10 mins of gameplay from GameSpot

[Armagon]

37 minutes ago, Nobody said:

The thing is, many of us wouldn't be willing to play a game with crap gameplay even if everything else is good and that's how the guy you quoted feel.

13 minutes ago, Jedi said:

if a plot is good, thats cool, but if it plays awkwardly I can't really ignore it

To be perfectly honest, I'm kinda the same way to an extent. Like, for example, I find Genealogy of the Holy War's gameplay to be bad. I had a lot of problems with it. That being said, it didn't break the game for me or anything, and i still enjoyed FE4 (even if Judgral is my least favorite FE series). However, in the case of Mega Man X7, it's entirely different. The gameplay there is actually bad to the point that i just stop playing.

Basically, a game's gameplay can be bad, but as long as it's playable and there are things that make up for it, it's fine. That's just how I feel though.

Also, to answer Emerson's question

26 minutes ago, Emerson said:

And there's nothing besides rout chapters, correct me if I'm not remembering correctly.

There are a few "Defeat Commander" levels but they are typically reserved for Dungeon Bosses from what i've seen. I do believe Rudolph's Map as well as the Final Map are "Defeat Commander" levels as well.

[Slumber]

4 hours ago, Armagon said:

A game can't rely on gameplay alone though. Unless it's like, Atari games.

This is the mentality that's put gaming in a rut these past few years.

Games absolutely CAN rely on just gameplay, and it should be the main focus of every game(Because, you know, it's the one thing separating games from movies or TV). Look at Overwatch, or Dark Souls, or most Platinum games, or Breath of the Wild. These are recent examples of games being widely praised because either the games are super balanced, to gameplay flow is incredibly addictive/rewarding, or the games are just fun to play.

Overwatch has character and charm, but it's not what keeps people playing for thousands of hours. Souls has atmosphere and story, but it's tucked away, and 90% of players won't even have all the bits and pieces together to understand what the hell is going on. Platinum games have ridiculous, unbelievable stories and usually a good sense of humor, but that's not the draw to the games. Breath of the Wild is possibly one of the most barebones Zelda games in terms of overall presentation, with the bulk of the focus during development being on recreating the feeling of the original Zelda, a 30 year old NES game.

These games put little focus on things that aren't gameplay, and it's obvious that during development, gameplay was the first thing they started developing and experimenting with.

Obviously a good story, good graphics, good whatever can elevate these games, but people are typically drawn to games that are fun above all else. Look at Steam's top sellers every week. Most of the time, they're gameplay-focused games. Battlegrounds, the new hotness for PC and on YouTube/Twitch, is ONLY gameplay. There is no story, there is no music.

Now, there are exceptions to this, like Naughty Dog games and Telltale games, where gameplay takes a backseat, but I'd say most games that fail nowadays try to put focus on narrative and cinematics, while also being unfun to play. Games that are fun to play, but don't really try to force any sort of story on you, seem to be much more successful(Which is why it baffles me that so many big studios keep trying to ape Naughty Dog, instead of making genuinely fun games on their own).

That said, I love traditional RPGs anyway, so Gaiden's focus on RPG tropes rather than strategy tropes isn't a huge turn-off for me. I'd prefer a more strategic game, but I knew going in that this was a Gaiden remake. It'd be much worse if this was the "next" Fire Emblem, but this is a side project, and I know a proper new Fire Emblem will be coming shortly. It's probably why, assuming Gaiden isn't a complete trainwreck, I'll probably have a higher opinion of it than Awakening, which has pretty much all of the same gameplay flaws that SoV seems to have.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Slumber

[Armagon]

35 minutes ago, Slumber said:

This is the mentality that's put gaming in a rut these past few years.

Games absolutely CAN rely on just gameplay, and it should be the main focus of every game(Because, you know, it's the one thing separating games from movies or TV). Look at Overwatch, or Dark Souls, or most Platinum games, or Breath of the Wild. These are recent examples of games being widely praised because either the games are super balanced, to gameplay flow is incredibly addictive/rewarding, or the games are just fun to play.

Overwatch has character and charm, but it's not what keeps people playing for thousands of hours. Souls has atmosphere and story, but it's tucked away, and 90% of players won't even have all the bits and pieces together to understand what the hell is going on. Platinum games have ridiculous, unbelievable stories and usually a good sense of humor, but that's not the draw to the games. Breath of the Wild is possibly one of the most barebones Zelda games in terms of overall presentation, with the bulk of the focus during development being on recreating the feeling of the original Zelda, a 30 year old NES game.

These games put little focus on things that aren't gameplay, and it's obvious that during development, gameplay was the first thing they started developing and experimenting with.

Obviously a good story, good graphics, good whatever can elevate these games, but people are typically drawn to games that are fun above all else. Look at Steam's top sellers every week. Most of the time, they're gameplay-focused games. Battlegrounds, the new hotness for PC and on YouTube/Twitch, is ONLY gameplay. There is no story, there is no music.

