Jump to content

Best and Worst Gameplay in the Series


Armagon
 Share

Gameplay  

66 members have voted

  1. 1. Which game has the best gameplay?

    • Shadow Dragon and Blade of Light
      0
    • Gaiden
      0
    • Mystery of the Emblem
      1
    • Genealogy of the Holy War
      1
    • Thracia 776
      8
    • Binding Blade
      2
    • Blazing Blade
      2
    • Sacred Stones
      2
    • Path of Radiance
      2
    • Radiant Dawn
      9
    • Shadow Dragon
      1
    • New Mystery of the Emblem
      5
    • Awakening
      2
    • Fates (Birthright)
      0
    • Fates (Conquest)
      26
    • Fates (Revelation)
      1
    • Shadows of Valentia
      4
  2. 2. Which game has the worst gameplay?

    • Shadow Dragon and Blade of Light
      1
    • Gaiden
      14
    • Mystery of the Emblem
      0
    • Genealogy of the Holy War
      11
    • Thracia 776
      3
    • Binding Blade
      3
    • Blazing Blade
      2
    • Sacred Stones
      0
    • Path of Radiance
      1
    • Radiant Dawn
      4
    • Shadow Dragon
      4
    • New Mystery of the Emblem
      0
    • Awakening
      9
    • Fates (Birthright)
      0
    • Fates (Conquest)
      1
    • Fates (Revelation)
      10
    • Shadows of Valentia
      3


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

They're not unsaveable though. The maximum theoretical reward is impossible but you can still save the village and gain benefits. Bandits slowly burning villages puts a very tangible (and actually very generous) time limit on saving villages compared to other games. Don't think of it as you're losing something by not getting there fast enough. Think of it as getting there quicker offers higher rewards. It's not like the amount of gold possibly gained versus theoretically gained is even that big.

The thing is, in a lot of cases, you would want to get there at top speed. Which is usually impossible, given the types of enemies you have to deal with, and how much ground you have to cover. Even with horse emblem, it still takes a good 5-7 turns to get to one of the villages in later chapters. Meanwhile, the bandits start 1-3 turns away.

And just because the difference in gold isn't that big doesn't mean it's an excuse. It's still bad game design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Armagon said:

The thing is, in a lot of cases, you would want to get there at top speed. Which is usually impossible, given the types of enemies you have to deal with, and how much ground you have to cover. Even with horse emblem, it still takes a good 5-7 turns to get to one of the villages in later chapters. Meanwhile, the bandits start 1-3 turns away.

And just because the difference in gold isn't that big doesn't mean it's an excuse. It's still bad game design.

Saving the villages before they're attacked is not how the game is designed. You're judging it based on something that's not the intention. It's like if there's a time limit in one level of a game and saying the time limit is bad because you can't beat the level while the timer is still full. I understand where you're coming from, you want the maximum reward for everything, but you're viewing it through the wrong mindset. If all of the villages were salvageable before bandits even get to them then bandits burning villages would not be an aspect of the game. It might be a theoretical aspect of the game (like fatigue in Shadows of Valentia) but it would not be one in practice as most players would be able to get there in time. Having bandits burn villages slowly rises tension, gives very clear goals with clear time limits and clear stakes in the player's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Saving the villages before they're attacked is not how the game is designed.

I'm pretty sure it is, given that the reward is bigger if you save it before it's attacked.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

If all of the villages were salvageable before bandits even get to them then bandits burning villages would not be an aspect of the game.

I strongly disagree with this. Bandits burning the villages could still be an aspect of the game. But so can saving them in time, thus getting the full reward. You can have both at the same time.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Having bandits burn villages slowly rises tension, gives very clear goals with clear time limits and clear stakes in the player's actions.

If that was Kaga's intention, then he implemented it horribly. Because most of the time, it's too late by the time you get to the village. The villages are usually placed too far away, sometimes blocked off until you conquer a certain castle *cough* Ch.2 *cough*, and the bandits will usually start the chapter either on or 2-3 turns away from the villages. The very fact that some bandits start the chapter on the villages themselves is proof that this is bad game design. In those cases, there's no tension. Instead, it's just a big "fuck you" from Kaga before you even have a chance to do anything.

