Mandokarla

Should Reclassing Return / Unit Identity

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kammaru said:

And now it has changed. It had fifteen years to get better and it almost completely died as a franchise. If what it is evolving into, is not your cup of tea, then it's just not. That's unfortunately the way of adulting as we go. I think it's very evident that they don't want to lose the old fans, but frankly, the old fans aren't enough to push the franchise into the future. So if the features like re-classing  are being well received by the new fans, then it's most likely what is going to happen. 

What is Unit Identity? Why is their class seemingly all of their identity? I don't think class has anything to do with the identity of the character, it's just the job you ask them to do on the battlefield. This concept hearkens back to original red-box Dungeons and Dragons where there were no classes, there was just Elf, Dwarf, Wizard etc. I remember playing games like Shining Force where options were very limited and loving it, but I also remember wanting to change it up and have the respective roles change from time to time just because.

I'm gonna be 100% honest here. In a post-Awakening world, I'm reasonably positive that a majority of the new Fire Emblem Fanbase couldn't give two fucks about the gameplay and are mostly in it for the waifu/husbando pairing. 

Look at Shadows of Valentina reviews. Most of the reviews I saw complained about things like not being able to hook up an underage priestess with a gruff pirate twice her age, not that said gruff pirate couldn't prance around in a tunic and throw fireballs(Without DLC or Dreadfighter looping at least). 

For the actual gameplay complaints that were there, most were pretty divorced from reclassing. Most knocks against SoV were things like dungeons not being all that fleshed out, maps and objectives being really dull, and a limited selection of total playable classes, NOT that you couldn't freely swap between classes. 

I really, really doubt that anyone besides the really hardcore players even play around with reclassing all that much, and I don't think those people make up that much of the new Fire Emblem crowd. It's likely either older FE fans who do have an inherent desire to play around with new FE mechanics(Whether they like them or not) or new players who got hooked on things that weren't reclassing and wanted to know all they could about the games. And between those, I wouldn't argue one was bigger than the other. 

Hell, a complaint I saw for SoV that I'm pretty positive is waaaaay more central to a lot of new players' enjoyment than reclassing is an Avatar. I saw a lot of reviews mention that it's disappointing that there wasn't a My Unit, but that they understood since it was a remake. 

If you got rid of reclassing and kept an Avatar unit(That would be the only unit that you could reclass), I don't even think most of the new FE Fanbase would even notice anything had changed. 

And classes add a lot to do with unit identity. What's Effie as a unit? You can't say shit about her specifically beyond maybe that she has a high strength growth. She's a Knight who can reclass into a Troubadour. She has two classes on wildly different ends of the spectrum that don't even really rely on her main stat. Knight gets more out of it, but that's generally not why you want a Knight and you don't even really need anything to be a solid healer. She's just kind of a blur and will just function kind of alright in either class set. But you can turn other units into these things and they'll probably be fine as them, too. 

Now what can you say about Gwendolyn in FE6? I mean, it will all be negative, but you can say an awful lot about her as a unit based on her class, and her in her class relative to Bors, Barthe and Douglas. She probably leaves much more of an impression on most people as a unit than Effie does. Regardless of if a unit is good or bad in the pre-Awakening games, there's almost always something pertaining to their class that gets said when people talk about them. Whole archetypes are built around unit identity. 

The skill and class-centric style of the newer games mutes this a lot. If there is unit identity, a lot more of it seems to be tied to what a unit can't do or what a unit isn't, which usually ends up being a much broader defining process. "This unit isnt this, this or this and they can't do this or this because they don't have access to this or this". It's a lot harder to nail down what exactly a unit is. I've played all 3 paths of Fates and Conquest twice and I can't say jackshit about Silas as a unit beyond just the classes/skills he has access to. I don't know what makes any of the Butler/Maids all that different from one another besides when they show up. 

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

ook at Shadows of Valentina reviews. Most of the reviews I saw complained about things like not being able to hook up an underage priestess with a gruff pirate twice her age, not that said gruff pirate couldn't prance around in a tunic and throw fireballs(Without DLC or Dreadfighter looping at least). 

Possibly, but a few random posts are about as valid as my previous correlation on any qualitative level of analysis. Which is to say, merely speculative. However Echoes had very little re-classing options, mostly three pitchforks and Rom-hacking after that. Though there was the Villager class, however the idea of a trainee class has been in FE for a while now. Also since Echoes is a re-make, I don't really relate it to this particular topic.

