Did blazing blade really play it safe?

[Harvey]

Ok so a lot of people seem to claim that blazing blade is more of a safe game than trying to do something more of a risk like what Gaiden did...is it really true that this game didn't do anything special?

I thought this was the first game that had different objectives rather than seize unlike all FE games.

 

[Slumber]

29 minutes ago, Harvey said:

I thought this was the first game that had different objectives rather than seize unlike all FE games.

Uhhh, no. That'd be Thracia 776, which I think had all the objectives we know and love besides routing. Like, a good chunk of the first half of the game were the notorious "Escape" maps, and the latter half of the game had a bunch of "Defend/Survive" maps, with a good number of  "Seize" maps in between, and some rare "Kill the Boss" maps. There were even some maps that combined multiple objectives, like the Glade/Glade's subordinate maps being both "Defend" and "Escape" maps.

Anyway, Blazing Sword is DEFINITELY a much safer game compared to what it followed. After Genealogy, which really put the SNES to work, and Thracia, which had about 15 billion mechanics, a game that moved to a handheld and was meant to be played in smaller chunks was bound to be "safer". And then the also notoriously difficult Binding Blade.

With the inclusion of Lyn's story, it's pretty clear the direction they wanted to take the series, and it was a bit safer for the franchise. Plus, for the first time ever, FE was leaving Japan. It's nothing inherently wrong with Blazing Sword, it just had a different design philosophy compared to what came before it. I think it's a much more well-rounded experience than Binding Blade, despite being "safer".

Edited March 11, 2017 by Slumber

[Magical Glace]

It was a simple game with simple mechanics, it didn't really experiment much, like Binding Blade.  

It tried something a bit different storywise, remaining the only game in the series thus far that doesn't really focus on a Big country vs little country type of conflict, considering you aren't even really fighting a country in FE7, but that's really it.

I still like it quite a bit, though, it's my second favorite after 6, so yeah.

[Augestein]

FE7 isn't really that safe. 

1) It's the first release globally already making it a more risky game in general, as they attempted to appeal to people outside of their core audience. 

2) Doing something like Lyn mode to have an entire mode dedicated to new players is a huge risk at alienating the older fans of the games. 

3) Multiple lords had never truly been tackled before this point. Sure we had certain units that may have been more important than other characters, but never had we had more than 1 lord. 

3a) It also fooled around with weather more than any of the other games, whether you like it or not is debatable.

It's also the first game to fool around with a "customization feature" with the avatar. Which paved the way for it becoming an actual unit. And as I've said before, it's the first one that really starts trying the idea of not having your lord be the same person thus... Some main character customization. You can choose Hector or Eliwood. Even though Hector is essentially the harder mode, it's still a choice of which character you want to play. 

I'd honestly say it's a more polished version of FE6 mechanics wise, but it's certainly not *more* safe than FE6. 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Augestein

[Magical Glace]

7 minutes ago, Augestein said:

3) Multiple lords had never truly been tackled before this point. Sure we had certain units that may have been more important than other characters, but never had we had more than 1 lord. 

FE2?

And FE4 I guess, but that was slightly different since Seliph and Sigurd's stories are more or less separate from each other via time gap.

[Acacia Sgt]

17 minutes ago, Augestein said:

2) Doing something like Lyn mode to have an entire mode dedicated to new players is a huge risk at alienating the older fans of the games. 

Japanese cartridges had the option to skip it. The only ones that would've been unable would've been those that didn't aquired Binding Blade and/or unable to procure a second GBA and link cable to make the process.

That said, if they skipped on Binding Blade, then they would've been not well versed in GBA mechanics unless told second-hand, anyway.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Acacia Sgt

[Augestein]

18 minutes ago, Glaceon Mage said:

FE2?

And FE4 I guess, but that was slightly different since Seliph and Sigurd's stories are more or less separate from each other via time gap.

I wouldn't really count that though, because they aren't together the whole game.  It's more like two camps of party for the vast majority of the game. FE4 makes it even less so. It's still one lord, because Sigurd isn't really an option when Seliph comes around and can't be deployed at all. 

 

12 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Japanese cartridges had the option to skip it. The only ones that would've been unable would've been those that didn't aquired Binding Blade and/or unable to procure a second GBA and link cable to make the process.

That said, if they skipped on Binding Blade, then they would've been not well versed in GBA mechanics unless told second-hand, anyway.

Sure, but it's still a risk. As I had already played Fire Emblem before 7 for instance, but just hadn't played Binding Blade. There's a good chance that even in Japan a lot of people actually had to play Lyn Mode anyways because of the requirements. 

[Harvey]

2 hours ago, Slumber said:

Uhhh, no. That'd be Thracia 776, which I think had all the objectives we know and love besides routing. Like, a good chunk of the first half of the game were the notorious "Escape" maps, and the latter half of the game had a bunch of "Defend/Survive" maps, with a good number of  "Seize" maps in between, and some rare "Kill the Boss" maps. There were even some maps that combined multiple objectives, like the Glade/Glade's subordinate maps being both "Defend" and "Escape" maps.

Hmm...I see, so that game is know for that. Still I feel like as @Augestein said, the fact that there were three main lords, the first time the avatar showed up and the fact that it was aimed for a global audience is risky enough.

Let's not forget that it was released on a handheld than on a console.....isn't that risky too?

 

[Slumber]

Just now, Harvey said:

Hmm...I see, so that game is know for that. Still I feel like as @Augestein said, the fact that there were three main lords, the first time the avatar showed up and the fact that it was aimed for a global audience is risky enough.

