Did overambition kill this game?

[Corrobin]

If the developers had just scaled back all their ideas a little, could this game have been a lot better?

[Dragoncat]

I think that in combination of how it was marketed. It was marketed as having "choices" but really it's just three separate stories.

[CatManThree]

From what I have heard, the development team had heavy disagreement during development which contributed to the eventual mess.

Regardless, it wasn't that the ideas were too big that was the issue, it was the fact that not enough effort was put into finalizing them. Fates focuses too much on various things that weren't important such as the anime stuff and waifuism. There was simply too much focus on trying to ride off of what Awakening that it lost track of its initial ambitions. They were too afraid to try new things.

[VincentASM]

I'd say "killed" is a strong word, but I do agree the developers pushed themselves too much, which caused some problems for the game.

Although there was a fair amount of asset recycling, they essentially had to develop three fully fledged games in the time it takes to make one game. Which is no easy task for the size of the company.

Personally, I think they should've just stuck with two games and maybe condensed Revelations into DLC episodes. Because as much as I enjoyed Revelations's fanservice, it was wholly unnecessary as a story path. They could've combined all the information you learn with Hidden Truths, which I also felt was unneeded.

Edited March 7, 2018 by VincentASM

[Shoblongoo]

22 minutes ago, CatManThree said:

 heavy disagreement during development

 

...yeah that's what I've heard from industry insiders...

After the success of Awakening--they had the talent and the resources to make the game of the scope and grandiosity they were aiming for.

The problem was that you had half a design team looking to make a traditional fire emblem game with emphasis on really perfecting the classical elements of gameplay and worldbuilding and storytelling; taking everything that had always made fire emblem great, and elevating it now that they finally had an A-list budget.

Then you had half the design team that wanted to aggressively tap into the broader otaku-culture market; they were pushing the shipping angle and the camilla-esque character and concept designs and a "story" that was less classical fire emblem--more harem dating sim in an RPG adventure/fantasy setting.

...and there was never a meeting of the minds...

They never all got together and said "this is the game we want to make."

They were working at cross-purposes and undercutting rather than building upon eachothers ideas throughout the whole development process. 

And the result was an incomplete, confused mess of a game. 

If they had just had better direction from the top and everyone working on the same page--I think they absolutely could have hit the mark without scaling back the ambition. And I think they would have had hands-down the best game in the series. 

Missed Opportunity, is how I would sum up what they did with Fates. Not "overambition." 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Etrurian emperor]

That's certainly part of it. Splitting one story into three games and still making it cohesive may have been to much for the team to handle. 

But I think a lot of developer infighting may also be to blame. I recall an interview about team A who wanted more restraint and a team B who wanted to go all out with the dating sim aspects and ''skinship with your real sister''. I think the bad influence of team B may be responsible for problems like the Hoshido siblings no longer being Corrin's actual siblings so that you can marry them or the deeprealm NONSENSE that dragged down the second generation. 

So for the sake of the next game they should either give team B a lot less influence or just force the two sides to work nicely together without their bickering damaging the game. 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Etrurian emperor

[Arden88888]

The first FE game I played was Fates and all I can say is that the game feels very empty there is hardly any world building (I dont really know where all the nations in-game are) and the character pool is as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. Furthermore, I think the fact that fates was split into 3 could be a large reason for the game feeling rushed and unfinished especially revelation in which most characters that join have the same level and base stats that they had in their respective titles even if said character joins way later than they did in conq/birth e.g. nyx, perhaps if fates was a single game all of the development teams effort and resources could have been put into it. 

[Modamy]

I remember hearing that the original story for Fates was written before they decided there would be three routes and after the decision was made they could not get the original writer back because he was busy so they just used elements of the original in Fates. That's how I've thought Fates story ended up the way it is, but I was wondering if you guys could inform if that's actually the truth of the matter.

[Ertrick36]

"Kill" is a very strong word.

I'd more say "spoil" is appropriate, and even then it's mostly just the general story that sucks.  There's no denying they tried to do too much with too little time, as this game came out barely a few years after Awakening and yet is practically thrice its size.

Also false marketing.  The only "choices" you had were which path to buy first, if you wanted to buy more paths, and which one you want to play.  Oh, and there's the one choice in Conquest where you choose whether or not to kill a certain character, and maybe some pseudo choices in which retainers you'd be inclined to spare in either base path along with your standard choice of who to support, but I mean...  The fact remains that the game isn't nearly as choice driven as we were led to believe.

1 hour ago, unabletofindaid said:

The first FE game I played was Fates and all I can say is that the game feels very empty there is hardly any world building (I dont really know where all the nations in-game are) and the character pool is as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle.