Quote

If you got rid of reclassing and kept an Avatar unit(That would be the only unit that you could reclass), I don't even think most of the new FE Fanbase would even notice anything had changed. 

Maybe, maybe not. We can't really argue that in any way. Only IS has those kinds of numbers. I would say it's something that's been put in, and stayed in, so it seems like they think it's integral in some way to the new games. 

Quote

Now what can you say about Gwendolyn in FE6? I mean, it will all be negative, but you can say an awful lot about her as a unit based on her class. She probably leaves much more of an impression on most people as a unit than Effie does. Regardless of if a unit is good or bad in the pre-Awakening games, there's almost always something pertaining to their class that gets said when people talk about them. Whole archetypes are built around unit identity. 

What good is an impression if it's just that the unit is bad and you don't want to waste your time with it? I usually spend time building up every unit if possible, which in recent installments with DLC packages etc, it is. I never got out of the previous games all this Unit Identity stuff, they were good or bad based on their effectiveness and that's about it. Having more options and resources allows you to pick and choose what you want or what fits best for the terrain. Otherwise it's more like simulated Chess than a strategic RPG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kammaru said:

See, I don't think limiting choice makes for great game mechanics. I think it makes it what it is, limited and rigid. It doesn't make me think any more or develop new strategies, honestly the classes aren't different enough for that. The changing of character classes is mostly aesthetics and desire based on head-cannon or optimization. If the character isn't good or serves naught the purpose I intend, then I just don't use them. If I play it again, I'll just remember to not recruit them and waste the exp, but if I can change them, then maybe I would use the unit.  

The games with rigid structure do nothing to take me out of my comfort zone either. I can beat them with those limited units just as easily as I could without, but that isn't the point of playing the game, is it? This isn't a competition, it's about utility and in this case utility is based on enjoyment. What you enjoy and what I enjoy may be different, and in fact it seems that it most likely is, but why should how you derive your entertainment be a hindrance to mine and vice versa?

As for playing the same save over and over again, I don't agree with what you say. I've played dozens of different times through Fates and Awakening, and I am quite sure that since Fates is the best selling FE game to date, that others have as well. 

So if you like more options, would you enjoy it if every character in the game had no class? They all came with E weapon proficiency in all weapon types but could use all weapon types, given you the opportunity to turn any character into any type of unit you desire? Let's take it one step further and remove growths, instead, every time a unit levels up you'd get three stat points to spend so you have complete control over whether a unit is gaining points in strength or speed etc. Character aesthetic could come in the form of a large variety of different costumes you can equip to each unit. I don't think that would be a particularly bad system, but I also think it gradually resembles what Fire Emblem is less and less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So if you like more options, would you enjoy it if every character in the game had no class? They all came with E weapon proficiency in all weapon types but could use all weapon types, given you the opportunity to turn any character into any type of unit you desire? Let's take it one step further and remove growths, instead, every time a unit levels up you'd get three stat points to spend so you have complete control over whether a unit is gaining points in strength or speed etc. Character aesthetic could come in the form of a large variety of different costumes you can equip to each unit. I don't think that would be a particularly bad system, but I also think it gradually resembles what Fire Emblem is less and less.

I think that sounds like a fun system. Something like Final Fantasy Tactics job system. I don't hold onto any idea of what Fire Emblem is. I just always found the fantasy based Strategy RPG's to be my jam. I honestly don't care which way they go, I'll be able to do what I want either way. I still don't see the point of arguing against re-classing though, if it's optional, then you just don't use it, and keep your party the way it's initially conceived, thus you as a player would still have the game you wanted. So why argue against it? To me, having more people play the game, grow the franchise and make it stronger, seems like the best way to be. If that's re-classing, waifu's and avatars then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Kammaru said:

I think that sounds like a fun system. Something like Final Fantasy Tactics job system. I don't hold onto any idea of what Fire Emblem is. I just always found the fantasy based Strategy RPG's to be my jam. I honestly don't care which way they go, I'll be able to do what I want either way. I still don't see the point of arguing against re-classing though, if it's optional, then you just don't use it, and keep your party the way it's initially conceived, thus you as a player would still have the game you wanted. So why argue against it? To me, having more people play the game, grow the franchise and make it stronger, seems like the best way to be. If that's re-classing, waifu's and avatars then so be it.

