Giant Maps!

[Jotari]

Genealogy of Holy War had massive maps. No game since has attempted to have maps that size even for a single chapter. But should that be the case? Who wants to see another game with massive maps and why? Alternatively who doesn't want to see it and why not?

[Slumber]

Just so long as they can balance it so every unit without a horse doesn't become obsolete.

[Tetragrammaton]

Foot units are not supposed to be as effective as mounted units on wide open battle fields.

They can balance it by adding more town or castle maps with many corners, which will reduce the mobility of mount units.

[Interdimensional Observer]

The large maps of Genealogy have a grandiosity, they give us a great feel for the world and that what is happening is a world war. Though for some the world is too realistic- no fantasy landscapes.

With pair up or rescue, it'd be possible to balance things more. Maybe if they added indoor battles once you conquer a castle's gates where you have to dismount too (if we went with a Genealogy approach again). Also, mount durability/fatigue.

Perhaps an open world FE would be possible. Assuming a dual screen thing, the game is almost always in giant map mode on one screen, with the other being used for other things. Some segments of the world are blocked for story progress, but otherwise you're free to explore it. Some locations marked by special dots: border fortresses, caves, certain villages, ruins, deep forests, lakes- etc. will take you to mini maps. Character events could be plentiful, you can always move your base across the world, and then you get your basic side-quests with things like defeating bandits or finding resources. Multiplayer consists in teaming up for co-op missions or challenging other players wherever they choose to wander and set up camp.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Not if it results in just twelve chapters in a game. Split each one into half the size and you've got a typical Fire Emblem. I don't really see the appeal of scrolling slowly over a map and marveling at its size. It's like gamers comparing map sizes of open world games just relax. 

I also generally have a problem with how large the maps have been getting in recent games. I don't think a chapter of Fire Emblem should be longer than an hour when playing meticulously. Especially if we're talking paralogues. This group of bandits is as large as endgame armies? Please. Now, if you're getting your game saved at the start of each player phase like in FE4, then sure, that's a solution. But I feel like that only incited me to be reckless with units. And if you want multi-layered objectives and map events just make a part 2 to the chapter that cuts off the player's ability to do base stuff.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Gustavos

[Jotari]

16 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The large maps of Genealogy have a grandiosity, they give us a great feel for the world and that what is happening is a world war. Though for some the world is too realistic- no fantasy landscapes.

With pair up or rescue, it'd be possible to balance things more. Maybe if they added indoor battles once you conquer a castle's gates where you have to dismount too (if we went with a Genealogy approach again). Also, mount durability/fatigue.

Perhaps an open world FE would be possible. Assuming a dual screen thing, the game is almost always in giant map mode on one screen, with the other being used for other things. Some segments of the world are blocked for story progress, but otherwise you're free to explore it. Some locations marked by special dots: border fortresses, caves, certain villages, ruins, deep forests, lakes- etc. will take you to mini maps. Character events could be plentiful, you can always move your base across the world, and then you get your basic side-quests with things like defeating bandits or finding resources. Multiplayer consists in teaming up for co-op missions or challenging other players wherever they choose to wander and set up camp.

Ooh I like this idea.

[Azure Sen]

Giant maps shouldn't come back. While the giant maps of Genealogy in theory are great for establishing a large-scale conflict, in practice they're just long, boring, repetitive slogs that don't add anything but tedium to the gameplay. A well-designed map shouldn't make someone feel like they've wasted time playing it, which is honestly how I felt about Genealogy after beating it.

15 minutes ago, Gustavos said:

Not if it results in just twelve chapters in a game. Split each one into half the size and you've got a typical Fire Emblem. I don't really see the appeal of scrolling slowly over a map and marveling at its size. It's like gamers comparing map sizes of open world games just relax. 

Given how big some of the map segments are, you could probably make three standard length (about 26-28 chapters) FE games out of Genealogy alone if you cut up the larger segments. And this actually brings up a complaint I have about both Genealogy's maps and modern open world games: a big map is pointless if there's nothing to do in it. Most of Genealogy's maps are just empty space with nothing of interest.

Edited April 25, 2017 by AzureSen

[Captain Karnage]

I really hate giant maps as I find them to take too long to get through, and since I dislike using savestates it's just a huge pain if a unit I like dies and I have to waste another 2 hours just to get back to where I was.

[Tetragrammaton]

12 minutes ago, AzureSen said:

Giant maps shouldn't come back. While the giant maps of Genealogy in theory are great for establishing a large-scale conflict, in practice they're just long, boring, repetitive slogs that don't add anything but tedium to the gameplay. A well-designed map shouldn't make someone feel like they've wasted time playing it, which is honestly how I felt about Genealogy after beating it.

Given how big some of the map segments are, you could probably make three standard length (about 26-28 chapters) FE games out of Genealogy alone if you cut up the larger segments. And this actually brings up a complaint I have about both Genealogy's maps and modern open world games: a big map is pointless if there's nothing to do in it. Most of Genealogy's maps are just empty space with nothing of interest.

