense. The Pair Up mechanic was imbalanced. The maps were boring. All the objectives were either route the enemy or kill the boss, after the diversity of PoR and RD in maps you would have thought it would have been continued in the new game since it wasn't a remake and even the GBA games had more diverse maps if not much in the way of objective. Lunatic+ was a completely arbitrary difficulty mode that was too RNG heavy. Reverse Lunatic would have been so much better. The skills could have had better balance as well. It was still a fun game, it is Fire Emblem after all, but a lot was lack luster compared to the likes of PoR and RD.

Olivia redeems all of that though.

Olivia is waifu for life.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

I was going to chime in being all "Oh yeah, you have no idea" but then I saw I already responded to this thread.

Jeez IS would you stop glorifying your own tropes and give us another good FE game already

 

[Deleted member 189823]

I like your critism...nice write-up. Nice detail and I like how it's coming from a person who's actually played other FE games, prior to this one.

Overall:

This game is good, but I'm always hearing about how "It's the best Fire Emblem game ever!" and "This game is just plain perfect in every aspect."

As I said, this game is good, but it isn't the best of anything. It's more or less fan porn that panders to newcomers and veterans of Fire Emblem alike, but it is by no means perfect. It has much in the way of polish, but lacks much refine and feels rushed. So it is a mixed bag at worst and an innovative experience at best.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

In closing, I would like to point out that I do not hate this game, nor anyone who enjoys it. This is my opinion and I'm simply wanting to see whether it's shared by anyone else. I encourage everyone to share their opinions of this game, contribute to this discussion, and above all else, be respectful of each other's opinions. Thank you.

Thoughts?

I think that people who say those kind of things ("Best FE game") are usually people who are new to the series, or just outright really casual to it. I mean, no offense. It's just that, this game DOES lack strategical depth. Alot of the maps happen to be a wide-open space where you just have to slaughter enemies. That, along with the new mechanics, such as Pair-Up, RALLIES, TONICS, RENOWN, etc... (which is also one of the things that veteran FE players recognize as silly, broken). They're just everywhere. Why do they have to give us everything in a silver platter, like that? Even Lunatic can go either way, from stupid hard to just as free (simply Avatar solo the game, make him +Def and make him a Sorcerer with Nosferatu).

RE; Snipers: I'd say Crossbow hardly made much of a difference...alright, so they can now attack at 1-2 range...with craptastic Atk (them most common buyable Crossbows have 28 Mt, which tends to end in 4-5HKO's...). Same as nothing. Rather attack once per turn, if you can at least 1RKO.
Thing is, in FE10, they did get a nice buff. At least, take a look at Shinon and see how fantastic he is. Rolf is by no means bad and has plenty of potential.

I literally had no reason to use them in FE13. They weren't even fun to use. Completely outclassed by Bow Knights, who at least had swords...and a horse.

RE; Dark Mages are God: I'd like to add, among all you said, that they ALSO now have good durability (comparable to that of physical units, sometimes better) AAAANNND passable Spd (Tharja has an alright Spd base, coupled with a great 60% growth, Henry can potentially get great Spd & Def).


And yet, this game has got to be likely my 2nd favorite of the FEs, as of right now. I've been really into it, simply because it's fun. I've tried making up my own ways to challenge myself (HM, Casual, No Pair Up). Going pretty good, and it's fun. It's really cute.

 

[davidkpersonal]

This game was not as bad as Radiant Dawn....but yes it seems like the newer the fire emblems, the worse they are getting.

 

[LancerStaff]

I was disappointed, but I don't like FE anyway. Don't just pass this off as blind hate right away...

I like the general gameplay, the writing, the character design... But some mechanics just clash so hard. Powerful RNG combined with high difficulty and permadeath, for one. Like, couldn't they just fix the growths somehow? And yaknow, the crit system. Even stinking Pokemon nerfed crits this gen. If they really wanted to keep them around, why not make death less punishing? Lose EXP or give us a costly way to revive people. And then there's the stupid grinding. I could tolerate FEA if it weren't for the endless grinding, but it's there. Turn permadeath off, you say? Then it's just mindlessly throwing units up the map. PD off plus lunatic is just a grind-fest. I liked FE better when grinding was just fighting off mild reenforcements until they stopped coming. In fact, that was one of the better points of the series for me.

