Jump to content

Is Fire Emblem Fates a "Good" game?


FatesIsaGudGame
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, most of my fire emblem playing friends out there think that Fire Emblem: Fates (Which if you've been living under a rock for almost two years is the 14th installment in the Fire Emblem franchise) is horrible game and should be burned at the stake (I have eccentric friends), however, I disagree with them heavily as it's just a gameplay focused Fire Emblem instead of a more story based one. At it's heart, Fire Emblem is a strategy game, with story coming second. However, I'd like to see what the general consensus is to decide once and for all, if Fates is actually a hidden gem, or proof that I have horrible taste in games and it sucks.

Edited by FatesIsaGudGame
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, story is more important than gameplay for a game, so I don't think you're wrong.

If anything, I think a lot of "veterans" prioritize story a little too much relative to gameplay.  Sure, it does suck if the story is bad, but at the end of the day, if it's still a fun game to play, it doesn't matter.

Although, to give them credit where credit is due, the gameplay isn't perfect either, what with its iffy level design and questionable balancing choices.  I'd still say it's a step above Awakening's gameplay, though.

Edited by Von Ithipathachai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a "bad game", yes there are many things they could have done better when you think about it, but i still enjoyed playing it, not becasue of the story, but just for the strategy part.

 

Really when it come to FE14, it all comes down to what you look for in a game, if you want a good story, you won't like it, but if you want a game where it's enjoyably to play then yeah it's for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conquest is the only good Fates title when it comes to gameplay. Every other title has dubious... everything. They are literally the only games in the series I have absolutely zero interest in replaying. I don't mind people having it as their favorite or anything, so long as Fates like games don't become the new norm for the series. If Fates like games do become the norm though, my level of judgement will spike out of sheer spite because I won't be able to play another Fates like game without wanting to gouge my eyes out in frustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm down with some fates. Been enjoying the hell out of it, the only thing that irks me is the idea of playing casual mode. I couldn't imagine enjoying my game if I wasn't risking my beautiful units. Birthright is too easy, doesn't feel like a classic game with limited EXP. If Birthright was the only path, I would be as interested in Fates as I am SS which isn't much at all. (Haven't played Rev)

But I have only been an on and off player: played Binding Blade, fe7, SS, PoR, and Fates. The best thing about fates for me is having 3 routes and playing styles (feels like 3 games in one) , and having that time in the castle to explore, prepare, and learn about your units and supports.

My preference goes 7, BB, Fates, PoR, SS

Edited by Ephera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to Von Ithipathachai, honestly, if the game developers made the choices you make in the game more endgame affecting, like say which units actually choose fight you and the effect of supporting units a bit more contributing to the actual story (and of course, fix Birthright, downright awful story and not worth playing except for renown and speed-running, but I'm bathing in money so I can't complain), then the game would definitely be better. Also, Fates has introduced many hilarious memes, and Leo x Takumi is downright dangerous to read for lack of breathing when laughing at fan fictions, so my meme filled world has gotten bigger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, in reply to NPR, I feel the difficulty of Conquest is a bit extreme. It took me seven tries to beat the endgame, and lost all but my avatar in the process of killing the final boss. Plus, I feel it's kind of surprising that the conquest campaign gives you almost no money and experience. I mean, if you are literally the prince of what I assume to be one of the richest and most powerful kingdoms in the continent of no name (for lack of a confirmed name), you'd think that the player character would t least get a lousy 5 gold allowance each week. Or maybe Garon's just a penny pinching money loving no good dad. Who knows? What I'm trying to say here is that I personally feel that conquest is not my favorite due to it being ridiculously hard and annoying to beat, it's kind of kill joy. (plus, having a Beruka with 60% chance to crit enemies is something too hilarious not to have)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, do you know you can directly respond to someone's comment and depending on how their notifications are set up let them know you responded to them by clicking that little 'Quote' below each post?

1 hour ago, FatesIsaGudGame said:

In reply to Von Ithipathachai, honestly, if the game developers made the choices you make in the game more endgame affecting, like say which units actually choose fight you and the effect of supporting units a bit more contributing to the actual story (and of course, fix Birthright, downright awful story and not worth playing except for renown and speed-running, but I'm bathing in money so I can't complain), then the game would definitely be better. Also, Fates has introduced many hilarious memes, and Leo x Takumi is downright dangerous to read for lack of breathing when laughing at fan fictions, so my meme filled world has gotten bigger. 

