Return to complicated mechanics?

[TheMoniker]

So, for every single thing we've heard about FE14, I've become more sure. We've heard about tons of complicated changes, such as the removal of weapon durability in exchange for making all the weapons have some sort of effect, a shield meter and two types of Pair Up, as well as enemy pair-ups... I feel like the new game is going to be VERY complex with it's mechanics, similar to FE5 (what with stamina, dismounting, and all the other stuff the other games haven't had). It could also explain Pheonix Mode, so IS can cater to new players who don't want to have to constantly keep track of the new mechanics.

I actually don't fear these changes at all, since I feel that Awakening removed too many mechanics and almost didn't have ENOUGH depth.

Any thoughts?

[Neoleo21]

I don't really think this stuff is too complicated like FE5 was, though probably more strategic overall at least in the early and mid game than Awakening. I like a number of the maps they've shown, not a whole lot of just open fields. I feel its all going to come down to the item availability and the story at this point to see if they can really make something great.

[NinjaMonkey]

I don't like it to be honest, and I'm leaning towards skipping this game more than ever.

I actually don't fear these changes at all, since I feel that Awakening removed too many mechanics and almost didn't have ENOUGH depth.

How did Awakening remove too many mechanics, given that it's predecessor, New Mystery, had no mechanics at all to speak of (except the weapon triangle)?

[Irysa]

new mystery had the starshards, and various spheres with different effects. those were all really useful and incentivsed strategies involving trading them around to get the most benefit. there was also warp, thief, again, multiple types of dragonstone transformations (including a wyvern transformation), xane's cloning, and a triangle attack.

it's unfair to say it has no mechanics at all.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Irysa

[Masadeer]

i never thought i would ever say this about a fire emblem game but.....

these new developments are killing my interest in the game.

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

No single FE game in the future will have the complexity of game mechanics like FE5 or FE10 had.

Some many mechanics (I won't count them all, because I mentioned them in several threads), weapons and staves and mission objectives disappeared at the latest after the remakes.

The game mechanics were simplified so dramatically in the latest parts that IS must stop this negative trend! Representing a good story isn't enough! Fire Emblem is still a round based strategy series so it needs each strategical element it can get.

Yeah I'd like to see things returning like dismounting, capturing, canto and ledges, but it will never ever happen.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Mister IceTeaPeach

[Arch]

My honest inclination is to disagree; I don't think that they're making things more complicated, I think they're removing complexity entirely. I don't think they're going to change course anytime soon, either. This trend has been going on since FE11, which scrapped most of the series' major mechanics up to that point. Nintendo seems convinced that simplicity sells better than "Old Fire Emblem" ever could.

Resource management is thrown completely out the window now that weapon durability is gone; now, you only ever have to worry about running out of healing items. Not only that, but now they all come with static penalties/boosts instead of relying on formulaic calculations to balance weapons. Even the skills, which seem largely ported from Awakening, have lost most of their depth with the prevalence of statboost and situational skills. Units don't have affinities anymore, supports give universal bonuses. Rescuing has been replaced with the far more broken Pair Up (at least enemies can do it too now, hopefully that helps), which allows you to switch between who the "active" unit is. You can reset a unit's level in FE13 by reclassing, without any real penalty. There's no reason to believe that "GrindEmblem" is going away anytime soon. It was made particularly worse by level-up skills; not only was grinding possible, it was required to generate optimal outcomes. Then you arrive at midgame, and the game's basically on auto-pilot. Casual Mode was a welcome addition to help expand the audience, Phoenix Mode takes things too far by removing penalties for a unit's HP reaching 0.

My complaint is that we've basically been watching IS strip the series of meaningful strategic depth since the "DSFE era" began. This largely feels like a continuation of that disturbing trend.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Arch

[DeadGame]

Complexity is a good thing and a step in the right direction again.

[Zasplach]

My honest inclination is to disagree; I don't think that they're making things more complicated, I think they're removing complexity entirely. I don't think they're going to change course anytime soon, either. This trend has been going on since FE11, which scrapped most of the series' major mechanics up to that point. Nintendo seems convinced that simplicity sells better than "Old Fire Emblem" ever could.