Let's not forget that it was released on a handheld than on a console.....isn't that risky too?

 

The three lords is the biggest risk FE7 took, but being on a handheld after Binding Blade already did well on the platform isn't really a "risk".

[Harvey]

11 hours ago, Slumber said:

The three lords is the biggest risk FE7 took, but being on a handheld after Binding Blade already did well on the platform isn't really a "risk".

Considering that Kaga-san left Nintendo/IS, FE6's mechanics were not that polished and that it was released on a handheld on a time where the series was accustomed to consoles, yeah...i think that itself is a huge enough risk.

And before you say that Thracia didn't sell well, its because it was released on SNES. Had it been released to the N64, it might have sold well.

 

[Slumber]

11 hours ago, Harvey said:

Considering that Kaga-san left Nintendo/IS, FE6's mechanics were not that polished and that it was released on a handheld on a time where the series was accustomed to consoles, yeah...i think that itself is a huge enough risk.

At that point, doing ANYTHING with the franchise would have been considered a risk. But it still really wasn't. Binding Blade sold well, got good reviews, and the people who were angry at the shift to handheld were outnumbered by the people who were happy with how Binding Blade came out. Making a prequel to that game that was easier, more polished, and in many ways, deeper, was not that much of a risk.

[Hardin]

12 hours ago, Harvey said:

Considering that Kaga-san left Nintendo/IS, FE6's mechanics were not that polished and that it was released on a handheld on a time where the series was accustomed to consoles, yeah...i think that itself is a huge enough risk.

And before you say that Thracia didn't sell well, its because it was released on SNES. Had it been released to the N64, it might have sold well.

 

I just don't understand this. Binding Blade by design was meant to be a return to form for the franchise, made for a handheld, which is where the Nintendo's audience was moving towards. Binding Blade is easily one of the safest game in the franchise. 

[Harvey]

10 hours ago, Slumber said:

At that point, doing ANYTHING with the franchise would have been considered a risk. But it still really wasn't. Binding Blade sold well, got good reviews, and the people who were angry at the shift to handheld were outnumbered by the people who were happy with how Binding Blade came out. Making a prequel to that game that was easier, more polished, and in many ways, deeper, was not that much of a risk.

However so, it had to be done in one year after Binding Blade happened which was extremely challenging when you consider the amount of content Blazing Sword had. That doesn't seem to be less of a risk....

It may have gotten good reviews but the game still has flaws one way or the other which FE7 fixed in a lot of ways.

9 hours ago, Hardin said:

I just don't understand this. Binding Blade by design was meant to be a return to form for the franchise, made for a handheld, which is where the Nintendo's audience was moving towards. Binding Blade is easily one of the safest game in the franchise. 

What do you mean by this? FE had been the same even during the Kaga-san times.

[Jedi]

19 minutes ago, Harvey said:

What do you mean by this? FE had been the same even during the Kaga-san times.

FE4 and FE5 not to mention previously FE2 were not anything at all, like what FE6 turned out being, he means a return to form akin to that of FE1 and FE3, which is why quite a number of people compare FE6 to FE3, in its direction, although FE6 has more engaging maps and quite a bit more challenge to it, while FE3 is a bit easier to bust in half. 

[Harvey]

3 minutes ago, Jedi said:

FE4 and FE5 not to mention previously FE2 were not anything at all, like what FE6 turned out being, he means a return to form akin to that of FE1 and FE3, which is why quite a number of people compare FE6 to FE3, in its direction, although FE6 has more engaging maps and quite a bit more challenge to it, while FE3 is a bit easier to bust in half. 

I still don't get what exactly you mean by return of the franchise. FE4 & 5 have a lord, cavilers and a jaigen unit so what is it that you mean by return?

 

[Hardin]

FE6 was about returning the series back to basics. It jettisoned many of the additions brought in through the SFC games like stamina, dismounting, and marriage. It was a game meant to appeal to those who felt intimidated by the series complexity. 

[Jedi]

1 hour ago, Harvey said:

I still don't get what exactly you mean by return of the franchise. FE4 & 5 have a lord, cavilers and a jaigen unit so what is it that you mean by return?

They may have those basic similarities, but the structure, mechanics, tone and everything is vastly different.

[Harvey]

2 hours ago, Jedi said:

They may have those basic similarities, but the structure, mechanics, tone and everything is vastly different.

How so? The games before FE4 & 5 never had the weapon triangle and 6 still had it. You still had to seize castles to complete chapters something that previous games also had in mind. You can't dismount units in FE6 but can rescue and con wasn't something introduced earlier. 

The only things that the previous games had that FE6 also had is no skill sets. Just hit, dmg and crt and that's that.

 

[Jedi]

3 hours ago, Harvey said:

How so? The games before FE4 & 5 never had the weapon triangle and 6 still had it. You still had to seize castles to complete chapters something that previous games also had in mind. You can't dismount units in FE6 but can rescue and con wasn't something introduced earlier. 

The only things that the previous games had that FE6 also had is no skill sets. Just hit, dmg and crt and that's that.

 

Does FE6 have any of the following things from 2, 4 or 5? Capture, Holy Blood, Inheritance, an Anima Magic Triangle, Castles, Individual Gold, A 2nd generation, Magic that hurts the user, shrines, towns, skills and not to mention much much more?

Didn't think so. FE6 was pretty much the most basic game in the franchise at the point of its release, it had to make up with it, with its challenging hard mode and map design to bring older fans back, considering how well it did (despite being just released in Japan) it was quite successful in making it much simpler, but some feel it made the formula too simple.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Jedi