In this instance, Birthright did exactly what it was supposed to do for the duo - be the beginner-friendly one. The two were marketed as Birthright being aimed for newer players, with a basic goal for each map(hence why they're ALL Rout, obnoxious though some players find that), a more generic Fire Emblem Plot, easy-access grinding/farming, etc., and Conquest being aimed for series veterans, with more varied map objectives(supposedly; I felt a touch cheated there, with what, two, three Chapters with non-Rout objectives out of 19 Conquest-specific Chapters since the first 6 are vanilla?), a different Plot(not executed properly, but props for trying I guess), very limited grinding/farming(you get the three Invasions that happen over the course of the Story and that's it), etc., leaving Revelations to try to be the middle ground, which most people on here agree it failed to do horribly.

1 hour ago, FatesIsaGudGame said:

Also, in reply to NPR, I feel the difficulty of Conquest is a bit extreme. It took me seven tries to beat the endgame, and lost all but my avatar in the process of killing the final boss. Plus, I feel it's kind of surprising that the conquest campaign gives you almost no money and experience. I mean, if you are literally the prince of what I assume to be one of the richest and most powerful kingdoms in the continent of no name (for lack of a confirmed name), you'd think that the player character would t least get a lousy 5 gold allowance each week. Or maybe Garon's just a penny pinching money loving no good dad. Who knows? What I'm trying to say here is that I personally feel that conquest is not my favorite due to it being ridiculously hard and annoying to beat, it's kind of kill joy. (plus, having a Beruka with 60% chance to crit enemies is something too hilarious not to have)

See statement above. As for Beruka, I have a friend whose Charlotte commonly hits 100% Crit Chance. Not sure how he did it, but it was hilarious to see!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FatesIsaGudGame said:

Also, in reply to NPR, I feel the difficulty of Conquest is a bit extreme. It took me seven tries to beat the endgame, and lost all but my avatar in the process of killing the final boss. Plus, I feel it's kind of surprising that the conquest campaign gives you almost no money and experience. I mean, if you are literally the prince of what I assume to be one of the richest and most powerful kingdoms in the continent of no name (for lack of a confirmed name), you'd think that the player character would t least get a lousy 5 gold allowance each week. Or maybe Garon's just a penny pinching money loving no good dad. Who knows? What I'm trying to say here is that I personally feel that conquest is not my favorite due to it being ridiculously hard and annoying to beat, it's kind of kill joy. (plus, having a Beruka with 60% chance to crit enemies is something too hilarious not to have)

Story wise the idea behind it is that Nohr is poor, which it is. The land that they live in is the opposite of the bountiful and prosperous Hoshido, and is one of the "reasons" Nohr invades Hoshido.

As for the the difficulty it was made with the longtime fans in mind and for most it's the saving grace of fates, and many of them replay the game a lot because of all the freedom it allows. (even know the story is questionable.... to put nicely).

As for me, I think of all the hard fire emblem games, it is the most fair. A few exmaples can be found when comparing it to Awakening's lunatic mode, where everything 1-2 shots you through the early game, and requires a lot of rng being on your side to survive it, even with frederick doing everything, where as in lunatic Conquest, a dragonstone corrin next to an elise, can take like only 2-4 damage from a fighter with a steel axe, letting you make more plays with correct strategies. Pretty much 90% of the time I died in conquest my reaction was "Oh, I shouldn't of put my guy there, I forgot about that" where as in awakening it was more like "Wow! That was BS!". Does that make sense?

Pretty much I like conquest so much because it is a puzzle of positioning and feels very strategic, and I have played it many times even though I generally play more of the older titles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why in the world would post a question that your username answers?

The answer is "it depends".  Are you looking for a character-driven story?  Fates won't deliver.  Are you looking for strategic gameplay?  Fates does a better job of that.  Are you looking for a damn good final boss theme?  Fates fits the bill perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd say it's good.  Story is undoubtedly ass, and the worldbuilding is certainly lacking, but those alone don't determine a game's worth.

Fates has good characters.

Fates has better balanced gameplay.

Fates is the epitome of integrating a narrative (supports/building friendships) into gameplay, even moreso than previous games thanks to partner/friendship seals.

Though only Conquest has all that great of map design, which is a shame because I hate that path's story the most.  Birthright's okay, but Revelation is pure tedious ass.  Speaking of, I do still stand by the notion that Fates is well balanced, but it's total garbage that you get Odin in Revelation at, like, level 12 unpromoted when most enemies are at least four levels above him and many are also promoted.  Character balance in that path is pretty much non-existent for the latecomers.

3 hours ago, JimmyBeans said:

As for me, I think of all the hard fire emblem games, it is the most fair. A few exmaples can be found when comparing it to Awakening's lunatic mode, where everything 1-2 shots you through the early game...