I disagree that they're as "deep as a puddle".  Maybe a few are, but even characters like Peri have a backstory that helps explain why they are the way they are, and various characters have some layers to them that don't just come down to one note.  Gimmicky and/or quirky does not equal lacking depth.

If you wanna know "deep as a puddle" characters, play Dragon's Dogma.  Just about everyone in that game save for a few important NPC's are as flat as a fresh piece of paper.

[BZL8]

Apologies for the wall of text:

Since playing Fates and lurking on discussions regarding the game, I am of the belief that this game felt "blurred". Think of it this way: imagine you are at an art gallery, looking at a painting (let's say one that depicts an afternoon crowd in a city) that is full of intricate details. This painting has so much details within it that you can't help but appreciate it. The afternoon sky is painted with so many shades of blue that make it stunning, the city crowd is so detailed that one could discern the details of a particular person within the crowd. As a matter of fact, you aren't the only one who appreciates it for the same reason; art critics, fans, etc. also share the same reason.These details within the painting are what makes people appreciate it.

But now imagine these intricate details are "blurred" over; say for example, the afternoon sky in this particular painting, which was painted with various shades of blue, was only painted with one shade of blue. And the city crowds depicted in this painting, initially full of detail, are now less detailed and feels like a blur than a crowd. Whereas you could initially discern the details of a single person in the crowd, you now can't.  When you at this "blurred" painting, you can't help but feel that there was supposed to be more to the painting than it looks. In this case, about everyone shares the same opinion you have, there was supposed to something more to the painting than it actually depicts. As a result, the painting is not that appreciated. What gave the painting its attention is now gone. 

This is what "Fates" feels like to me; it feels like the aforementioned "blurred" painting that looked like it should have had a lot more than it should have had. Part of my frustration with Fates was trying to figure out why I felt underwhelmed with the game as a whole. Was it simply the common criticism that the story and most of its cast was poorly-written? Or was there even more to it than just that? That was the question I had to figure out. 

I don't know about everyone, but when I replayed the game (all three routes), I had a feeling that to an extent, most of the cast felt flanderized. There was also a feeling that the story was trying its best, but it sputtered out (like an old airplane trying unsuccessfully to takeoff). It was only after seeing various discussions on Fates play out on this forum and many others and watching a Support Science video from Ghast about Xander did I come to the personal conclusion that the game was "blurred".

If I wanted to describe Fates, I would describe it as "a handheld game with the heart of a console game that tried to reach for the stars, but was held significantly back by the various limits it had going against it". I do think part of it does have to do with IntSys devs becoming overly ambitious after "Awakening". After the game that was supposed to be the last in the series turned out to be a large hit and deemed one of the best 3DS games, who wouldn't be excited about throwing various ideas around? They had a well known writer write up a treatment for them, they went ahead and imagined up an epic story about a heir of two kingdoms trying to find his/her place in a continent in war, they essentially envisioned a game that many would have enjoyed, all while incorporating various ideas. That was before reality ensued and the devs ended up making a "blurred" version of the game they had in mind. I believe IntSys had a console game rather than a handheld game in mind.

Anyway, I could go on and on about my thoughts on Fates, but I do think overambition hindered this game. The vision of Fates would have better executed on a console game rather than a handheld game. 

TLDR: The game we got felt like a "blurred" version of an ambitious console game IMO and would have been better executed on such a platform. 

Edited March 8, 2018 by BZL8

[Dark Holy Elf]

Whatever the problems with Fates (and they're greatly overstated in this thread, I feel; in many ways this is the most successful Fire Emblem in over a decade), I don't really think ambition is the problem. Nor is it being a portable game instead of a console game; there's no reason you can't have a super-big portable game in this day and age.

I do agree that the game may have suffered a bit from being tugged in different directions by different people on the design team. The map designs of Birthright and Conquest represent obviously different design philosophies. I also agree the game suffered from some pretty false advertising. Look, I don't care about choices much so I feel no personal disappointment there weren't many in the game. But maybe don't advertise them as a selling point if they hardly exist past the big one?

One thing I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet: I think the divide in Fates also reflects the divides within the fanbase. Make no mistake: Fates exists the way it does as a way to try to cater simultaneously to oldschool fans and folks who started with Awakening. Even the reactions from the fanbase reflect that, with people expressing the wish that they would just have jettisoned all the Awakening-esque elements. To be honest I'm not really sure what they should have done, or what they plan to do next.

[Thinks Their Own Way]

It's mainly people on the internet obnoxiously stating their opinions as facts like they are a contributor on Fox "News". Calling something a mess or a missed opportunity aren't facts, so nothing "killed" (way to over dramatic) Fates. It's no different than any other game in series to be blunt.

[joshcja]

What killed the best selling game(s)?

Nothing.