Now, there are exceptions to this, like Naughty Dog games and Telltale games, where gameplay takes a backseat, but I'd say most games that fail nowadays try to put focus on narrative and cinematics, while also being unfun to play. Games that are fun to play, but don't really try to force any sort of story on you, seem to be much more successful(Which is why it baffles me that so many big studios keep trying to ape Naughty Dog, instead of making genuinely fun games on their own).

That said, I love traditional RPGs anyway, so Gaiden's focus on RPG tropes rather than strategy tropes isn't a huge turn-off for me. I'd prefer a more strategic game, but I knew going in that this was a Gaiden remake. It'd be much worse if this was the "next" Fire Emblem, but this is a side project, and I know a proper new Fire Emblem will be coming shortly. It's probably why, assuming Gaiden isn't a complete trainwreck, I'll probably have a higher opinion of it than Awakening, which has pretty much all of the same gameplay flaws that SoV seems to have.

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. I did clarify my opinion on the matter in the post above.

[FallenVanguard]

I mean, people have every reason to pick and choose what makes a game a deal breaker or not. I can disagree with their reasoning on almost every level, but I'm not going to harp on people for not buying a game they don't think they'll enjoy lol.

As for me? I actually rather like SoV's gameplay. It's really just the Gaiden maps that cause frustration, but it's not the same level of frustration that OG Gaiden gave me. It's closer to the frustration you get from...just about any other entry in the series. More over there are some systems from SoV I'd like to see, in some form, make their way into later titles. I love how they handled skills, for example.

But this is also nothing new for me. My favourite entries in the franchise have some of the worst balanced gameplay (RD and FE 4). But I look for a whole experience when playing a game, and to me those two just have the best all around experience. Gameplay, story, characters, various aesthetics, OST, certain mechanics, etc.

However, to reiterate, if someone can't tolerate or dislikes the core gameplay, they have every right to not be interested in the game.

[dap005]

It's not so much as good gameplay as it is good games design that really makes or breaks a game. 

A game can not function with just the gameplay alone. I mean how to you even define something so abstract? If we're taking games that focus on 'gameplay' and why they're good (say legend or zelda or mario), they teach rules of the game by letting players experiment with items and mechanics whilst providing sufficient visual cues and good presentation. They provide secret areas to encourage discovery, they avoid repetitiveness by throwing new mechanics but all of that would feel less fun and exciting (and even cause confusion) with poor presentation.

I mean splatoon and overwatch would be a hell lot less enjoyable if the little touches like game aethetics, graphic design, animations and quirky dialouge. This stuff gives personality to things that just players to do thinks. A game makes usual chores fun.

Like fe's srpg gameplay would be a lot less interesting with the narrative integration, the permdeath matters bc you're made to care for chess pieces (it feels a lot different from advance wars as a result). And as an rpg it plays better when players can immerse into the world (which shoddy world building can butcher). Everything ties into the games' design and presentation is one of them: smooth UI, puzzle solving elements, exploring players with a strong atmosphere/narrative significance.

Ofc there's the underlying rules that dictate the game (such as the various variables you must think about in commanding your units in FE) but they'd a lot weaker if they didn't have the fluff on top to complement, make sense of the systems whilst giving players an incentive to not rage quit or even bother with something like resetting the game.

Nintendo I'd say are very good at this, in terms of makes all the elements of presentation and Gameplay gel together well (Warioware is a hilarious experience because of its wackiness and bizzare ideas based around what are essentially very simple interactions and rules). And FE is special bc it manages to pull of a good characters' based narrative (for the msot part) well in a usually stoic genre which is quite rare amongst Nintendo games or games in general. FE isn't the most complicated strategy game but it works so well because it focuses on the core that makes it enjoyable whilst giving players a purpose to continue even when rng screws with them. 

An example of when game rules and presentation goes wrong and feels jarring I can think of is adventure games during the 2000s when they were trying to put action game elements into a genre known for giving players time to contemplate and take in the narrative. 

Ho boy that got ranty, I basically just wanted to say that a game is a sum of its parts and if any elements is out of place it would undermine the enjoyability. And how jarring a person finds the gameplay segements in a game like SoV isn't how complicated it is but rather if they enjoy the sudden switch away from what fire emblem is usually like. And judging from those that have played it looks to be gaiden/10 with a great UI.  

Edited April 23, 2017 by dap005
Grammar

[Iridium]

20 hours ago, Lyon's Dirge said:

Gameplay is disappointing so I'll just be sticking with Conquest.

This is an interesting remark from someone who lists their favorite game in the series as the one that practically plays itself. Pretty much every good aspect of Path of Radiance (its artwork, its music, its script, etc.) is something you've just declared to be worthless because it can be obtained online. You claim that Echoes has failed at the aspect that separates games from movies, but at least it actually has that aspect; a solid Path of Radiance playthrough can be performed by simply moving your starting unit of choice across a field and watching in awe as they invulnerably move toward the goal. If Gaiden is a standard RPG, then Path of Radiance is a feature film.