I've been playing Awakening on Lunatic Classic...  And damn if it doesn't make me appreciate Fates so much more.  It's like... as soon as you get to chapter 12 in Awakening, enemies seem to always just have 40+ HP from that point on, and pretty much every child rescue paralogue dumps a bunch of promoted level 5's on you regardless of where you're at.  I just want to take the time to appreciate how Fates made it so that the paralogues adjust to your progress in the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Story wise there are elements and locations I wish could have been explored more such as the underground city in Nohr. Now THAT place seems really cool and seems like the kind of place a rebellion group would be hiding. Additionally I think ALL of the Royals should have a corresponding legendary weapon, an axe for Camilla, naginata for Hinoka, etc. Why is it only the sons of each corresponding royal family + Corrin get a legendary weapon? This seems a little unfair to me.

Now the game feels like it expects you to grind and customize each unit to your liking which is fine but I this sensation conflicts with Conquest's design of no grinding except for Boo Camp. Now I realize that Conquest was suppossed to be more like traditional Fire Emblem games where grinding wasn't allowed. The thing is there were exploits that one could take advantage if you wanted in those games, such as Arenas on certain maps and boss abusing, so in a manner of speaking you could still grind if you wanted. In other words Conquest tries to be more classic but it doesn't include elements like arenas and the ability to boss abuse if a player wants, resulting in Conquest being harder than most older FE games add on top of that the abundance of skills enemies can have.

Now I would not say Fates should be burned but a lot of Fates' design choices were handled in a very sloppy manner such as Reinforcement Spawn, design of the Fog of War maps, the Fatigue of units etc. In other words Fates is alright but it could be a lot better which is unfortunate as there are several interesting concepts to Fates' world (if we can call it a world).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who's only FE games are Fates and Awakening I don't really get the complaints about Fates' story being bad because to me it seems on par with Awakening's.

 

The older games might be better at that IDK but browsing the unpopular FE opinions thread has kind of thrown that in doubt for me too.

 

This isn't me defending Fates story btw, it's me saying that from what I've seen and heard FE has never had a particularly good story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corrin_Kamui said:

As someone who's only FE games are Fates and Awakening I don't really get the complaints about Fates' story being bad because to me it seems on par with Awakening's.

The older games might be better at that IDK but browsing the unpopular FE opinions thread has kind of thrown that in doubt for me too.

This isn't me defending Fates story btw, it's me saying that from what I've seen and heard FE has never had a particularly good story.

From what I can tell, every game in the series has story problems in some fashion.  It's just that relative to the older games, Awakening and Fates have it worst of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birthright is painfully average and revelations is very boring.

Conquest has a really bad story but it still delivers with it's very good gameplay.

So yes, I would say that Conquest is a good game. BR and RV not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

Birthright is painfully average and revelations is very boring.

Conquest has a really bad story but it still delivers with it's very good gameplay.

So yes, I would say that Conquest is a good game. BR and RV not so much.

Ditto.

Plus you can capture awesome enemies to join your team: such as a ninja with Move +1/Grisly Wound/Poison Strike, Haitaka who's arguably a better Spear Fighter than Oboro, an MOA with 4 rallies, and Spear Masters with 3 rallies + Amaterasu! (Gotta play on Lunatic though, lol)

Edited by anniec8711
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Story is more important than gameplay" is not a sentiment I'd ever expected to see attached to Fire Emblem, a series which has generously pulled off a good story once,  in the Tellius games. I fell in love with this series with Blazing Sword, and its story is garbo. Awakening is the best-selling game in the series, and its story is also a hot mess. It doesn't matter; they're excellent games, and so is Fates.

So yeah I find the complaints about it in Fates a bit confusing. Conquest has some of the best gameplay of the series - and therefore the genre - and therefore among video games in general - and if that doesn't make it a "good" game then your standards are alien to me. (As a bonus it has some good characters and music as well.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Well, story is more important than gameplay for a game, so I don't think you're wrong.

If anything, I think a lot of "veterans" prioritize story a little too much relative to gameplay.  Sure, it does suck if the story is bad, but at the end of the day, if it's still a fun game to play, it doesn't matter.

Although, to give them credit where credit is due, the gameplay isn't perfect either, what with its iffy level design and questionable balancing choices.  I'd still say it's a step above Awakening's gameplay, though.