Enemies back stabbing your base while your full force wrecking enemy lair is something small map chapter cannot provide

12 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

I really hate giant maps as I find them to take too long to get through, and since I dislike using savestates it's just a huge pain if a unit I like dies and I have to waste another 2 hours just to get back to where I was.

2 hours? FE4 doesn't have that nonsense feature.

Edited April 25, 2017 by hanhnn

[Lyrai]

I personally disagree that the giant maps of Genealogy should come back. It's very tedious, and foot units are at a disadvantage here. There's not really much space for the foot units to be relevant, and there are just too many cavalry units.

Although it's the most realistic depiction of a "warzone", RTS games fit it more than this game. I prefer the usual way, but due to how Genealogy's story unfolds, it can be questionable on how to deliver a remake that way, although they can remake the story Thracia 776 style.

[Refa]

1 hour ago, Lyrai said:

I personally disagree that the giant maps of Genealogy should come back. It's very tedious, and foot units are at a disadvantage here. There's not really much space for the foot units to be relevant, and there are just too many cavalry units.

Although it's the most realistic depiction of a "warzone", RTS games fit it more than this game. I prefer the usual way, but due to how Genealogy's story unfolds, it can be questionable on how to deliver a remake that way, although they can remake the story Thracia 776 style.

It'd be very easy to make foot units more relevant in Genealogy.  First, you'd nerf all mounted move by 1.  Second, you'd make it so that only foot units benefit from road tile bonuses.  This makes them about as relevant (if not more) as foot units from every other FE game.  The point I'm making here is that you could have huge maps without having poorly balanced foot units like FE4.

2 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The large maps of Genealogy have a grandiosity, they give us a great feel for the world and that what is happening is a world war. Though for some the world is too realistic- no fantasy landscapes.

With pair up or rescue, it'd be possible to balance things more. Maybe if they added indoor battles once you conquer a castle's gates where you have to dismount too (if we went with a Genealogy approach again). Also, mount durability/fatigue.

Perhaps an open world FE would be possible. Assuming a dual screen thing, the game is almost always in giant map mode on one screen, with the other being used for other things. Some segments of the world are blocked for story progress, but otherwise you're free to explore it. Some locations marked by special dots: border fortresses, caves, certain villages, ruins, deep forests, lakes- etc. will take you to mini maps. Character events could be plentiful, you can always move your base across the world, and then you get your basic side-quests with things like defeating bandits or finding resources. Multiplayer consists in teaming up for co-op missions or challenging other players wherever they choose to wander and set up camp.

Depending on the actual execution, I would be interested in this.

[Vaximillian]

IfWhen they remake Genealogy, its signature huge maps should remain intact. It's the feeling of a massive war across whole nations that really works wonders for this game. For the others, I've no opinion.

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

I really hate giant maps as I find them to take too long to get through, and since I dislike using savestates it's just a huge pain if a unit I like dies and I have to waste another 2 hours just to get back to where I was.

FE4 let's you save at the start of every turn (before you move any units).

2 hours ago, Refa said:

It'd be very easy to make foot units more relevant in Genealogy.  First, you'd nerf all mounted move by 1.  Second, you'd make it so that only foot units benefit from road tile bonuses.  This makes them about as relevant (if not more) as foot units from every other FE game.  The point I'm making here is that you could have huge maps without having poorly balanced foot units like FE4.

Depending on the actual execution, I would be interested in this.

Also implementing Thracia's movement stars but only on foot units could be a massive boon.

[Shadow Mir]

Hell naw. Oversized maps add nothing to the gameplay (it sure feels weird when you spend at least 3 or 4 turns with nothing but empty movement before one side starts trying to beat the stuffing out of the other), and only serve to make the game a tedious slog. And honestly, if a map takes about 2 hours to beat and you're not turtling, it's obvious there's a big problem.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Jotari]

2 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Hell naw. Oversized maps don't really contribute to the gameplay (it sure feels weird when you spend at least 3 or 4 turns with nothing but empty movement before one side starts trying to beat the stuffing out of the other), and only serve to make the game a tedious slog. And honestly, if a map takes about 2 hours to beat and you're not turtling, it's obvious there's a big problem.

I don't think that logic holds true. Consider the inverse, if a map takes two minutes to beat then there's obviously a problem. Except a lot of early maps in the series do serve as tutorials and can be beaten in under five minutes relatively easily. If a map can continue to provide entertainment and engaging game play for two hours then I don't see an inherent flaw there (of course making it so a map is designed to be that long while still be fun is probably incredibly difficult).