Edited by Armagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Armagon said:

Thing is, the game doesn't even tell you that rewards are scaling. I mean, maybe it does in the manual, but the game itself doesn't tell you. But ok, let's say that was the point of the prolouge. What about when it happens in basically every other chapter? In every chapter, there's at least one or two villages that are "unsavable". Like, in Ch.2, there's the set of villages that's impossible to save intact. Why? Because you basically have to blitz there faster than the speed of light, and even when you get there, you have to cross a forest, which is bad for horse emblem (which is what this game is based upon). Sure, Sylvia and Lewen spawn there and help a bit, but you aren't saving all those villages completely intact. There was a case in Ch.5 where there are two villages west of the starting point. And the chapter begins with bandits either near them, or on them. Thus making these villages "unsavable" as well. Unless you use cheats. I shouldn't have to be using cheats.

Now, I'm a die-hard fan of FE4 so I do end up loving most of the features of the game even though I know they're an example of bad game design, sometimes probably because they're badly design, so I'm not exactly the most impartial person, but let me ask you something: just why does that first village bother you so much? Especially when you can save it on the second turn and get only 500 less gold than you should, which isn't much. There are no "unsavable" villages in the game, only a few which you have to rush in order to get them with a couple of houses still intact and the Bargain Ring village in chapter 2 which you really have to rush with Sylvia and Lewyn, but none of that in unfair per se. The game punishes you for progressing at a slow pace and if you want to get the most benefit from villages you have to play quickly and take more risks (and not even 100% of the time, I remember having fun promoting Tiltyu in her join chapter without losing any village, so...). I never played with cheats and (almost) always managed to save all villages, and it doesn't matter how much it bugs you: money is an important part of the game and the devs (for reasons I don't know, and I'm not even saying they were right) decided to hand it to you in 5000 -X intervals (ok, I didn't word it in the best way possible, but you get my point). Nothing of it is unfair. To the player. It is unfair to, for example, infantry units, because it promotes rushing and therefore it's another factor that makes horse units even better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

but let me ask you something: just why does that first village bother you so much? Especially when you can save it on the second turn and get only 500 less gold than you should, which isn't much.

"The reward isn't that big of a deal, so why should it matter" is basically what you're asking. Just because the reward isn't that big of a deal doesn't mean it's ok to ignore. Just from a gameplay standpoint, it's bad game design, because, even if it's small, the game is punishing you before you even had the chance to do anything. Jotari compared it to FE1/11, where in Ch.1, a bandit destroys the first village before the chapter starts. There, it's different, because the player hasn't take control yet. In FE4's case, the game gives you control before the bandit starts destroying things.......but you still can't do anything about it.

2 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

There are no "unsavable" villages in the game, only a few which you have to rush in order to get them with a couple of houses still intact

You mean, most of the villages in the game? Because most of the villages in this game start out pretty far away, and there's usually a bandit nearby.

2 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

The game punishes you for progressing at a slow pace and if you want to get the most benefit from villages you have to play quickly and take more risks

The thing is, in this case, the game wants you to play as fast as possible if you want to get the best reward from the villages. And it's sometimes borderline impossible. Like in Ch.2, were the path to the villages is blocked off until you seize a certain castle. But by then, even with just exclusively using horse units, the bandits would have already made their fair way into the forest, usually just a few turns away from the villages. Leweyn and Sylvia can help save some of the villages but that's only some. There's a difference between playing quickly and playing at top-speed.

2 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

Nothing of it is unfair. To the player. It is unfair to, for example, infantry units, because it promotes rushing and therefore it's another factor that makes horse units even better. 

And who controls those infantry units? The player. Therefore, it is unfair to the player. It's true that this game promotes rushing, but it does it in a way where you, 99% of the time, have to be absolutely perfect in rushing.