Story is more important or less important? I personally think gameplay is the most important aspect before story in a Fire Emblem game. The only problem is that in a Fire Emblem game the story is so closely tied to the gameplay, and although ultimately it's better to let the gameplay direct the story so that people can actually be challenged and enjoy strategizing, when the story is so off-putting and bad, it's hard to not notice. Sometimes when the story is bad it takes away from the gameplay experience as well, and that's why the story in Fire Emblem games still needs to be decent, so your friends do have a point because Fates' story is complete trash. However, in the end gameplay will always take priority over the story, and in that case Fates is actually very decent of a game because it's gameplay is rather enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ae†her said:

Story is more important or less important? I personally think gameplay is the most important aspect before story in a Fire Emblem game. The only problem is that in a Fire Emblem game the story is so closely tied to the gameplay, and although ultimately it's better to let the gameplay direct the story so that people can actually be challenged and enjoy strategizing, when the story is so off-putting and bad, it's hard to not notice. Sometimes when the story is bad it takes away from the gameplay experience as well, and that's why the story in Fire Emblem games still needs to be decent, so your friends do have a point because Fates' story is complete trash. However, in the end gameplay will always take priority over the story, and in that case Fates is actually very decent of a game because it's gameplay is rather enjoyable.

Oh no, I meant to switch gameplay with story in my first sentence!

*buries head in arms*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, before asking a question like this, it pays to work out what you mean by "good", and try to explain what you mean to those who are going to be answering. Otherwise, you'll get what you've got: a bunch of people telling you what they like/dislike about it; and another bunch of people stating their opinions of the game as fact, usually delivered so confidently because "everyone knows" what they're talking about, so obviously everyone agrees, too.

The biggest problem with asking whether a game is "good" with no explanation of what that means is that different people like different things. We're on a Fire Emblem forum, so presumably most of the people replying like the sorts of things Fire Emblem is known for - most notably, challenge and fantasy, with a dash of expression. If you were to give Fates to someone who doesn't like challenge, they're far more likely to call out many of the things being praised in this thread as bad things. This is why it is very important to spell out exactly what you mean by "good" if you want useful data in response. So, OP: What does "good" mean to you in the context of the question?

With that said, I'm now going to present my definition of "good", and partially answer your question in that light.

Firstly, a bit of context (this is going to be long):

When it comes to video games, there are these things called "Aesthetics" - end-user experiences of the game. I like to think of them as types of fun, because they are the main reasons why people play video games. Not everybody enjoys the aesthetics in the same way - even people who appreciate the same aesthetics will usually value them differently, or even perceive them differently. For example, Awakening's divisive Lunatic+ was designed to appeal to those who enjoy challenge - enjoyment derived from overcoming a fair challenge. Now, many players of Lunatic+ don't see it as fair, due to extremely powerful enemy-exclusive skills that are distributed randomly. Many of these players are still challenge-seekers - they play Fire Emblem, after all - but, to them, Lunatic+ isn't a challenge; it's a screwjob. Now, as people like Interceptor and Kuroi Tsubasa Tenshi have discovered, Lunatic+ is actually almost perfectly fair, and they enjoy the challenge of it, but you can see that there is an element of perception here, even inside a single aesthetic.

The eight aesthetics are as follows:

Challenge: The fun of taking on a fair challenge.

Fantasy: The fun of immersing oneself in a consistent world.

Discovery: The fun of finding or learning new things (about the world, about characters, or even about oneself).

Expression: The fun of creating new things and leaving a mark on a world through your choices.

Sensation: The fun of having the senses stimulated (music, graphics, "feelies", etc.).

Fellowship: The fun of being part of a group (this can be collaborative or competitive, so long as you have some way of interacting with the people at the other end).

Narrative: The fun of experiencing a well-structured story.

Abnegation: The fun of repeating a simple task to pass time.

When a game is designed, the designers usually have some sense of the experience they want to create. They may not think of it in exactly the above terms, but, with a bit of thought, one can usually break it down into a few of the aesthetics being central - these are called the "Core Engagements".

With all that out of the way, my definition of a "good game" is as follows: A game that achieves its core engagements without being a broken mess.

So, to answer the question "Is Fire Emblem Fates a good game?", we first have to consider what experience the designers were trying to produce - what the core engagements of Fire Emblem Fates are.

We'll start with the obvious: from the beginning, Fates was marketed as involving choice - you got to choose who to support, and thus who lives and who dies. That's expression.

The next thing that was promised was that the story would be better than Awakening's. There are a number of interviews where the designers express their awareness of the complaints against Awakening's story, and their intent to fix that for Fates, to the extent that they hired a well-known writer to create the story. So they promised narrative.

Attention was focused on the countries and characters of Fates's world, promising fantasy.

The last of our core engagements was only really promised for Conquest - it was said to be more like older Fire Emblem games, which are well known for challenge.

Obviously, the other aesthetics may also be present - much has been made of the music, for example, and Phoenix mode appears to be a bone thrown to those who desire abnegation alongside narrative - but these four seem to be the major ones.