 

[LinkSword93]

I loved the gameplay mechanics, they were the most complex and exhaustive of all FE games I've played thus far.

As far as story goes, however, other games in the franchise are far superior - particularly the Path of Radiance / Radiant Dawn duo.



Still, the main thing in FE for me is the gameplay, so the game was a definite win. And I still have some considerable challenges to try, like the hardest difficulty and, most importantly, Apotheosis (the Secret route - already beat the Normal one!). Apotheosis in particular is one amazingly intense DLC that made me care to create a perfectly complemented team in all regards - something I can't say was ever needed in another FE title.


So anyway, while it could be said I was expecting more in a story/character writing sense, as a strategy game it covered all bases.

 

[BioZelink]

Overall it's an amazing game. And what it did for the series speaks for it. Awakening was supposed to be the last in the series because it was doing so poorly(not 1 before awakening sold even a million). Awakening saved the series and because of it there is a new one coming out soon. I'd say that probably shows that it's a pretty good game.

 

[L9999]

Me. After playing Sealed Sword, Sacred Stones, Rekka no Ken and Genealogy of the Holy War it was very dissapointing. FE: A is a grindfest. It's like playing MOTHER and Earthbound. Nothing but grinding. It's fun to have OP characters killing floods of enemies, but the grinding bothers me. Also, the classes are terrible. Tricksters are AWFUL, who was the genius who though this was a good idea for characters not called Anna? Not to mention that the Levin Sword is the only viable sword they have and it's rare as hell. Why did they remove Light Magic in a game with monsters?! I doesn't make sense! Sacred Stones had zombies and that ginger haired monk worked for something. Also why the devil would monks use axes? Not only it has the same problems as the Trickster (not to mention there are only TWO Bolt Axes in the ENTIRE game) but wasn't the idea that monks/bishops used the power of gods or something? Why don't Dark Fliers and Dark Knights use DARK MAGIC? Just so can Aversa have Shadowgift and slap you in the face for lack of logic? Speaking of that vixen, how the devil are the Spotpass characters even alive? Emmeryn on a whole was a gigantic slap in the face. Did Leila keep on living in FE7? NO. Did Sigurd and company keep on living after an unfair change of tone in FE4? NO. I assure you that anybody who throws itself from a great height gets KILLED as soon he/she touches the ground. Also, the skills makes a lot of characters garbage. Why shouldn't I use the Nosferatu+Armshift+Sol+Vatage+Vengeance combo?! Why shouldn't I? Why should I use any of the mages when Robin and the kid dark mages can kill everyone? Why bothering with Olivia? She can't boost stats like Ninian/Nils in FE7, why should I use her? To be a weak copy of Lon'qu with Galeforce? Why is Tiki so weak compared to perfect Nah, a commoner pedobait and HER SPOTPASS SELF? Why should I use Chrom if Lucina has an overpowered infinite sword, better stats, Galeforce and acess to more stuff? Cherche couldn't be more useless. Also the designs are TOO goofy. Metal boobs in pegasus knigths is absurdly ridiculous, cavalier/great knight panty shots are not funny, and of course Tharja, Olivia and Nowi. I don't have much problem with the first two but who the devil designed Nowi? It's disgusting. Tiki couldn't have a bigger cleavage window and because the models are recycled and generic some things make no sense. Why did Vaike lost so much muscle turning into a Berserker? Why does Noire's cup gets absurdly nerfed when she is a Sniper? Or Lucina gets inmensly buffed as a Dark Mage/Archer? Also, why can the Avatar marry children? It's disgusting. Specially Lucina. Speaking of Lucina, why she can marry her dad's killer? Did she lost her memory for a second or what? Why she can kill Chrom at Arena Ferox? Children in general are cheap, and reminder of Genealogy of War, a game with better story than this one and where children made sense because the parents got killed. Time travel is cheap, has been cheap and will always be cheap. Valm storyline was pointless and boring. I went to grind instead so I could finish those chapters in a sweep.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

You know, I really liked Awakening. I personally feel like a lot of the stuff you wrote was just being picky and ungrateful towards the game. I don't mean to disrespect you or your opinions by any means, but it seemed like you were trying to judge the game for what it wasn't. You'll never enjoy anything if that's how you look at things. You have to judge it for what it is, not what it isn't. I have played several of the games in the series, so I'm not uneducated or naive to the series. With that said...allow me to argue against your points...