Because there's no such thing as it being just there. If it's exist, then the game is built around it existing. If it isn't, then it's just poor game design. The only way reclassing can be implemented without making it a core aspect is if it's a fun bonuses DLC thing like in Shadows of Valentia. But to have wide spread reclassing like in Awakening, then the game needs to be built knowing the player can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Slumber said:

Somebody said this earlier, and I agree with it 100%. In Awakening and Fates, additions like reclassing doesn't add replayability. It just makes you want to never stop playing the same save file. Which is why I have a 100 hour+ Awakening playthrough and one file each in Rev/BR/CQ that I'll never delete, permanently eating up a slot. 

I said this earlier, but I find it quite hard to agree with this - at least in the context of Fates, where there is very little (I would say none outright) reason to continue playing a file which you already finished.

6 hours ago, Slumber said:

Unit identity is largely gone and it really doesn't matter who you use anymore, as basically anyone can do anything.

 I would agree if you were specifically talking about the DS games, where reclassing reduced units to little more than stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partly a lot of what I struggle with in the more recent games like Awakening and Fates is that character's identity *is* based on their class in a large part. For example, a lot of Owain's conversations discuss his "sword hand", but he seems like even more of a rambling idiot if He's not even in a class that wields swords. Effie's whole character is based around her strength, but why is she putting so much effort in to strength training when, as a Troubador, for example, she doesn't even need strength in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AsherCrane said:

Partly a lot of what I struggle with in the more recent games like Awakening and Fates is that character's identity *is* based on their class in a large part. For example, a lot of Owain's conversations discuss his "sword hand", but he seems like even more of a rambling idiot if He's not even in a class that wields swords. Effie's whole character is based around her strength, but why is she putting so much effort in to strength training when, as a Troubador, for example, she doesn't even need strength in the first place?

I mean it's just optional fluff that doesn't effect the overall characters especially people who like random lockes. Some people are looking WAY to deep into this which you really shouldn't. Many JRPGs have a job changing system which is up to the players if they want to use it or not just like any optional feature in games FE ain't new to it as well shouldn't be a big deal.

Edited by Blade Lord Lyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Blade Lord Lyn said:

I mean it's just optional fluff that doesn't effect the overall characters especially people who like random lockes. Some people are looking WAY to deep into this which you really shouldn't. Many JRPGs have a job changing system which is up to the players if they want to use it or not just like any optional feature in games FE ain't new to it as well shouldn't be a big deal.

 

As @Jotari mentioned, if it's in the game, then the game is built around it being there. You're now asking me to just pretend a core feature of the game doesn't exist. The game will keep tossing Friend and Heart seals at me, and encouraging me to reclass.

It's just that easy, right? Just ignore it! Yeah. Okay. 

The people who don't like the kid units in Fates shouldn't complain, either. Just pretend the kids aren't there. 

I'd rather argue about how the system could work better, or argue whether the feature even really has a place in the series, which is the point of this thread. Do I want it back, and if so, how should it come back? Or is it even worth it for it to come back? 

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is unit identity in this series exactly?  Serious question.  What I’m reading in this thread I always thought of as character identity, not unit identity.  When I read the words ‘unit identity’ it makes me think of Pokemon or DOTA 2.  Things like Sweepers, Gankers, Tanks, Walls, and hours in front of a monitor comparing stat sheets and possible builds.  In my opinion, Fire Emblem is nowhere near that kind of meta (unless I'm that out of the loop) and class alone is pretty shallow in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spoiler Alert said:

What is unit identity in this series exactly?  Serious question.  What I’m reading in this thread I always thought of as character identity, not unit identity.  When I read the words ‘unit identity’ it makes me think of Pokemon or DOTA 2.  Things like Sweepers, Gankers, Tanks, Walls, and hours in front of a monitor comparing stat sheets and possible builds.  In my opinion, Fire Emblem is nowhere near that kind of meta (unless I'm that out of the loop) and class alone is pretty shallow in that case.

Think of the unit archetypes. 

Jeigans have unit identities. They have better bases than most units at the start of the game, they're usually pretty all around mediocre in the grand scheme of things, and their growths suck, so they fall off pretty quickly(Unless you're LTCing or doing stuff like 0 growth runs). But you get a Jeigan, and you generally know how/when they're going to be used.

Or the Christmas Knights and the Bord/Cord fighters. 