Now, obviously Fates isn't a buggy mess, so we have to consider how well it achieves its core engagements. The short version is that it achieves two of them, and fails pretty dismally at the other two. I could probably write another couple hundred words explaining that, and I will if anyone asks, but I think that's enough for one post. And I'll leave the question of whether 2/4 successful core engagements is enough to make Fates a good game open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Seafarer said:

When it comes to video games, there are these things called "Aesthetics" - end-user experiences of the game. I like to think of them as types of fun, because they are the main reasons why people play video games. Not everybody enjoys the aesthetics in the same way - even people who appreciate the same aesthetics will usually value them differently, or even perceive them differently. For example, Awakening's divisive Lunatic+ was designed to appeal to those who enjoy challenge - enjoyment derived from overcoming a fair challenge. Now, many players of Lunatic+ don't see it as fair, due to extremely powerful enemy-exclusive skills that are distributed randomly. Many of these players are still challenge-seekers - they play Fire Emblem, after all - but, to them, Lunatic+ isn't a challenge; it's a screwjob. Now, as people like Interceptor and Kuroi Tsubasa Tenshi have discovered, Lunatic+ is actually almost perfectly fair, and they enjoy the challenge of it, but you can see that there is an element of perception here, even inside a single aesthetic.

The eight aesthetics are as follows:

Challenge: The fun of taking on a fair challenge.

Fantasy: The fun of immersing oneself in a consistent world.

Discovery: The fun of finding or learning new things (about the world, about characters, or even about oneself).

Expression: The fun of creating new things and leaving a mark on a world through your choices.

Sensation: The fun of having the senses stimulated (music, graphics, "feelies", etc.).

Fellowship: The fun of being part of a group (this can be collaborative or competitive, so long as you have some way of interacting with the people at the other end).

Narrative: The fun of experiencing a well-structured story.

Abnegation: The fun of repeating a simple task to pass time.

When a game is designed, the designers usually have some sense of the experience they want to create. They may not think of it in exactly the above terms, but, with a bit of thought, one can usually break it down into a few of the aesthetics being central - these are called the "Core Engagements".

With all that out of the way, my definition of a "good game" is as follows: A game that achieves its core engagements without being a broken mess.

So, to answer the question "Is Fire Emblem Fates a good game?", we first have to consider what experience the designers were trying to produce - what the core engagements of Fire Emblem Fates are.

We'll start with the obvious: from the beginning, Fates was marketed as involving choice - you got to choose who to support, and thus who lives and who dies. That's expression.

The next thing that was promised was that the story would be better than Awakening's. There are a number of interviews where the designers express their awareness of the complaints against Awakening's story, and their intent to fix that for Fates, to the extent that they hired a well-known writer to create the story. So they promised narrative.

Attention was focused on the countries and characters of Fates's world, promising fantasy.

The last of our core engagements was only really promised for Conquest - it was said to be more like older Fire Emblem games, which are well known for challenge.

Obviously, the other aesthetics may also be present - much has been made of the music, for example, and Phoenix mode appears to be a bone thrown to those who desire abnegation alongside narrative - but these four seem to be the major ones.

Now, obviously Fates isn't a buggy mess, so we have to consider how well it achieves its core engagements. The short version is that it achieves two of them, and fails pretty dismally at the other two. I could probably write another couple hundred words explaining that, and I will if anyone asks, but I think that's enough for one post. And I'll leave the question of whether 2/4 successful core engagements is enough to make Fates a good game open.

I've never heard of idea of the Eight Aesthetics...  But they sound interesting.

Did you come up with it?  If not, where can I read more about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone that values story much more than gameplay, I don't think the Fates saga deserves such brutally poor reviews when it comes to the writing. Sure, there are quite a few cracks in the storytelling and characters (Corrin being the biggest crack), but for me, Birthright and Conquest have been incredibly emotional, nail biting experiences. I've lost quite a bit of sleep being anxious over getting to the next chapter, especially while playing Birthright. I'm deathly afraid of chapter 26 in Birthright.

Of course there are superior Fire Emblems. You may think Fire Emblem 1 has far better characters/storylines/battle mechanics. Fire Emblem 4 may have a much better villain or a support system. And there are quite a few problems with Fates, Corrin being the biggest one (Conquest Corrin is the WORST protagonist of all time). Some of the support conversations in Birthright are stellar, while others are just silly (Corrin and Tsubaki, anyone?). Birthright Corrin is, by far, superior to Conquest Corrin, as BR Corrin is about a billion times wiser.

But minus Corrin, Fates does offer incredible adventures and many unforgettable characters.

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...