Resource management is thrown completely out the window now that weapon durability is gone; now, you only ever have to worry about running out of healing items. Not only that, but now they all come with static penalties/boosts instead of relying on formulaic calculations to balance weapons. Even the skills, which seem largely ported from Awakening, have lost most of their depth with the prevalence of statboost and situational skills. Units don't have affinities anymore, supports give universal bonuses. Rescuing has been replaced with the far more broken Pair Up (at least enemies can do it too now, hopefully that helps), which allows you to switch between who the "active" unit is. You can reset a unit's level in FE13 by reclassing, without any real penalty. There's no reason to believe that "GrindEmblem" is going away anytime soon. It was made particularly worse by level-up skills; not only was grinding possible, it was required to generate optimal outcomes. Then you arrive at midgame, and the game's basically on auto-pilot. Casual Mode was a welcome addition to help expand the audience, Phoenix Mode takes things too far by removing penalties for a unit's HP reaching 0.

My complaint is that we've basically been watching IS strip the series of meaningful strategic depth since the "DSFE era" began. This largely feels like a continuation of that disturbing trend.

No reason to walk off the edge yet. Nobody has played 'IF' yet; the most recent iterations of the series have aired towards less complexity, but to be fair, the two DS games were remakes of games that were pretty bare bones. Let's give this game some time.

In terms of grind, it's what people seem to like in games, trivializing them, thus cheat codes and such, but it doesn't look like both sets of the games are going to have world maps.

I'm not going to worry too much before I've played the game. Maybe afterwards, we'll have something to be worried about.

[Arch]

No reason to walk off the edge yet. Nobody has played 'IF' yet; the most recent iterations of the series have aired towards less complexity, but to be fair, the two DS games were remakes of games that were pretty bare bones. Let's give this game some time.

In terms of grind, it's what people seem to like in games, trivializing them, thus cheat codes and such, but it doesn't look like both sets of the games are going to have world maps.

I'm not going to worry too much before I've played the game. Maybe afterwards, we'll have something to be worried about.

It's a trust issue, and IS has lost my trust with their handling of the series since FE10's release. If you're going to remake a game that's "bare bones," you should add some meat to it. FE12 was the "most alright" of the three DSFE games that have been released so far; but in retrospect, that was just a precursor to the plot being hijacked by a self-insert forevermore.

That's fine, let them be lazy with their remakes. But when IS uses a lazy remake as the basis for re-envisioning the series, I'm not going to trust their direction until they prove otherwise.

We shall see. Again, I hope I'm wrong. I was quite hyped for Nohr until we started learning actual details about the gameplay.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Arch

[arvilino]

In my opinion it's less a return to complexity and more of bringing forward newer types of complexity, ones that have greater impact on the game. Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and Fire Emblem: New Mystery trimmed out a lot of the mechanics(magic triangle, weapon weight) that made the game more complex but never actually any deeper or mechanics that couldn't be used nearly as well by some classes compared other classes that already had a myriad of advantages(rescue). With New Mystery's Lunatic and Lunatic reverse difficulties showing that the toughest challenges in the series could be produced with some of the simplest mechanics the series has had.

Fire Emblem Awakening started introducing mechanics that were both intuitive and dramatically changed the game and Fire Emblem If appears to be following on with this direction. I'm really looking forward to seeing how the new weapon system and changes to dual attack/guard play out.

Edited May 20, 2015 by arvilino

[Zasplach]

It's a trust issue, and IS has lost my trust with their handling of the series since FE10's release. If you're going to remake a game that's "bare bones," you should add some meat to it. FE12 was the "most alright" of the three DSFE games that have been released so far; but in retrospect, that was just a precursor to the plot being hijacked by a self-insert forevermore.

That's fine, let them be lazy with their remakes. But when IS uses a lazy remake as the basis for re-envisioning the series, I'm not going to trust their direction until they prove otherwise.

We shall see. Again, I hope I'm wrong. I was quite hyped for Nohr until we started learning actual details about the gameplay.

I'm wary too, but I'm alright with all the hype build up.

I liked a lot of the features they removed and a self-insert isn't my favorite feature either, but it seems to sell well. We shall see about how Nohr plays out, I'm still hopeful.