Edited by Armagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Reimu Hakurei said:

FE5 was the most realistic part regarding gameplay. Capturing and dismounting absolutely work well for me. Only Fatigue needed lots of improvement because you were screwed too much by getting tons of important units busted. Echoes brought it back but made it pointless. Also no guaranteed hit and miss was an issue because it made the factor luck more important.
 

Being realistic is not by itself a positive.

16 hours ago, Armagon said:

I have to disagree. If they wanted to do that, they could've put that village farther in the chapter and give you a decent amount of time before bandits start tearing apart. So you can have a chance to save it, and if you don't, you get to see the consequences. Having it right out of the gate and "unsavable" means that, no matter what you do, it's impossible to get the best reward out of saving that first village (unless you use cheats). It's bad game design.

That's not bad game design, it's a more-or-less scripted event that introduces one of the game's mechanics to the player. You're not supposed to be able to get the best reward from it, just like you're not supposed to be able to save the north east village in Ch 1 of PoR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the real sin of the brigands starting close to the village isn't the money issue (since it's not particularly hard to obtain money in the game) but rather the pressure of having to save the villages before they burn down (because villages in this game in particular will have items that are pretty much essential) forcing you into one gameplay style where you charge into the enemy (which in turn also adds onto the horse emblem supremacy issue) and while some people might be into that I personally am not. I think punishing you for liking other playstyles that aren't reckless rushing or LTC to be... intensely boring as a design choice.

Anyway my vote for best was SoV and worst was FE4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Armagon said:

I'm pretty sure it is, given that the reward is bigger if you save it before it's attacked.

I strongly disagree with this. Bandits burning the villages could still be an aspect of the game. But so can saving them in time, thus getting the full reward. You can have both at the same time.

If that was Kaga's intention, then he implemented it horribly. Because most of the time, it's too late by the time you get to the village. The villages are usually placed too far away, sometimes blocked off until you conquer a certain castle *cough* Ch.2 *cough*, and the bandits will usually start the chapter either on or 2-3 turns away from the villages. The very fact that some bandits start the chapter on the villages themselves is proof that this is bad game design. In those cases, there's no tension. Instead, it's just a big "fuck you" from Kaga before you even have a chance to do anything.

You really don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. The tension would not be there if the bandits started further from the villages. Or it would be there but it'd be the same way it was in the previous games. IE the bandit approaching the village is what you need to stop. The Holy War method is a different method to the previous games. It's not meant to be the same thing. Saving the villages before they start burning is not the intention. It's like complaining about being unable to complete the level without losing HP.  You're meant to lose HP when you engage enemies and you're meant to lose money slowly as the turns progress. That's the way the game is designed and it works, it's good game design because you care about saving those villages and getting there as quickly as possible. There's really not much more I can say on the matter. You're response will just be "Bandits start on the villages, it sucks." It's fine if you don't particularly like that aspect of the game as Otenko points out but you not liking it doesn't make it bad design.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

You're meant to lose HP when you engage enemies and you're meant to lose money slowly as the turns progress. That's the way the game is designed and it works, it's good game design because you care about saving those villages and getting there as quickly as possible.

Then a better alternative would've been, you get the 5000 gold regardless of the number of houses lost. But if you lose all the houses in a village, then you get nothing. That way, having the best reward makes sense. Because currently, 99% of the time, you'll never get the best reward out of the villages, no matter what you do. 

That way, you can keep the tension but without the bullshit.

Edited by Armagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Most realistic??? "Only" fatigue needed improvement??? Hah! I dunno about you, but having some units nerfed to the point of near uselessness in indoor maps is pretty questionable game design, and healing staves being able to miss is frigging inexcusable.

May I ask which units come in mind?
The only one who might suffer is Fin because he can't use his hero lance.
The only issue about dismounting might be that you don't have access to lances because there's no non mounted lance user in this game iirc. But FE5's weapon triangle is nerfed compared to other parts, so it doesn't really matter.