As broad examples, these are units who follow archetypes that more or less dictate how you use these units. Each of them play differently within the same defined classes and roles. Your Green Christmas Knight will be fast and your Red one will be strong. Similarly, your Cord Fighter will be fast, your Bord Fighter will be beefy and strong. And usually within these restrictions, nobody else will really take a role away from the unit. You generally won't get another Knight or Paladin that out does your Red Christmas Knight in the things your Red Christmas Knight does. And it was like this alllll the way back to FE1 where these kinds of archetypes were set. What I hit on here were just these broad archetypes. Generally, every single unit in the FE1-10 games have something they do better than their peers, or some kind of selling point, regardless of whether or not that thing they do is apparently useful by comparison. 

And the argument is now, that this kind of identity doesn't exist anymore. The focus is now more on what classes your units have access to/don't have access to, and what skills they can/can't get. There's more of a meta-identity outside of the moment to moment gameplay that has taken over and defines characters now. Whereas it used to be "Oh is this the right unit for the job at this moment?", now it's more "Oh, what can I do to make this unit good at everything down the road?", and the latter tends to be a lot more same-y in the long run when you're just reclassing everyone into their best jobs with their best skills, which is why people are saying unit identity is "gone". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Slumber said:

Might be the better way to go about it. Make reclassing a DLC thing. 

And honestly, as much as I harp on the game, I think Sacred Stones did best with the villager/trainee concept*. Amelia, Ross and Ewan all still had some level of unit identity while still being flexible with their class choices. If they had a handful of villagers/trainees like that in the next FE, I wouldn't complain.

*except the part where Amelia and Ewan were dogshit, and Ross was at best just okay. Obviously giving villagers bases that allowed them to be used right off the bat, and growths that encouraged use would go a long way. 

If the next FE has a "villager" branch for every set of classes, then pitchforks that reclasses every character into their base villager class might be fun. AND it wouldn't completely destroy unit identity. 

I came up with a concept a while back of splitting "Villagers" into several subclasses, that way you can keep certain characters in a class type. For example you would have an Apprentice/Acolyte subtype that could go into Mage, Dark Mage, Priest. Or you have a Squire subtype that can go into Cavalier, Knight, Pegasus Knight. Villager that can go into Rogue, Warrior, Archer. Stuff like that. It keeps a character in a class range they could fit and doesnt throw away identity, while giving the player control over how they can grow their characters.

I think player control over how their army and characters change, and keeping character identity are important aspects to the game. Trainee types are probably the best way to do it without causing the breaking of identity like we had in 3DS/DS era. And with that concept, you could always throw out a few DLC items no different thank the Pitchfork that allows players to put someone into other trainee classes. So Squire's Banner, Apprentice's Manual, Pitchfork, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think player control over how their army and characters change, and keeping character identity are important aspects to the game. Trainee types are probably the best way to do it without causing the breaking of identity like we had in 3DS/DS era. And with that concept, you could always throw out a few DLC items no different thank the Pitchfork that allows players to put someone into other trainee classes. So Squire's Banner, Apprentice's Manual, Pitchfork, etc.

Hmm, I could get behind this and it is a compromise, which is something I am more than fine with. One thing I found a bit irksome in Echoes is that the female units have no ability to loop like the dread-warriors. I also feel as though in the translation some of the lore behind each class is being lost, though I know that has little to do with what is being discussed now, it's something that passes my mind thinking of the change from Myrmidon to Dread Warrior. Also a personal issue with me for units is in the new games, I find little use for cavalry units other than more movement..which is both a boon and a curse, because it only means you can either outrun your support and get yourself into trouble or just have wasted movement. Though I think they tried to help some of this with pairing up etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Slumber said:

 

As @Jotari mentioned, if it's in the game, then the game is built around it being there. You're now asking me to just pretend a core feature of the game doesn't exist. The game will keep tossing Friend and Heart seals at me, and encouraging me to reclass.

It's just that easy, right? Just ignore it! Yeah. Okay. 

The people who don't like the kid units in Fates shouldn't complain, either. Just pretend the kids aren't there. 

I'd rather argue about how the system could work better, or argue whether the feature even really has a place in the series, which is the point of this thread. Do I want it back, and if so, how should it come back? Or is it even worth it for it to come back? 