[Arch]

In my opinion it's less a return to complexity and more of bringing forward newer types of complexity, ones that have greater impact on the game. Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and Fire Emblem: New Mystery trimmed out a lot of the mechanics(magic triangle, weapon weight) that made the game more complex but never actually any deeper or mechanics that couldn't be used nearly as well by some classes compared other classes that already had a myriad of advantages(rescue). With New Mystery's Lunatic and Lunatic reverse difficulties showing that the toughest challenges in the series could be produced with some of the simplest mechanics the series has had.

Fire Emblem Awakening started introducing mechanics that were both intuitive and dramatically changed the game and Fire Emblem If appears to be following on with this direction. I'm really looking forward to seeing how the new weapon system and changes to dual attack/guard play out.

Could you kindly explain this "addition by subtraction" further? I'm really quite confused. You say "trimmed," I say "gutted." Just because you add more difficulty modes, that doesn't mean the game becomes more complex by default. By that logic, all GBAFE was missing were these difficulty modes (and that's certainly not the case either). Not to mention that GBAFE was already a dramatic simplification of SNESFE. How many things can you subtract before the result becomes negative? I feel like they reached that point three games ago.

And Awakening? Pair Up breaks the game, class level-up skills break the game in tandem with level-resetting reclass. They brought back supports, but it's only use is with Pair Up and that wonky "kids from the future" mechanic that felt shoehorned into the plot (not to mention that the writing was godawful anyways). None of these things add positive strategic value, in my honest opinion. The best "addition" was the DLC train, lol.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Arch

[arvilino]

Could you kindly explain this "addition by subtraction" further? I'm really quite confused. You say "trimmed," I say "gutted." Just because you add more difficulty modes, that doesn't mean the game becomes more complex by default. By that logic, all GBAFE was missing was Lunatic (and that's certainly not the case either). Not to mention that GBAFE was already a dramatic simplification of SNESFE. How many things can you subtract before the result becomes negative? I feel like they've reached that point.

And Awakening? Pair Up breaks the game, class level-up skills break the game in tandem with level-resetting reclass. They brought back supports, but it's only use is with Pair Up and that wonky "kids from the future" mechanic that felt shoehorned into the plot. None of these things add positive value, in my honest opinion.

I didn't say they were more complex I said that they were simpler but also more intuitive and had bigger impact. By distilling the game down to the core mechanics and treating SD and NM as game 11 and game 12 I feel Intelligent Systems more frequently focused on adding(and reworking the remaining) mechanics in a way complement other mechanics or the classes(such as the weapon rank bonuses and tying them into the weapon triangle). More of them are implemented more smoothly alongside regular gameplay than before and feel less like a bunch of separate ideas that are distanced from each other(though that's not to say mechanics like this don't exist in the newer games).

For example the support system in Awakening. Characters even without a support rank will provide +10 hit by being adjacent to one character. Supports build by being adjacent or paired up in combat where a characters can provide that support bonus, provide dual attacks or dual guards or by healing or dancing. A heart symbol appears every single time a unit does something that boosts supports. I think even with Pair Up's potential to be dominating Awakening's support system is hands down the best in terms of tying gameplay mechanics related to supports and regular gameplay together while showing that your units are building supports by actually supporting each other in combat visually and mechanically.

By comparison GBA supports appear like they came from someone who has never even played a Fire Emblem game. There's almost no real gameplay incentive to persue supports that don't unlock at an accelerated pace(which you can't tell until they unlock) and absolutely no indicator that they're building. Spending all those turns adjacent unlocking a GBA support rarely feels like it's complementing normal gameplay and rarely build in away that makes it seem like the units are actually supporting each other. It's so disjointed that the best time to unlock them(FE4 is a similar case) is by delaying the end of a seize chapter when they're no enemies/objectives on the map (other than the stationary boss or the empty throne/gate).

The weapon triangle is another one a universal +/-1 damage +/-10 hit wasn't really appropriate for every type of weapon and class. The one from Shadow Dragon onwards with weapon rank bonuses that would be cancelled out helped distinguish each weapon type and their uses. Since an axe user would lose a very large amount of hit against sword users(sword locked classes typically being the faster evasive type), Sword users would lose up to 4 might against a Lance wielder(Lance wielding classes typically being more defensive).