However you get a point with missing healing staves which would make sense in FE6-10 since status affecting staves don't have guaranteed success unlike in FE5. I have no idea why just FE5 gave healing a hitrate but all the other staves not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Reimu Hakurei said:

May I ask which units come in mind?
The only one who might suffer is Fin because he can't use his hero lance.
The only issue about dismounting might be that you don't have access to lances because there's no non mounted lance user in this game iirc. But FE5's weapon triangle is nerfed compared to other parts, so it doesn't really matter.

However you get a point with missing healing staves which would make sense in FE6-10 since status affecting staves don't have guaranteed success unlike in FE5. I have no idea why just FE5 gave healing a hitrate but all the other staves not.

Dalsin after promotion and Xavier are non-mounted Lance users. Problem being Dalsin being an Axe Armor, and you have to basically promote him ASAP lock him to lances to expect a decent Lance rank by the end of the game. Another problem being they're armored units, basically meaning they just have another weakness compared to everyone else on foot with no real upside to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Armagon said:

Then a better alternative would've been, you get the 5000 gold regardless of the number of houses lost. But if you lose all the houses in a village, then you get nothing. That way, having the best reward makes sense. Because currently, 99% of the time, you'll never get the best reward out of the villages, no matter what you do. 

That way, you can keep the tension but without the bullshit.

That would remove all tension as players wouldn't be motivated at all to actually save the villages since it essentially gives them no reason to try until the village is down to it's last few houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jotari said:

That would remove all tension as players wouldn't be motivated at all to actually save the villages since it essentially gives them no reason to try until the village is down to it's last few houses.

No it wouldn't. Money is still important in this game, given that each unit has their own supply of gold, which is needed for buying and trading (i still don't know why Kaga thought replacing trading with the Pawn Shop was a good idea). There's also the fact that saving villages in FE is just instinct. Whether you're motivated or not, you always try to save the villages to get something good out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genealogy is definitely not the worst gameplay-wise when Revelation, Thracia and pre-remake Shadow Dragon and Gaiden exist.

Then again, I don’t see Heroes in the poll, so them’s the breaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vaximillian said:

Then again, I don’t see Heroes in the poll, so them’s the breaks.

I didn't put Heroes in the poll because then i would also have to put Archanea Saga and Tokyo Mirage Sessions#FE. Basically, this poll is for main series games only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Armagon said:

No it wouldn't. Money is still important in this game, given that each unit has their own supply of gold, which is needed for buying and trading (i still don't know why Kaga thought replacing trading with the Pawn Shop was a good idea). There's also the fact that saving villages in FE is just instinct. Whether you're motivated or not, you always try to save the villages to get something good out of it.

You've misunderstood me. Money is important but if the reward isn't scaled then it doesn't motivate the player to save the village. They're still going to want to save it but how rapidly they do it is irrelevant since the only house that counts is the last one. It's not pushing the player into action. A large part of good game design is about getting the player to do something specific without telling them to do it. Scaling reward encourages a fast rate of play (which you may or may not like but it's what the game is intending for the player). Giving the reward out all at once doesn't encourage the player to play any differently. They just need to save the village at some point at their own leisure. And that makes the slow burning idea irrelevant since in effect it would be the same set up as the previous games where bandits destroy the village all at once.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Vaximillian said:

Genealogy is definitely not the worst gameplay-wise when Revelation, Thracia and pre-remake Shadow Dragon and Gaiden exist.

Then again, I don’t see Heroes in the poll, so them’s the breaks.

I fail to see how Genealogy would be better than Revelation gameplay wise when all the maps are a slog to play through, as well as considering Genealogy's mechanics...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Armagon said:

"The reward isn't that big of a deal, so why should it matter" is basically what you're asking. Just because the reward isn't that big of a deal doesn't mean it's ok to ignore. Just from a gameplay standpoint, it's bad game design, because, even if it's small, the game is punishing you before you even had the chance to do anything. Jotari compared it to FE1/11, where in Ch.1, a bandit destroys the first village before the chapter starts. There, it's different, because the player hasn't take control yet. In FE4's case, the game gives you control before the bandit starts destroying things.......but you still can't do anything about it.