1.0 Story
Let's be honest, the back story behind almost every Fire Emblem game is pretty lame on the surface. For a simple break down...

• Country 1 is invaded or otherwise attacked by Country 2
• Country 1 is homeland of main character. Main character flees to another country.
  
• Builds up minor army by traveling the continent
• Returns to take homeland back/save what was originally ruined.
  
• Finds out that dragons are coming back to ruin the world after antagonist dies.
  
• Faces off against dragon to save man-kind.

That's basically every Fire Emblem in a nutshell...So if you complain about this story on the surface, well that's stupid and you really shouldn't be surprised. Now, I do recognize what you say about the "choices" that must be made in this game. Like when you give the Fire Emblem to Gangrel, or when you "let Lucina kill Robin," and so on. While they don't really change anything, you have to remember the whole theme behind the story: Fate. For so long, the characters are under the impression that they can't change fate, that they're bound by the world and are doomed to the same fate that the kids of the future have endured. That's why nothing changes, because they're controlled by fate. Yeah, it's a bit silly, but I don't think it's anything to get mad about. Plus, there are minor changes in dialogue, so it's not all for nothing. I agree, it would've been cooler if the choices had actually changed the overall story, but it's Fire Emblem, it's going to follow that formula of a story no matter what. Even in Sacred Stones when Ephraim and Eirika split up (which was awesome and needs to happen again), the last 7 chapters are the same nonetheless.

On top of this, you do get to make choices with the child pair up system. Now, I get that you weren't a fan of this, but here's the thing. Would you rather be forced into who gets married to who, or would you rather make your own decisions? If it wasn't done like this, each couple would have to be predetermined, or the child to each pairing would be completely random. In the first event, that would take away from the fun of support conversations, and the second event would cause canonical disconnect. I agree with the point that it's weird that a father can't recruit their child, but that's a small set-back. That doesn't make them any less important. The child has to be bound to something. Who really cares who recruits who? I don't really see a better way that this could've been done without giving up something else that we care about in Fire Emblem.

2.0 Gameplay
- 2.1 Pair Up

Okay, this part of your essay really didn't make sense to me. You bring up the point that there's no reason to not pair up...well, I disagree with that statement 100%, and here's why:

1. When paired up, you essentially have less units on the map ultimately meaning that you have less mobility and less stage control. With every pair up, it's harder to control choke points, catch thieves, steal from enemies, and so on.
   
2. Less experience growth. When units pair up, only the primary unit gains a significant exp growth, unless the secondary unit contributes in some way, and even then, the growth is extremely small, ultimately meaning that if you continued to pair up every battle, several of the secondary units would become obsolete and more useless as time goes on.

Now, you're point about the enemies not pairing up is valid, and I have thought about it several times. Should they pair up, the player would be forced to experiment with new strategies, which I think would be great, but Intelligent Systems was trying to keep Fire Emblem from going under, so they had to appeal to the newbies, and keep the game easier.

- 2.2 Rally SystemI do think Rally Spectrum was a pretty stupid skill, mainly because it's overpowered, but I don't agree with your point that it just ruins the rest of the rally skills. I personally never really used the Rally skills, but I do appreciate the idea behind them. And I don't know if you realize this, but when you use a Rally move, the character who used that move is no longer able to take action for that turn (unless a dancer "revives" them). Basically, by using rally spectrum, the player is sacrificing the opportunity to attack with Robin in that turn. The character is giving up an attack in order to boost someone else's stats. Robin, being one of the most diverse and powerful units will spend more of his time attacking than rallying. And even though it does do way more than the other rally boosts, the other ones don't become obsolete, just less important.

- 2.3 Skills - I think you fail to understand the skills system...