Edited May 20, 2015 by arvilino

[Arch]

I didn't say they were more complex I said that they were simpler but also more intuitive and had bigger impact. By distilling the game down to the core mechanics and treating SD and NM as game 11 and game 12 I feel Intelligent Systems more frequently focused on adding(and reworking the remaining) mechanics in a way complement other mechanics or the classes(such as the weapon rank bonuses and tying them into the weapon triangle). More of them are implemented more smoothly alongside regular gameplay than before and feel less like a bunch of separate ideas that are distanced from each other(though that's not to say mechanics like this don't exist in the newer games).

GBAFE had some GUI issues, that much has always been clear. GUI is easy enough to fix. DSFE got one thing right; tying the rank bonuses in with the triangle. They could've done that in the GBAFE system, too. Hackers have already accomplished that much. Intelligent Systems stripped that in Awakening, too, by making the rank bonuses universal across all weapons. They've already reinstated the approach that you're lauding them for replacing with a better mechanic, lol.

I'd much rather have a GUI problem than a "the mechanics become largely meaningless in the game's second half" problem.

Dual Strike/Guard is interesting for adjacent units. They've accomplished making supports feel more "intuitive," but managed to break the difficulty in the process with Pair Up's absurd stat bonuses. I feel like they should've axed the merge command altogether, brought back rescuing, and kept Dual Strike/Guard for adjacent units. Affinity-based support boosts were interesting, and incentivized some odder pairings in the name of unit efficiency. The turn-stalling to build supports was bad, though. There was definitely room for improvement there.

I agree with your larger point, though. The approach of making mechanics more cohesive is a good idea, I just disagree with how they've gutted most of the complexity in the process. There's a stark contrast between making things more user-friendly and oversimplifying the gameplay. GBAFE wasn't perfect, but it's about as close as I think they've gotten. I just wish they'd taken up this sort of cohesive mechanic design philosophy before they started throwing everything out the window.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Arch

[arvilino]

GBAFE had some GUI issues, that much has always been clear. GUI is easy enough to fix. DSFE got one thing right; tying the rank bonuses in with the triangle. They could've done that in the GBAFE system, too. Hackers have already accomplished that much. Intelligent Systems stripped that in Awakening, too, by making the rank bonuses universal across all weapons. They've already reinstated the approach that you're lauding them for replacing with a better mechanic, lol.

No they haven't Swords have +3 might at A-rank, Axes are +1 Might + 25 hit, Lances are +2 might +10 hit.

The only difference is Axes have +1 might at A-rank instead of 0 and that WTA/WTD bonus/penalties not relating to the weapon rank bonuses differ depending on the weapon rank of the winning side.That statement you made makes me think you've confused that for the weapon rank bonuses, do you actually know how these new mechanics work from actually playing the game or are you just trying to BS me here using this site's resources? Since as early as the prologue in Lunatic you can see the mechanic at work the same way as SD/NM with the Myrmidons unable to damage Frederick wielding the Silver Lance due to losing 4 points of attack and the Barbarians only losing 1 point of damage but a large amount of hit to Chrom or whoever's wielding the Bronze Sword.

On the rest of your post I can see where you're coming from on the GBA front that the games could have had similar mechanics and changes. But the reality at the time was IS released 3 games on the system without adjusting mechanics. It really can't be said they gave the impression of even attempting any kind of mechanic shift at the time. I'd agree that in ways the GBA games simplified things in a way that ensured a lot of things couldn't break the game but I feel that's because they weren't very bold and made sure a lot of the mechanics couldn't have significant impact on the game. Like split classes in Sacred stones having no change to growth rate at all and reintroducing skills with Snipers getting Level% chance of 100% hit rate.

Edited May 20, 2015 by arvilino

[Tamanoir]

My honest inclination is to disagree; I don't think that they're making things more complicated, I think they're removing complexity entirely. I don't think they're going to change course anytime soon, either. This trend has been going on since FE11, which scrapped most of the series' major mechanics up to that point. Nintendo seems convinced that simplicity sells better than "Old Fire Emblem" ever could.