[Ertrick36]

7 hours ago, I'm a Spheal said:

It's mainly people on the internet obnoxiously stating their opinions as facts like they are a contributor on Fox "News".

How dare you suggest that I'm a blondie who lets older men harass me and flies off the gun on Twitter with comments of equal intelligence to that of a gnat and the credibility of a mobster who works for the Civil Asset Forfeiture unit of the Chicago PD as a day job.

 

In all seriousness, I've seen plenty of people quote the game or accurately summarize events in the story/supports to describe what they don't like about the game, so I think there's enough to some of these criticisms to validate them as facts.  That isn't to say Fates is a failure really, but I wouldn't just brush aside the criticisms folks have had for it on account of Fates being successful.

[Dark Holy Elf]

 

1 hour ago, Ertrick36 said:

In all seriousness, I've seen plenty of people quote the game or accurately summarize events in the story/supports to describe what they don't like about the game, so I think there's enough to some of these criticisms to validate them as facts.

Opinions/criticisms aren't facts, even if they're well-supported. By definition, they are statements that any given person may or may not agree with.

[Ertrick36]

10 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Opinions/criticisms aren't facts, even if they're well-supported. By definition, they are statements that any given person may or may not agree with.

Fair enough, I suppose I misphrased.

It's not a fact to say something is bad, though it's given more weight and validity if one says why they feel it's bad.  And really, while I don't think anyone reasonable is arguing the success of Fates, I do believe many have their issues with the game, and that it's more an argument of the quality of the game that some here are trying to discuss.

I think I also misinterpreted what they meant by "it's no different than other games".  Though if they're implying that Fates is no different than others in the sense that it's just as susceptible to criticism, I feel that's kind of... a needless thing to say.  And it seems dismissive of the criticisms; as if the mere fact that everything gets criticized means that the criticisms are invalid.  And as a sort of content creator who always looks for feedback and values it above all else, I feel that's a bigger lunacy than folks suggesting that their opinions are facts.

I'm merely suggesting that the criticisms are worth taking into consideration for the devs.  At least the reasonable ones with some backing to them.  And I'm certainly not saying anyone else should feel the same way.  But I do believe it's foolhardy to ignore criticisms entirely, and I fundamentally believe that's a big reason why some corporations or their games wind up failing when initially they were successful.  One should always seek improvement even in their successes.

[Thinks Their Own Way]

49 minutes ago, Ertrick36 said:

Though if they're implying that Fates is no different than others in the sense that it's just as susceptible to criticism, I feel that's kind of... a needless thing to say

It was me venting frustration with this fandom in general because of how you can't discuss Fates without the discussion turning into a compliant fest. They should listen to valid criticism which feels hard to find on the internet especially among this fandom.

[Dark Holy Elf]

To be honest this fandom is hard to stomach on this front - okay, most internet fanbases are to be fair. Criticism is fine and good (and Ertrick's post outlines why) but the internet makes a hobby out of hate and that's not a good thing.

I think it peeves me off especially because so much of it comes from this "old-school" fanbase which has an obvious axe to grind with Awakening/Fates, and that's the portion of the fanbase I'm from too. I expect better of us! I felt this way even when the hate focused on Awakening, a game I have only an average opinion of relative to other Fire Emblems, but it's even more annoying now that it centres on a game that I outright love.

[Xander]

The most popular fire emblem game on this forum, even more so than the mobile game, this game definitely killed the franchise.

[Ertrick36]

54 minutes ago, Xander said:

The most popular fire emblem game on this forum, even more so than the mobile game, this game definitely killed the franchise.

Uh... sarcasm?

I don't know, it seems like the FEH board gets a lot more activity than this one.  Even if this one has more posts, this game has been out for two (or three, counting Japan's release) years, while Heroes has only been out for one year.

I mean, you'll definitely be more likely to get a PMU set up here than in, say, the New Mystery or Radiant Dawn boards, but you don't see as much consistent activity here as you do in the FEH board.

5 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

but the internet makes a hobby out of hate and that's not a good thing.

You could say that again.  Some days it feels like this entire outlet (the internet) is just a pit of fire and brimstone.  It makes me so much more appreciative when I come upon smaller communities that are more civil on the net.

I understand the feeling you have though, but in regards to FE Warriors instead.  Of course, they got my number pretty much as soon as they shoved Oboro in there, but as I personally actually had more fun with FEW than HW, it was somewhat saddening that so many trashed on it.  And I once had the same feeling about Awakening, but I eventually just brushed that aside and simply no longer care how those haters feel.

[Sånıc Bÿm]

On 3/7/2018 at 11:01 PM, joshcja said:

What killed the best selling game(s)?

Nothing.