You clearly don't get it... just because YOU don't want it doesn't mean it should not be in especially if alot of others do want it and FE isn't special since as I already said this is a (strategy)JRPG and as a couple others has features like and isn't a big deal or interfering and built for those that actually want a different way of experiencing different units. Your also proving my point of someone taking a mechanic you don't have to use while others can very seriously for no reason....

Edited by Blade Lord Lyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blade Lord Lyn said:

You clearly don't get it... just because YOU don't want it doesn't mean it should not be in especially if alot of others do want it and FE isn't special since as I already said this is a (strategy)JRPG and as a couple others has features like and isn't a big deal or interfering and built for those that actually want a different way of experiencing different units. Your also proving my point of someone taking a mechanic you don't have to use while others can very seriously for no reason....

You clearly don't get it... just because YOU want it doesn't mean it should be in if a lot of others don't want it blah blah blah. 

This argument two way street. It's why this thread exists. I've seen you post in other threads, and most of the time, you base your posts on "Well, they're in the games right now and the games are selling better than ever, so obviously IS is going to keep doing it". The cynical side of me agrees, but I don't want to be cynical about it, because that really isn't a way to drive any sort of conversation. If all talks about what FE Switch began and ended with "They'll just keep doing the exact same things.", this section would die out quickly until we actually got information on the game. But we have nothing, and I, along with others who don't see the Fateswakening style of FE games as the ultimate form of Fire Emblem, want to talk about what I want the series to be, which is why we're here. I'm not posting in these threads expecting IS to see them and go "Yeah, let's do everything this guy says".

Yeah, other SRPG series have reclassing. You say Fire Emblem isn't special, but this is actually part of what made Fire Emblem special where you couldn't. Once Fire Emblem Tactics came around, every big SRPG I can think of has had reclassing, while, up until SD, Fire Emblem didn't. The units you got were static and they had pretty clearly defined roles. 

If your argument is that Fire Emblem having features that other SRPGs have isn't a problem, then Fire Emblem should just be Disgaea, with a million features and basically 0 balance or long term strategy to it. I'll keep picking on Disgaea because it's what Fire Emblem COULD become. A game with basically no gameplay identity beyond figuring the best way to break it and meta-gaming around the best way to grind so you could see big numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Slumber said:

Think of the unit archetypes. 

Jeigans have unit identities. They have better bases than most units at the start of the game, they're usually pretty all around mediocre in the grand scheme of things, and their growths suck, so they fall off pretty quickly(Unless you're LTCing or doing stuff like 0 growth runs). But you get a Jeigan, and you generally know how/when they're going to be used.

Or the Christmas Knights and the Bord/Cord fighters. 

As broad examples, these are units who follow archetypes that more or less dictate how you use these units. Each of them play differently within the same defined classes and roles. Your Green Christmas Knight will be fast and your Red one will be strong. Similarly, your Cord Fighter will be fast, your Bord Fighter will be beefy and strong. And usually within these restrictions, nobody else will really take a role away from the unit. You generally won't get another Knight or Paladin that out does your Red Christmas Knight in the things your Red Christmas Knight does. And it was like this alllll the way back to FE1 where these kinds of archetypes were set. What I hit on here were just these broad archetypes. Generally, every single unit in the FE1-10 games have something they do better than their peers, or some kind of selling point, regardless of whether or not that thing they do is apparently useful by comparison. 

And the argument is now, that this kind of identity doesn't exist anymore. The focus is now more on what classes your units have access to/don't have access to, and what skills they can/can't get. There's more of a meta-identity outside of the moment to moment gameplay that has taken over and defines characters now. Whereas it used to be "Oh is this the right unit for the job at this moment?", now it's more "Oh, what can I do to make this unit good at everything down the road?", and the latter tends to be a lot more same-y in the long run when you're just reclassing everyone into their best jobs with their best skills, which is why people are saying unit identity is "gone". 

This is just me, but if I may be honest, bringing up archetypes doesn't really mean much these days since with the exceptions of the obvious ones, most archetypes are little more than a distant memory... like the Bord and Cord archetypes you mentioned. The last time those could claim to be a thing was in Blazing Blade, which was released in 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Slumber said:

Once Fire Emblem Tactics came around, every big SRPG I can think of has had reclassing, while, up until SD, Fire Emblem didn't. The units you got were static and they had pretty clearly defined roles.