Yes, village money is a pretty important deal in the game. No, 500 gold in the first chapter is no big deal at all. Just why are you so attached to that first village? Also, it's you who feels the game is punishing you when you have yet to do anything. I understand it, it's what I felt too when I first started playing FE4. Thing is the game is not punishing you, you were intended not to get the full reward from that village. Regardless of how much it may bug you or any other player, it's not bad game design (per se), it was intended and you're not losing much because of it (500 gold or 1000 if you wait one more turn for some reason). 

15 hours ago, Armagon said:

You mean, most of the villages in the game? Because most of the villages in this game start out pretty far away, and there's usually a bandit nearby.

I'm sorry but I just don't know what you're talking about: in almost all of my playthroughs I was able to save all villages with at least 1000 gold left and the only really difficult ones that come to mind are the one in the top left in the first chapter (Lex has to rush it and its his tare against the bandit is iffy), the bottom left one in Chapter 1 (bumrush with Sigurd and conquer Marpha before Verdane), the Bargain ring one in ch.2 (bumrush the castle with your horsies, then Lewyn and Sylvia have no problems saving it), the bottom left one in chapter 6 (rush with Fee, might not be doable with her substitute, I have no idea how good Femina is) and the top left in Ch.7 (this is a really hard one and maybe the only unfair one because it forces you to rush Ishtore and his dangerous, I don't remember if you can rush it before seizing Ishtore's castle). As far as all the other villages are concerned, there's a couple in every chapter that you're not intended to get the full reward from, but they don't even have to be bumrushed that much.

15 hours ago, Armagon said:

The thing is, in this case, the game wants you to play as fast as possible if you want to get the best reward from the villages. And it's sometimes borderline impossible. Like in Ch.2, were the path to the villages is blocked off until you seize a certain castle. But by then, even with just exclusively using horse units, the bandits would have already made their fair way into the forest, usually just a few turns away from the villages. Leweyn and Sylvia can help save some of the villages but that's only some. There's a difference between playing quickly and playing at top-speed.

Unless you're playing at a really slow pace, the only "unsavable" village is the infamous Bargain ring village, the leftmost one: other than that, Lewyn and Sylvia can save ALL the villages with only 2 or 3 of them no longer giving you the 5000 gold. Not to sound harsh, but if in your experience Lewyn and Sylvia cannot save all the villages, then you're just not achieving the required pace. And if you meant that they can't make it so that all the villages remain untouched, then yeah, that is actually impossible. And you what? It is not unfair, it is intended, and without that saving the Bargain ring would be too easy, which is not what the devs intended. I'm not saying it's good game design, I read some interesting complaints about the way the Bargain ring is handled inn that you have to be a good player to obtain and the game is basically handing the already good players the best reward (which doesn't seem all that balanced), but I am saying none of is unfair. 

15 hours ago, Armagon said:

And who controls those infantry units? The player. Therefore, it is unfair to the player. It's true that this game promotes rushing, but it does it in a way where you, 99% of the time, have to be absolutely perfect in rushing.

What? So this is your reasoning: Wendy comes at a low level with low bases and is a lance user; right after her join chapters you venture into axeland (the FE6 island arc, can't remember how the islands are called); this is unfair to Wendy and makes her even less viable because she starts weak and she has to fight enemies sporting a serious advantage over her; who controls Wendy? The player. Therefore having an axe-heavy arc after Wendy joining is unfair to the player. Wait what?! Is that your reasoning? It's not unfair to the player, it's "unfair" to Wendy (and in this case the word unfair doesn't mean much, it's a case of bad unit balance, which I admit FE6 and FE4 absolutely share). Also, "perfect rushing"? Either you rush or you try to rush and fail getting one of your units killed. Is it difficult? Yes (at least IMHO) Is it impossible? Hell no, I wasn't capable in my first couple of playthroughs, I just had to try harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Koumal8 said:

I read some interesting complaints about the way the Bargain ring is handled inn that you have to be a good player to obtain and the game is basically handing the already good players the best reward (which doesn't seem all that balanced)

But don't good players deserve good rewards for doing good? Is it a fair complaint that bad players deserve to be able get the better endings of Mystery and Binding? Should the bonus things good players always be table scraps, with the very best stuff always being obtainable by all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

But don't good players deserve good rewards for doing good? Is it a fair complaint that bad players deserve to be able get the better endings of Mystery and Binding? Should the bonus things good players always be table scraps, with the very best stuff always being obtainable by all?

Honestly I have no idea and I'm not too interested in that kind of game design philosophy, but I think the complaint is that players doing poorly should be in some ways helped by the game and not punished and if you think about FE never really had any mechanism to compensate bad players in any way (unless we mention Shadow Dragon, its bullshit gaidens and the chance to get a weakened Falchion), and I'm not even saying FE should have one. However, if you think about it, FE6 rewards good players with a complete story and with Legendary weapons which are needed only in the last few chapters of the added chapters. Basically if you were to miss every single FE6 gaiden you wouldn't really lose much (gameplaywise, though you would definitely storywise), only additional chapters and additional weapons specifically needed for those last few chapters, both things which are not "needed" in any way by worse players and which would not make their life any easier in the game. The Bargain Ring on the other hand does make any player's life easier, regardless of how good they are, and missing out on it makes every "bad" FE4 player's life more difficult than it could potentially be. I don't know if I have explained myself clearly enough, it's just something I thought on a whim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Koumal8 said:

And if you meant that they can't make it so that all the villages remain untouched, then yeah, that is actually impossible. 

Yes, this is what i'm talking out. Why have a full reward, if you're not intended to get it 99% of the time. It's possible to save all the villages, yes. But it's impossible to save all of them intact. It shouldn't be impossible, especially since saving them intact gives you the best reward. What i suggested earlier was a better alternitive. That way, having a full reward of 5000 gold actually makes sense.

1 hour ago, Koumal8 said:

What? So this is your reasoning: Wendy comes at a low level with low bases and is a lance user; right after her join chapters you venture into axeland (the FE6 island arc, can't remember how the islands are called); this is unfair to Wendy and makes her even less viable because she starts weak and she has to fight enemies sporting a serious advantage over her; who controls Wendy? The player. Therefore having an axe-heavy arc after Wendy joining is unfair to the player. Wait what?! Is that your reasoning? It's not unfair to the player, it's "unfair" to Wendy (and in this case the word unfair doesn't mean much, it's a case of bad unit balance, which I admit FE6 and FE4 absolutely share). 

Yeah, using Wendy as an example wasn't exactly the best example, since it is a case of bad unit balance. But even then, i wouldn't say it's unfair, as the game won't punish you for not using Wendy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Yes, this is what i'm talking out. Why have a full reward, if you're not intended to get it 99% of the time. It's possible to save all the villages, yes. But it's impossible to save all of them intact. It shouldn't be impossible, especially since saving them intact gives you the best reward. What i suggested earlier was a better alternitive. That way, having a full reward of 5000 gold actually makes sense.

70% of villages in FE4 will net you the full 5000 reward unless you play at slug pace, so I don't know what you're talking about. There's 10 villages where Lewyn and Sylvia spawn and 4 or 5 bandits, each of them takes 10 turns to completely burn down a village, if you're letting them bring any village below 2500 gold reward (with the exception of the Bargain Ring village, which is the most difficult) you're playing at the wrong pace. I repeat, playing at a good pace in FE4 will let you reap the full reward from 70% of villages. Not getting it "99% of the time" is nonsense and entirely due to slow strategy and "relatively" high turn counts (I don't mean that you have to LTC, but you get my point). I already gave you the list of villages I find it hard/impossible to save without cavalry rushing: supposing I don't bumrush all the time I'm able to save every other village in the game with at least 2000 gold still left, most of them with the 5000 reward still intact while losing those few I mentioned to you. 