I'm sure that many people can agree that some Skills are just a bit... too overwhelming while others seem to pale at every turn.
Fair enough so far...
Let's take a look at Str + 2, why does it only boost by two? Why can't it go up according to the wielder's level?
Because the units would get exponentially stronger, making the game way too easy.
Why is it that choosing something like Sword Flair or Limit Breaker is an all together better choice? They made that group of Skills so underwhelming, so unworthy of use, that they aren't even useful in early game.
Notice that the "underwhelming" skills you have mentioned are on pre-promoted classes to get new players to easily understand how skills work. Limit breaker is a DLC exclusive skill, so few actually acquire it, and Swordfaire only grants the stat boost when a sword is being used. However, Swordfaire is learned by SWORDMASTERS at level 15, a promoted unit. Better skills come as time goes on.
Not to mention, All Stats +2 which makes Str, Mag, etc + 2 look even worse. Why not make it + 4 or even just go up by two and reaching a maximum of 10 at Level 20, Second Class? Anything would have been better than this.
People generally complain that it's too easy to grind...this would have made the game infinitely easier, and it would make first tier classes overpowered.

What you fail to understand here is that the underwhelming skills are designed for specifically for primary tier classes, generally at early stages in the game. In order to get better skills, you have to promote units and get them to be stronger. Ultimately, the more basic and underwhelming skills are simply to help first tier units get on their feet. There's no point to using those skills later on when your characters have developed stronger skills and higher stats. The better skills come with time, which is why you don't just start out with them.

- 2.4 Weapons
This is one of the sections I think most people can agree with: combining all of the magic types into one was pretty dumb, and I don't know why they did it. I completely agree with your argument on the magic, that was purely their fault, I doubt anyone is going to argue with you on that. With that being said, the removal of knives seems necessary. I fail to see how a knife is a better fit than a sword.
As far as the argument towards Dark Magic being overpowered, I agree with you once again. It's ridiculous having absolutely no weakness, but at the same time, the enemy does wield it as well, so it's not like the player has some ungodly advantage.

3.0 Classes
Seems like you kind of overlooked A LOT OF THINGS while talking about this section...Lets start with the Sage vs Valkyrie argument. I'll break down the differences for you...

• Valkyries have a higher movement than sages
• Sages do better in the sand/on bad terrain
• Valkyries are vulnerable to the Beast Killer lance and other anti-horseback weapons
  
• Sages acquired skills are Rally Magic (lvl 1) and Tomefaire (lvl 15)
• Valks acquired skills are Rally Resistance (lvl1) and Dual Support + (lvl 15)
• Sage Stat cap - Str, 30, Mag, 50, Skill, 43, Speed, 44, Luck, 44, Def, 28, Res 41.
• Valk Stat Cap - Str, 32, Mag, 44, Skill, 38, Speed, 43, Luck, 48, Def, 27, Res, 44.
• Valkyries can only be females

Notice the magic max stat. Sages can also learn the skill Tomefaire, meaning that when a sage is using a tome, his magic gets an additional +5. Without any other skills or factors going into this argument, the Sage's magic skill is essentially 9 points higher than that of a Valkyrie. And what do sages usually promote from? Mages, who have the skill of magic +2. So the sage's end magic would ultimately be 11 points higher than a maxed out Valkyrie. On the contrary, Valkyries would have about 5 points more resistance than a Sage by the same logic of skills and whatnot. And finally, correct me if I'm wrong, but only females can promote into a Valkyrie, right? So...what was that about them being the same?

As far as the dancers go, Intelligent Systems did get lazy this time around. They did put in the skill of "Special Dance" but it felt rather unnecessary. At least now she can use a sword. And the archers...I feel like they're just a joke of a class, they always have been, probably always will be. The crossbows were a dumb addition to FE9 and FE10 that made the archers and snipers no different from a magic user, but used physical attacks instead. I'm glad they went back to the roots of the character, making it feel the way its supposed to. Otherwise it's just too easy for the player.

The Taguel were an interesting class decision. They didn't really do anything that Manakete's didn't, but it was nice to have a character who wasn't just blatantly overpowered like the Laguz. I personally wasn't a fan of the class, but the characters made it worthwhile for me. Just reclass them if you 'em that much, it works out better in the end for everyone.

4.0 DLC
All I'm going to say for this one, is that you have to remember that DLC is additional content, not canon, and not required. If it makes the game too easy for you...there's this really cool thing you can do called NOT USING IT. Seriously, that's common sense dude. You also have to consider the stat modifiers and difficulty there is to level these units up to their maxes.

I didn't want to ramble about the last part and call you picky or any of that, but I think you do tend to forget that these games have hardware limitations, and that there's some things that coding just isn't capable of yet. Like how the characters don't have feet (almost surprised you didn't bring that up).