Is this really a feature? It's almost like saying that a store with limited selection is 'nuanced' or 'charming'. Why not just play battle chess if limited and defined roles is what makes or breaks the game? That having been said, what compromises would you be willing to live with? Because that's really what moves us forward, compromise, a little give and take etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, most players (like me and many reviewers) complaining about SoV's lack of supports/marriages/child units/avatars were more or less confused to see such a heavily ingrained series of features included in the previous two games vanish with nothing to really replace it. We got used to having them.

You can also take the fact you don't see complaints on the lack of reclassing in SoV being the result of most reviewers and players enjoying the system SoV uses instead. I'd instead theorize SoV did comparatively badly because SoV was too authentic a remake of a game in a series that made multitudes of gameplay changes and improvements. Basic stuff like map design were really bad becuase they hadn't bothered to redesign them from the NES versions.

And yes, it's just the way of things. SoV didn't even sell poorly, it just didn't sell as well as Fates or Awakening, and Gaiden was already accepted as an oddball in the series before SoV gave it a pretty coat of paint.

Also, the complaint that most FE fans nowadays play solely for waifu/husbando stuff is shockingly short sighted and ignores the fact that supports were a fundamental part of Awakening's and Fates' combat, and needed to be utilized as a layer of strategy. You needed to work on pair-ups to gain advantageous stat boosts. It was a basic part of the game even subtracting all the dialogue bits. (Which was completely missing from SoV save for much tinier, sparser dialogue bits.)

Also, avatars by their nature of being partly designed by players endears them to said players. It isn't required, but it's an easy way to get your player invested the moment they load in. 

Most examples you put forward are just statements on how restrictive the older games were, and I just don't see how it's more fun to be forced to use a "hot garbage" unit with no means to improve them than it is to fully customize a unit and see the affect it has on your battles. 

Also, I have so many Awakening files from different avatar and army builds. That is one thing that I dislike about Corrin being the main lord and avatar compared to Robin; The Yato being exclusive to Corrin and as powerful as it is meant I was nerfing myself one way or another if I wanted Corrin to be anything but a sword class, but Robin had no such caveat as the My Unit ...and basically all my fav classes don't use swords.

 

Edited by Altrosa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I just like the simplistic nature of a unit with a class and his own stats, growths, etc. and building the game around a bunch of units like that and none of the meta game nonsense that all the reclassify and skills brought about. I wasn’t the biggest fan of conquest because it felt like the game was almost impossible without using reclassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slumber said:

You clearly don't get it... just because YOU want it doesn't mean it should be in if a lot of others don't want it blah blah blah. 

This argument two way street. It's why this thread exists. I've seen you post in other threads, and most of the time, you base your posts on "Well, they're in the games right now and the games are selling better than ever, so obviously IS is going to keep doing it". The cynical side of me agrees, but I don't want to be cynical about it, because that really isn't a way to drive any sort of conversation. If all talks about what FE Switch began and ended with "They'll just keep doing the exact same things.", this section would die out quickly until we actually got information on the game. But we have nothing, and I, along with others who don't see the Fateswakening style of FE games as the ultimate form of Fire Emblem, want to talk about what I want the series to be, which is why we're here. I'm not posting in these threads expecting IS to see them and go "Yeah, let's do everything this guy says".

Seeing other opinions is hard in this fanbase for some people.

I'm getting """Staahp Complaining Elitists!!!""" flashbacks already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess? I don't really care either way whether reclassing stays or goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

Also, most players (like me and many reviewers) complaining about SoV's lack of supports/marriages/child units/avatars were more or less confused to see such a heavily ingrained series of features included in the previous two games vanish with nothing to really replace it. We got used to having them.

You can also take the fact you don't see complaints on the lack of reclassing in SoV being the result of most reviewers and players enjoying the system SoV uses instead. I'd instead theorize SoV did comparatively badly because SoV was too authentic a remake of a game in a series that made multitudes of gameplay changes and improvements. Basic stuff like map design were really bad becuase they hadn't bothered to redesign them from the NES versions.

And yes, it's just the way of things. SoV didn't even sell poorly, it just didn't sell as well as Fates or Awakening, and Gaiden was already accepted as an oddball in the series before SoV gave it a pretty coat of paint.

Also, the complaint that most FE fans nowadays play solely for waifu/husbando stuff is shockingly short sighted and ignores the fact that supports were a fundamental part of Awakening's and Fates' combat, and needed to be utilized as a layer of strategy. You needed to work on pair-ups to gain advantageous stat boosts. It was a basic part of the game even subtracting all the dialogue bits. (Which was completely missing from SoV save for much tinier, sparser dialogue bits.)