Resource management is thrown completely out the window now that weapon durability is gone; now, you only ever have to worry about running out of healing items. Not only that, but now they all come with static penalties/boosts instead of relying on formulaic calculations to balance weapons. Even the skills, which seem largely ported from Awakening, have lost most of their depth with the prevalence of statboost and situational skills. Units don't have affinities anymore, supports give universal bonuses. Rescuing has been replaced with the far more broken Pair Up (at least enemies can do it too now, hopefully that helps), which allows you to switch between who the "active" unit is. You can reset a unit's level in FE13 by reclassing, without any real penalty. There's no reason to believe that "GrindEmblem" is going away anytime soon. It was made particularly worse by level-up skills; not only was grinding possible, it was required to generate optimal outcomes. Then you arrive at midgame, and the game's basically on auto-pilot. Casual Mode was a welcome addition to help expand the audience, Phoenix Mode takes things too far by removing penalties for a unit's HP reaching 0.

My complaint is that we've basically been watching IS strip the series of meaningful strategic depth since the "DSFE era" began. This largely feels like a continuation of that disturbing trend.

Yeah sure buying a tons of Iron sword and two-range, then buying a couple of Killer and better 2-range, then the best 2-range and hero.

Stuff each units with as many of them as possible.

How fun and exciting.

^ How I actually play each FE.

Will those new mechanics be broken. Obviously Someone's gonna break it and abuse everything they can abuse.

That's why the fandom exists after all. We play those games to death, explore every nook and cranny and then complain it's too easy.

And grinding makes everything irrelevant anyway.

But for players that aren't experts or fan of grinding... This could actually improves their game.

I for one is actually looking towards it.

It can adds lots of strategy, and I find this honnestly exciting.

I think it can makes a pretty interresting, and I can't wait to try all the possibilities.

It is a different kind of FE, sure, but it's still FE.

[Arch]

No they haven't Swords have +3 might at A-rank, Axes are +1 Might + 25 hit, Lances are +2 might +10 hit.

The only difference is Axes have +1 might at A-rank instead of 0 and that WTA/WTD bonus/penalties not relating to the weapon rank bonuses differ depending on the weapon rank of the winning side.That statement you made makes me think you've confused that for the weapon rank bonuses, do you actually know how these new mechanics work from actually playing the game or are you just trying to BS me here using this site's resources? Since as early as the prologue in Lunatic you can see the mechanic at work the same way as SD/NM with the Myrmidons unable to damage Frederick wielding the Silver Lance due to losing 4 points of attack and the Barbarians only losing 1 point of damage but a large amount of hit to Chrom or whoever's wielding the Bronze Sword.

On the rest of your post I can see where you're coming from on the GBA front that the games could have had similar mechanics and changes. But the reality at the time was IS released 3 games on the system without adjusting mechanics. It really can't be said they gave the impression of even attempting any kind of mechanic shift at the time. I'd agree that in ways the GBA games simplified things in a way that ensured a lot of things couldn't break the game but I feel that's because they weren't very bold and made sure a lot of the mechanics couldn't have significant impact on the game. Like split classes in Sacred stones having no change to growth rate at all and reintroducing skills with Snipers getting Level% chance of 100% hit rate.

I forgot about that bit, didn't scroll down far enough on the calculations page and just saw the universal weapon triangle boosts/penalties and assumed the rank bonuses had been removed (IS likes removing things, after all). My bad. Of course I've played the games, doesn't mean I enjoyed the experience enough to commit every detail to memory (especially FE13).

I understand the "reality" that they never attempted significant changes to the GBAFE formula. It's a shame, really. FE8 added lots of useless things for the sake of adding things. In my opinion, FE8 was the start of this whole downward slide the series has experienced in earnest since FE11. First "GrindEmblem" since Gaiden, and there's a reason some of those features haven't seen the light of day since. Should've left INF EXP in the dustbin. Imagine what they could've done with GBAFE's mechanics if they'd actually cared to try!

However, I disagree with the assertion that they simply weren't "bold" enough. All GBAFE really lacked were true skills. The Str/Mag split is poorly designed, since physical classes rarely have use for Mag, and magical classes have practically no use for Str. Otherwise, what does it really need? It's not a question of boldness to me, it's a question of giving the mechanics due time, consideration, and refinement. To be fair, they haven't exactly been great at introducing these bold new features, either, since they mostly end up breaking the game or falling into obscurity.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Arch

[Sentinel07]

I love the changes so far. At least it shows that Intelligent Systems isn't afraid to shake things up.

Each new mechanic they're unveiled from the new types of weapons to the new mechanics has only made my hype grow.