 

2 hours ago, Xander said:

The most popular fire emblem game on this forum, even more so than the mobile game, this game definitely killed the franchise.

I think Fates is "The Last Jedi" of Fire Emblem, a blockbuster commercial success but in terms of fan sentiment, the reception is more ... bittersweet.

Should art's merit be determined principally by monetary profitability, or should another quality be the primary determining factor?

On 3/7/2018 at 10:54 AM, unabletofindaid said:

The first FE game I played was Fates and all I can say is that the game feels very empty there is hardly any world building (I dont really know where all the nations in-game are) and the character pool is as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. 

 

On 3/7/2018 at 1:01 PM, Ertrick36 said:

I disagree that they're as "deep as a puddle".  Maybe a few are, but even characters like Peri have a backstory that helps explain why they are the way they are, and various characters have some layers to them that don't just come down to one note.  Gimmicky and/or quirky does not equal lacking depth.

If you wanna know "deep as a puddle" characters, play Dragon's Dogma.  Just about everyone in that game save for a few important NPC's are as flat as a fresh piece of paper.

There was someone who actually believed that Fates had better characterization than A Song of Ice and Fire.

[joshcja]

4 hours ago, Sånıc Bÿm said:

There was someone who actually believed that Fates had better characterization than A Song of Ice and Fire.

I'm that guy. Opinion unchanged. (Man I really needed two whole books about Sam the porker porkin a lady and Danny forgetting that she has actual dragons on tap because... reasons? This really advanced the deep politically charged and original plot of "Fire dragons vs Ice people", rightful queen bones the rightful king! Totally could not have been explored and resolved in like, two conversations. With more depth and development. Three pages max. In large font.). Show is still good and has noticably improved since it departed from the novels.

----------------------------------

To answer your direct question. Money talks, and Echoes did extremely well in terms of sales, Hero's is a cash cow, and with the slew of new content (both main FE and crossover/colab) on the way all aimed at different segments of the market it's hard to call fates anything less than a resounding success as a game, a marketing tool, and as a proof of concept.

Are there things I dislike or disagree with? Yes but those bits of content were not aimed at me and can safely be ignored.

Also I enjoyed the last jedi (and what disney has done with the franchise thus far overall). Still holding out for some of the sicker EU things before I blow my fanboy load but fun movies are fun. There was nothing bittersweet about it...

Edited March 10, 2018 by joshcja

[De Geso]

4 hours ago, Sånıc Bÿm said:

I think Fates is "The Last Jedi" of Fire Emblem, a blockbuster commercial success but in terms of fan sentiment, the reception is more ... bittersweet.

Should art's merit be determined principally by monetary profitability, or should another quality be the primary determining factor?

You're projecting your negative opinion of Fates onto the entire fanbase of Fire Emblem. Quit that.

Also, video games aren't art you nerd. They're games.

Edited March 10, 2018 by YouSquiddinMe

[Jingle Jangle]

On 3/7/2018 at 8:50 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

Whatever the problems with Fates (and they're greatly overstated in this thread, I feel; in many ways this is the most successful Fire Emblem in over a decade), I don't really think ambition is the problem. Nor is it being a portable game instead of a console game; there's no reason you can't have a super-big portable game in this day and age.

I do agree that the game may have suffered a bit from being tugged in different directions by different people on the design team. The map designs of Birthright and Conquest represent obviously different design philosophies. I also agree the game suffered from some pretty false advertising. Look, I don't care about choices much so I feel no personal disappointment there weren't many in the game. But maybe don't advertise them as a selling point if they hardly exist past the big one?

One thing I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet: I think the divide in Fates also reflects the divides within the fanbase. Make no mistake: Fates exists the way it does as a way to try to cater simultaneously to oldschool fans and folks who started with Awakening. Even the reactions from the fanbase reflect that, with people expressing the wish that they would just have jettisoned all the Awakening-esque elements. To be honest I'm not really sure what they should have done, or what they plan to do next.

I do agree with your points, even thought I started the series with Awakening I feel it get overhated my older fans because it when in similar direction the last game did. Even though the flaws of Fates can be found in other game in the series. That make me all the more curious for the next game and the direction it will be in.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Interesting to see The Last Jedi get brought up. The Last Jedi's reception is pretty darn positive outside of a small but very loud minority of the fanbase - see its A ranking on CinemaScore. (Or, to bring in personal anecdote: it's a well-loved movie by everyone I've talked to IRL, while I've certainly run into some venom on the internet.) There are probably some parallels to Fates but it's hard to say for sure, because if nothing else there's no CinemaScore-like polling done of game opinions to my knowledge. (There are self-selecting surveys like Metacritic user scores of course, but those are notoriously unreliable even before you take into the fact that some people will try to deliberately manipulate these scores.)