Also, avatars by their nature of being partly designed by players endears them to said players. It isn't required, but it's an easy way to get your player invested the moment they load in. 

Most examples you put forward are just statements on how restrictive the older games were, and I just don't see how it's more fun to be forced to use a "hot garbage" unit with no means to improve them than it is to fully customize a unit and see the affect it has on your battles. 

Also, I have so many Awakening files from different avatar and army builds. That is one thing that I dislike about Corrin being the main lord and avatar compared to Robin; The Yato being exclusive to Corrin and as powerful as it is meant I was nerfing myself one way or another if I wanted Corrin to be anything but a sword class, but Robin had no such caveat as the My Unit ...and basically all my fav classes don't use swords.

 

agreed. Reclassing, child units, and avatars are the main reason why fates and awakening have such high replay value. From a gameplay perspective they are just great features. It allows you to custom build your units however you want(within the rules of the game anyway). Maybe on this playthrough you'll go male avatar with magic/hp asset/flaw and go sage and maybe next time you'll female avatar with a more physical build. Maybe this time you'll turn nowi into a sage and griffon rider next playthrough(not that you should turn anyone into a griffon rider but the option is there). Maybe you don't want chrom to use falchion then turn him into a sniper instead. Child units work into this as well maybe you'll marry cordelia and ricken for a more magically oriented severa or you could marry cordelia to lon'qu for a more physical set. Heck since the avatar can be built anyway and marry practically everyone morgan can be built to however you desire. It's all these customization options that make sure no two playthroughs are exactly the same unless you purposefully make it that way which generates a lot of replay value. It's another reason heroes does so well because every unit can customized to your liking with skill inheritance and the like. This sort of stuff creates communities where people share the best builds and compete against each other while sharing tips and strategies.  so in conclusion I think reclassing should stay.

Edited by Otts486

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blade Lord Lyn said:

You clearly don't get it... just because YOU don't want it doesn't mean it should not be in especially if alot of others do want it and FE isn't special since as I already said this is a (strategy)JRPG and as a couple others has features like and isn't a big deal or interfering and built for those that actually want a different way of experiencing different units. Your also proving my point of someone taking a mechanic you don't have to use while others can very seriously for no reason....

Hey now don't be all like that. There's no need to jump down my throat. I never claimed I don't want reclassing in the game. In fact I've actively said I like the idea.

On 4/8/2018 at 3:13 PM, Jotari said:

I like the idea of reclassing, but I think it should be completely limited to just one other class line. Too many classes and the unit loses their identity, but just one or two other classes, gives the character more identity. Like Shura being an Adventurer and a Ninja.

I was just merely pointing out that it's not something that can really be ignored. That's like saying you can ignore Silver Weapons in Fates because you don't like the attack loss. Like yeah, they might not be suited to your playstyle, but you're severely nerfing yourself if you ignore them completely because the game is designed with Silver Weapons being something you have access to in order to defeat the stronger enemies you encounter. If reclassing is in the game, then it's in the game. It's part of the intended experience by the developers for the product they've sold to you.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I was just merely pointing out that it's not something that can really be ignored. That's like saying you can ignore Silver Weapons in Fates because you don't like the attack loss. Like yeah, they might not be suited to your playstyle, but you're severely nerfing yourself if you ignore them completely because the game is designed with Silver Weapons being something you have access to in order to defeat the stronger enemies you encounter.

Which is why weapon durability probably should return, and return silver weapons to how they were, but that is a topic for another place.
Hopefully people have cooled down a bit, looks like things were getting Alvis level of heated back there. Rather then just have reclassing, I think it might be better to allow more diversity with promotion branches, or even have a third promotion brought back. You'd have plenty of options that way and more then enough replay-ability just by going down a different branch path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I was just merely pointing out that it's not something that can really be ignored. That's like saying you can ignore Silver Weapons in Fates because you don't like the attack loss. Like yeah, they might not be suited to your playstyle, but you're severely nerfing yourself if you ignore them completely because the game is designed with Silver Weapons being something you have access to in order to defeat the stronger enemies you encounter.

Lining up with this, someone earlier in this very thread already said that they felt conquest felt almost impossible without it, and I recall Awakening at least feeling like it was important enough to actively give you at least one or two as a reward for beating enemies. 

Edited by AsherCrane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.