I guess in the end, I felt like the majority of your arguments were just pointing out things that you made a really big deal out of that weren't that big of a deal. It's almost like you were trying to find ways to ruin the game for yourself. That is my opinion, not a fact. But you do have to consider a few things when you look at sequels to games. You have to remember that things are going to change, they will be different. You have to remember that the developers are trying to appeal to a lot of people, and at the time of development, this was potentially going to be the last Fire Emblem game ever. You have to remember that there are hardware limitations and challenges in coding. And most importantly, you have to remember that this game was designed by humans who are trying to please you.

I hope I didn't come off as aggressive or angry, I'm a big fan of this game, and hate seeing people tear it apart.

 

[finalark]

Most of the things I see people ***** about in FE:A are things that you would only know about if you poured dozens of hours into the game or read a guide by somebody who dumped dozens of hours into the game.

Frankly, if a game has you hooked long enough for you to start getting irked by its minor issues then it's obviously doing something right.

 

[ShinyRegice]

Awakening was an ok game and I had many hours of fun with it, but now it's hard to come back to this game, as it wasn't as much fun as before when I replayed it. I think that this is due to some major game design flaws:

The maps: some of them are actually quite interesting, such as chapter 6, or chapter 18 and 21, or the Donnel and Kjelle paralogue. However, a lot of maps seem uninspired and a few of them are just horribly designed; the biggest offender is chapter 9, which I think is the very definition of bad game design, with half of the map being completely useless and the narrow L-shaped path making the chapter near unplayable without using cheap strategies. The general lack of map gimmicks was also disappointing (I believe only chapter 18 and Nah's paralogue had an actual gimmick).

The pair-up system: I was pretty hyped to know that a new Fire Emblem game was announced for the 3DS, however my hype died down when I realized that pair up was back. It was a fun mechanic to use at first, but now I find it really boring to use due to how much depth it removes from the game. It gives cheap stat boosts and makes any unit invincible for cheap, plus dual strike and guard add unneeded randomness in your favor. It is also too flexible for the benefits it gives you, with the ability to freely switch the leader and the (invincible) assist unit during your turn, as well as swapping the assist character between two adjacent pair-ups, or heck even giving your assist character to an adjacent alone unit, making it incredibly easy to be abused. Thanks God at least the former assist character is never allowed to do anything until the end of the turn once you break the pair-up.
Pair-up is actually not that bad early in the game, as the stat boosts it gives at first are not so high, and dual strike and guard has a very low activation rate. However, later in the game, the stat boosts it gives you become much higher, dual strike and guard become much more common due to how their activation rate are based on your stats, and you will get even more tools to abuse it such as Rescues and Galeforce.

Edit: I want to clarify that I'm aware about dual strike and guard being able to activate without pair-up if two units are adjacent on the map, but my criticism still applies, as it's still unneeded randomness in your favor, pair-up or not. Also, pair-up allows you to choose your dual strike and guard partner regardless of other adjacent units.

The worst about those problems is that they're pretty related: a lot of maps are uninspired, often with a notable lack of strategic locations, and on the other hand often have large, very dense groups of enemies; when this happens, pairing up your units becomes your best if not only way to deal with them. (Looking at you, chapter 11, with your mage horde at the east. And the entire Priam map.) In other words, in order to beat dull maps, you need to use a dull game mechanic.

There also are a few other things FE:A did wrong imo:
- Lunatic mode is way too hard and pretty much forces you to use a very limited group of characters to focus on;
- the story suffers from many deus ex machina situations: Validar's revival in chapter 6, the whole chapter 23, and the whole time travel thing which lacks much development;
- the way how skills are learned at specific levels in specific classes is dull: having to change your class (and thus your role as a unit) AND gaining many levels inside this class in order to expand your skillset is dull, and while grinding can give you the specific skills you want you'll become overpowered just because of the stats increase anyway;
- finally I hated the "dating sim" aspect of the game with S-rank romantic supports for everyone. I'm not against romance in video games, but I hate how it was implemented in this FE as a gameplay mechanic. You already know that S supports are going to be love confessions, as they're specifically dedicated for them, so you already know what to expect from those conversations, thus making the whole concept of S-rank supports rather dull. Also note that I was fully unaware of this whole "dating sim" thing before I bought the game, which is ironic considering how it's apparently one of the game's selling points.