I can totally understand not being on board with Gaiden's gameplay, and if that had been all I would sympathize with you and in many respects agree, but what I cannot understand is the dissonance between the logic you use to denounce Gaiden and whatever logic your mind was employing upon deciding that Path of Radiance was the pinnacle of the series. If you're judging the games purely on a gameplay basis, with nothing else having value, then why is your favorite game arguably the only game in the series that does a better job of the non-gameplay aspects than the gameplay ones?

I apologize for making a rather below-the-belt strike here, since I ordinarily try to avoid judging people based upon their game of preference (as that sort of generalization is in rather poor taste), but in this particular case I just can't put everything together in a way that makes sense. It would be like me denouncing JRPGs for their swathes of long and unnecessary dialogue, and all the while choosing to represent myself with an avatar featuring two lecherous drunkards from Trails in the Sky.

[Tryhard]

13 hours ago, Slumber said:

This is the mentality that's put gaming in a rut these past few years.

Games absolutely CAN rely on just gameplay, and it should be the main focus of every game(Because, you know, it's the one thing separating games from movies or TV). Look at Overwatch, or Dark Souls, or most Platinum games, or Breath of the Wild.

These are all games that have great production values as well as gameplay, though, which is usually the case for games that people bring up that "the gameplay is the most important part", even though the rest is still adequate at least. I can see it is the main focus but it's not as if they are bad in these other regards.

We'd have to be talking about a game with shit production values, music, voice acting, characters, plot, and that gives you no or a bad reason for the gameplay. And even then it still depends on what type of game it is trying to be.

The other way is less common, but I'm currently playing Planescape: Torment, where the admittedly poor gameplay (especially for an RPG) is carried by one of the best stories and atmospheres in gaming, for example.

28 minutes ago, Iridium said:

You claim that Echoes has failed at the aspect that separates games from movies, but at least it actually has that aspect; a solid Path of Radiance playthrough can be performed by simply moving your starting unit of choice across a field and watching in awe as they invulnerably move toward the goal. If Gaiden is a standard RPG, then Path of Radiance is a feature film.

pretty true

Edited April 23, 2017 by Tryhard

[Emperor Petitt]

19 hours ago, Lyon's Dirge said:

And therein lies your problem. Fire Emblem is a TRPG not a RPG. Gaiden and Echoes fail at both. GameXplain and NintenDann saying it feels a lot like an actual traditional RPG is nothing to be happy about. 

Fire Emblem is not a tabletop role playing game. At best it is a computer turn based strategy  game with computer role playing game elements, or CTBS with CRPG elements. I find it annoying that people use TRPG to mean tactical role playing games, when from my community it means tabletop role playing games; was it too hard to put a C at the front for the people who made that acronym in the first place?

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Emperor Petitt said:

Fire Emblem is not a tabletop role playing game. At best it is a computer turn based strategy  game with computer role playing game elements, or CTBS with CRPG elements. I find it annoying that people use TRPG to mean tactical role playing games, when from my community it means tabletop role playing games; was it too hard to put a C at the front for the people who made that acronym in the first place?

tactical rpgs are called SRPGs in Japan for this reason - for strategic/simulation rpgs

[Lyon's Dirge]

12 hours ago, Iridium said:

This is an interesting remark from someone who lists their favorite game in the series as the one that practically plays itself. Pretty much every good aspect of Path of Radiance (its artwork, its music, its script, etc.) is something you've just declared to be worthless because it can be obtained online. You claim that Echoes has failed at the aspect that separates games from movies, but at least it actually has that aspect; a solid Path of Radiance playthrough can be performed by simply moving your starting unit of choice across a field and watching in awe as they invulnerably move toward the goal. If Gaiden is a standard RPG, then Path of Radiance is a feature film.

I can totally understand not being on board with Gaiden's gameplay, and if that had been all I would sympathize with you and in many respects agree, but what I cannot understand is the dissonance between the logic you use to denounce Gaiden and whatever logic your mind was employing upon deciding that Path of Radiance was the pinnacle of the series. If you're judging the games purely on a gameplay basis, with nothing else having value, then why is your favorite game arguably the only game in the series that does a better job of the non-gameplay aspects than the gameplay ones?

I apologize for making a rather below-the-belt strike here, since I ordinarily try to avoid judging people based upon their game of preference (as that sort of generalization is in rather poor taste), but in this particular case I just can't put everything together in a way that makes sense. It would be like me denouncing JRPGs for their swathes of long and unnecessary dialogue, and all the while choosing to represent myself with an avatar featuring two lecherous drunkards from Trails in the Sky.

I don't know what setting you play Path of Radiance on but I play Maniac mode. Path of Radiance's gameplay is far and away better than Gaiden's or Echoes. Second of all I never once called Path of Radiance the pinnacle of the series. Favorite does not equal best. Also, I never once declared artwork, music, or even script worthless. I implied that it wasn't worth going through Echoes to enjoy those things when the gameplay is shit and there are other means to enjoy them.