[Shadow Mir]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

I don't think that logic holds true. Consider the inverse, if a map takes two minutes to beat then there's obviously a problem. Except a lot of early maps in the series do serve as tutorials and can be beaten in under five minutes relatively easily. If a map can continue to provide entertainment and engaging game play for two hours then I don't see an inherent flaw there (of course making it so a map is designed to be that long while still be fun is probably incredibly difficult).

Maybe, but honestly, if a map takes that long to beat, there's a very good chance I'd start to lose interest in the game..

4 hours ago, hanhnn said:

Enemies back stabbing your base while your full force wrecking enemy lair is something small map chapter cannot provide

That kind of stuff works in, say, Warriors games, not so much for FE. I dunno about you, but I'd likely find it incredibly frustrating unless I knew about it beforehand.

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Maybe, but honestly, if a map takes that long to beat, there's a very good chance I'd start to lose interest in the game..

That kind of stuff works in, say, Warriors games, not so much for FE. I dunno about you, but I'd likely find it incredibly frustrating unless I knew about it beforehand.

I don't think most people would if the chapter provided continuous plot throughout that makes goals with peaks and troughs in the action. Consider Fire Emblem 4 is maybe a 20-25 hour game, about the same as the short to medium length games in the series. There's no real reason a player should be losing interest with that many hours of play. In the grand scheme of things the little screen showing up with the name of the chapter is the only thing you're actually loosing and that shouldn't really count for much.

[Shadow Mir]

15 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't think most people would if the chapter provided continuous plot throughout that makes goals with peaks and troughs in the action. Consider Fire Emblem 4 is maybe a 20-25 hour game, about the same as the short to medium length games in the series. There's no real reason a player should be losing interest with that many hours of play. In the grand scheme of things the little screen showing up with the name of the chapter is the only thing you're actually loosing and that shouldn't really count for much.

I don't know about you, but I'd find it hard to be immersed in FE4's plot when the gameplay is so ho-hum.

[Tolvir]

Yes? Maybe? It all depends on how it is done. As others said, they need to be more balanced. A lot more balanced. I like the feel of the war like map that it gives, but I would rather all my units be useful rather than my mounted ones getting the most attention. As it is mounted units already have a lot of advantages over nonmounted in FE anyway.

I would also like for not all of the maps to be this large. Make them that way for "special" maps. Endgame maps, or ones with a reason to be that large. And dont make it to where it chops the typical amount of FE chapters in half either. Fire Emblem games are already pretty short as it is.

I would also love to see a really large city, and even a really large indoor map. I think that would be a lot of fun, and give the nonmounted units an advantage over the mounted ones for once. Can you imagine a city map where you can place units on top of buildings, or go inside of them, etc? Complete with the elevation bonuses from Tellius.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Tolvir

[Refa]

Man, I'd really love it if a game of this nature had towns that you could explore.

[Interdimensional Observer]

3 minutes ago, Refa said:

Man, I'd really love it if a game of this nature had towns that you could explore.

I'm envisioning Begnion's capital Sienne- it gives off the impression of being pretty big from the CGs. Just imagine trying to defend something like that. Like four gates or something where the enemies are invading from. The main city roads are maneuverable enough, but not really defensible; while the many narrow alleyways are good for defending, but bad for rushing from one quadrant to another. Add bonus objectives so we're encouraged to protect more than just the heart of the city, and we've got a frantic defense chapter. And if we want to do a seize, the challenge becomes catching the fleeing leader before they escape.

[Refa]

Just now, Interdimensional Observer said:

I'm envisioning Begnion's capital Sienne- it gives off the impression of being pretty big from the CGs. Just imagine trying to defend something like that. Like four gates or something where the enemies are invading from. The main city roads are maneuverable enough, but not really defensible; while the many narrow alleyways are good for defending, but bad for rushing from one quadrant to another. Add bonus objectives so we're encouraged to protect more than just the heart of the city, and we've got a frantic defense chapter. And if we want to do a seize, the challenge becomes catching the fleeing leader before they escape.

That's definitely a cool idea in its own right, but I moreso meant like RPG towns that could help with the world building.  Well, they could probably do both!

[Interdimensional Observer]

That is wonderful too, I guess I got caught up in a love for valor.

I'm reminded of Chapter 8 in XBCX- the NLA you've grown to love is suddenly brought under attack. The streets you normally roam without fear of battle and in search of friendly NPCs becomes hell on Mira for a sweet half hour of gameplay. And when the carnage is said and done, you have some little artifacts of the clash lingering in the city.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Interdimensional Observer

[Armagon]

No giant maps for me. That being said, i do want to see multiple castle conquering return. A chapter in FE7 Hector Mode did it and the map wasn't that big, compared to FE4's maps.

[Florete]

I wouldn't mind seeing it with a few requirements:

1. Use them. Genealogy usually felt like multiple small battles spliced together rather than one big battle. If they're going to have big maps, make it a truly big battle.

2. Offer a reasonable way to save in the middle, like what Genealogy already offers.

3. Make sure foot units aren't obsolete.