Okay I admit, I was a little harsh about FE:A in this post, but I recognize that the game can be enjoyed for what it is, as I did in my first completed playthrough. Unlocking supports is fun (even though some of them are dull or overuse character gimmick such as Kellam's lack of presence), Second Seals allow for advanced character customization for those who like this, casual mode is good for beginners afraid by permadeath (though I didn't use it), and I like the soundtrack. I'm really happy that Intelligent Systems tried to save its series by releasing a more accessible game in order to be less niche, but some aspects of the series suffered from it. I hope that FE14 will take the worst from Awakening and get rid of it. And because pair-up is confirmed to return, make it less practical to use by giving it drawbacks other than specific situations when one less unit can be problematic.

 

[Quillion]

I've heard people refer to Awakening as being the FF7 of Fire Emblem.

Though I'm not one to believe that claim until Ylisse becomes a huge sub-franchise of its own (FE14 is not a follow up to Ylisse).

 

[finalark]

Though I'm not one to believe that claim until Ylisse becomes a huge sub-franchise of its own (FE14 is not a follow up to Ylisse).

To be fair, FFVII didn't get a dickload of spinoffs until about a decade later.

Although I think when people say its the FF7 of Fire Emblem they mean its the game that sold the most copies and introduced a ton of new fans to the series.

 

[Quillion]

Although I think when people say its the FF7 of Fire Emblem they mean its the game that sold the most copies and introduced a ton of new fans to the series.

AND dedicated fans call it overrated because of it.

 

[Kyogokudo]

I didn't read everything in this thread so pardon me if anything's been said before. Oh and pardon me for any grammatical mistakes, I have an hard time translating everything.
Anyways I liked Awakening but never loved it like Radiant Dawn. I'd like to think Awakening would've done better as being released before PoR/RD and not after. The Tellius saga just felt much more complete while Awakening removed a lot.

The story first. Now FE always followed the same scheme, and Awakening is fine at that. But again, The Tellius saga just did a much better job at this. Many FE games and especially Awakening had a manichean point of view, meaning you pretty much always played the good guys against the bad guys. But Tellius and particularly RD's part 3 just stepped out of this. It wasn't about some evil empire wanting to revive a demon or I don't know what, it was about two factions fighting for what they believe to be right for their countries. And that was just a big change. Sadly, all this vanished into ash in the last part, though it doesn't change that PoR/RD were far more ambitious and had a better story than Awakening.

Regarding weapons and classes I have nothing to add to what was already said and I completly agree they shouldn't have removed light magic, knives, as well as fusing every anima magic into one. I never cared much about base stats and growths for classes, especially in this one because of grinding and reclassing, so I can't say anything about the balance. As for snipers/marksmens, sure they often felt like some of the worst classes, but like what was said in the OP, PoR/RD did a better job at balancing them. And it isn't only because of crossbows or 3 spaces range, but also because of the maps. Remember ballistae? Yes those were part of snipers/marksmens playstyle, and now those are gone in Awakening. Which brings me to the next point, and the biggest flaw of this game...

....The maps. The core of FE's gameplay. Genealogy of the Holy War had huge maps that made you feel like it was really war, Sacred Stones had the fog of war and other stuff, PoR and RD had "interactive" elements, such as traps on the bridge, lava in the volcano chapter. And it goes on. Now what did Awakening brought? Nothing. A lot of elements were removed and almost every map now feels the same. The "pushing" (I don't remember the english name) mechanic is also gone.
But it's not only the maps themselves, the objectives too. Before you had to protect a castle, save some NPCs, survive for X turns, seize, or decimate. Now what's left is only seize and decimate. Just why? These objectives brought diversity to the gameplay, as well as giving a different feeling. This was especially obvious in missions where you had to defend a castle for a set of turn against an huge army. This is in my opinion the biggest flaw in Awakening and an huge downgrade for FE.

So yes, Awakening disappointed me. Quite a lot even. I still enjoyed it but I really hope the next one will be much better and bring back what made the other games so good.

 

[LancerStaff]

Well, at least with how FEif has two versions, it looks like Awakening's absurd amount of grinding will be in just half the game if at all.

@ Kyogokudo You hear about FEif? You'll have your "neither side is necessarily good" thing because you'll actually choose which nation to fight for and your map interactivity with this crazy magic bridge thing.