14 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Yeah, using Wendy as an example wasn't exactly the best example, since it is a case of bad unit balance. But even then, i wouldn't say it's unfair, as the game won't punish you for not using Wendy.

But it's exactly the same thing as in FE4 where big maps and village rushing are the main cause of bad unit balance. The environment of the game is in both cases "unfair" towards certain kinds of units (armors and infantry units respectively for FE6 and FE4), but not to the player. FE6 doesn't punish players that don't use Wendy, FE4 doesn't punish players that make appropriate use of cavalry units. FE6 is a badly designed game in that it has terrible unit balance where armors are trash, FE4 is a badly designed game in that it encourages a playstyle that makes very little use of foot units as the game proceeds. None of it is unfair to the player as it is to armors/foot units, unless said player is really keen on using armors/foot units. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

70% of villages in FE4 will net you the full 5000 reward unless you play at slug pace, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Depends on what constitutes as a "slug's pace". Because from what you're describing, FE4 basically forces you to LTC. Anything that isn't LTC would be considered a "slug's pace", am i right?

4 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

Not getting it "99% of the time" is nonsense and entirely due to slow strategy and "relatively" high turn counts (I don't mean that you have to LTC, but you get my point).

So basically, the game punishes you for preferring a different playstyle. That's pretty bad for a strategy game. A strategy is something you as the player comes up with, yet this game discourages any strategy that isn't LTC. Maybe if the maps weren't huge, this wouldn't be an issue.

4 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

supposing I don't bumrush all the time I'm able to save every other village in the game with at least 2000 gold still left, most of them with the 5000 reward still intact while losing those few I mentioned to you. 

Most, but not all. As i mentioned before, having a "best reward" and making that reward unobtainable no matter what you do is bad game design.

4 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

FE6 doesn't punish players that don't use Wendy, FE4 doesn't punish players that make appropriate use of cavalry units.

These two things are different. Wendy is one unit and there are other Armors in the game for you to use. That's why you aren't punished if you don't use Wendy. Meanwhile, FE4's basically unplayable without cavalry units. I mean, i'm sure there's a "no horse emblem" run out there but the game's already a massive slog. The lack of cavalry units would make it even worse. And also, no horse emblem=probably losing all of the villages. So not using horse emblem in FE4 will get you punished one way or another.

4 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

FE6 is a badly designed game in that it has terrible unit balance where armors are trash,

I mean, most Armors are pretty bad to begin with. In FE6, both Bors and Wendy suck, but Douglas is decent. FE4's Armors, due to how big the maps are, are probably the worst units in the game (though, to Hannibal's credit, he does have both Vantage and Great Shield). Like, the only good Armors i can think of are Douglas, General!Amelia (because she carries over her speed from when she was a Trainee), Oswin, Wallace, Effie, and Lukas (FE15). If there are any good Armors in Tellius, i can't comment on them, as i've never played Tellius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Slumber said:

Dalsin after promotion and Xavier are non-mounted Lance users. Problem being Dalsin being an Axe Armor, and you have to basically promote him ASAP lock him to lances to expect a decent Lance rank by the end of the game. Another problem being they're armored units, basically meaning they just have another weakness compared to everyone else on foot with no real upside to it. 

Oh yeah, forgot about the knights because I never recruited either of them.
Who even recruits Xavier!?


The villages in FE4 aren't really made to get the full 5000 gold every single time.
Most of them are designed in that way that you can grab the added special just in time.
 

Quote

I mean, most Armors are pretty bad to begin with. In FE6, both Bors and Wendy suck, but Douglas is decent. 

Douglas is second tier so his bases might look decent at first sight which aren't imo. He still suffers on the same problem as other knights suffer: Low movement + worst weapon types. He's the best armor knight in this game but "best" doesn't say anything right here. Still pretty bad!

 

Edited by Reimu Hakurei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...