GamePress

Dissatisfaction with Fire Emblem

Not just FEH, but all of FE. It was always an annoyance to me, but it's come into the foreground recently. I'd like to hear from players of other games and from those who have played FE other than Heroes.

Keeping every unit alive. No general or high-ranking commander of any large force considers that every unit must survive. No self-defense expert with a system tested in real situations expects to get out of every situation without major injury (if at all in some cases). Unless there's such an overwhelming difference in power that one side is beyond hopeless, the weaker side can usually inflict significant (but not decisive) damage, especially if they employ kamikaze tactics, which the FEH AI is very willing to do.

Is there any real-life situation in which we cover 100%? Engineers know that materials and structures have limits and that we design structures to handle up to a specified load plus safety margin. In common parlance we say "within reason" or "appropriate measures." There is a recognition that there is a point beyond which matters are beyond our control.

And isn't life like that? In the 21st century, it is easy to miss how fragile is life. It doesn't warrant recklessness à la FEH AI, but it's for us as people to recognize that sometimes not everything holds. Some things end and get replaced; sometimes entire lives come to an end. I find that FE (or FEH, at least) seems like an excercize in denying this aspect of being human.

GHB, LHB, BHB, arena, AA, AR, SA, blessed gardens... it's most of the game, and if I understand correctly, it's one of the features that distinguishes FE from other games. Regular story maps tend to be the opposite (unless there are quests) - it's too easy to throw away units just for one battle. GC and maybe chain challenge (and, funnily enough, relay defense) are the only modes that encourage thinking big-picture, and that's less than 20% of the game.

There's a significant amount to FEH that I actually like - summoning (which has its issues, but when I confine myself to f2p orbs there are challenging decisions to be made and I find surprisingly that I like there being a possibility of bad variance - it feels more like real life where, to put it bluntly, shit happens), building units, managing resources including feathers and dew, but all of that is for having units to field, and when I don't like the focal activity on the field, I think I need to start looking for other options for games. And if there's none for me, maybe I should try making one, even a small one, just to get a taste of how hard it is to make a good game.

Your thoughts on the every-unit-must-survive thing and differences between Heroes and regular FE?

Asked by Seeker1 week 2 days ago

Report

Answers

In regular FE you arent required to keep them all alive. It's just that you want to so you try to focus on keeping everyone alive. And it's more realistic because people die when they are killed. For FEH its done for difficulty reasons?

Basically, yes, because the AI is so stupid they can't create any challenge except by throwing hordes of opponents at us and hoping something gets through, even though such a force would be hopeless and the civilians they represent (if any) would definitely be soon completely exposed.

Hit Rate,Two Words That Are The True Shenenigans Material.

Sounds like real combat to me when both sides have sharp weapons. It can get very messy very quickly, and greater skill doesn't always come up on top in a small number of exchanges.

You say it like Fire Emblem gameplay has to reflect reality.
What I like about the games over something like advance wars is that every unit counts and small mistakes can screw you over.

In a way, that feels unfair with stuff like crits and hitrate. But the thrill of it all, finding a balance between efficiency and safety is part of the fun.
You can't just send faceless soldiers out to die, you have characters with names, backstory motivation.

That's all part of the fun and also part of why we have so many unique characters in heroes.
'Will X get in the game?'
'Y does deserve an alt more than anyone'

I don't see so much people attached to characters in other mobile games. They're not just pretty faces with stats attached.
Just ask some of the Alm fans here.

Question though, how much experience do you have with other FE games? And did you start with Feh?

I couldn't be playing this game for so long if I wasn't a fan of Fire Emblem as a whole

I have to add to this a general response to your post.

I feel like you're looking at Fire Emblem the wrong way. Or games in general.

Look at other games, like RPGs. When a party member dies, it pretty much never has any lasting impact.
When in a rts your soldiers dies, and they will, is that more realistic than fire emblem? Yes
Does that make it better? No
In the end what you're sending out in battle are faceless mooks. You're not going to care, aside from thinking 'this is bad for my strategy'

In the end Fire Emblem isn't supposed to feel realistic, it's a strategy rpg that's focussed on a colorful cast of characters.
A cast that can and WILL die if you play recklessly.

YOU have to get them out alive, and the fact that there's an option for everyone to do so shouldn't make it 'unrealistic and thus bad'
Realism=/=good

How'd you like it more in FE? That there are situations you have to kill off a unit? Or that you play with faceless characters?
I can't see what you'd like for it.

In general I don't really see a clear point in your post.
What do you like about Feh? Why are you starting to doubt your interest in fe/feh?
You bring up points and make explainations. But I feel like aside from the 'keeping everyone alive is stupid' thing I don't see much of a conclution in your argument.

I'm sorry if this is a LOT of rambling. None of it is meaned personally.
I tend to talk/write a lot when I get passionate.

I think you understood what I was getting at and made an appropriate reply. I did start with FEH and I haven't played any of the original FE games. I've been watching some of Mangs' let's play PoR maniac difficulty and it just makes me like Heroes less, like, how can FEH even be considered a game? Don't know about lower difficulties but that looks like an engaging game. FEH looks like a joke in comparison.

I did state what I like about FEH. I like the summoning aspect, at least in principle. It's being abused to exploit vulnerable people, but that aside, it helps me learn to be thankful for what I have, manage resources, and recognize that I am not ultimately in control. I also like the unit building aspect, making foddering decisions according to different modes, and managing the growth of the barracks.

I've always been a bit dissatisfied that we depend on the AI being stupid to be able to clear a lot of content. I'm debating how much I accept such a solution, how much I respect a victory that was won at a disadvantage of brute force just because the opponents had a severe case of foolishness. And I don't like the refusal to allow people to sacrifice for a worthy cause if that's the best way (though who really is to judge? But in principle, let's say). I don't see how it can be justified except on the assumption that this life is all there is, and all the best games I know about (and a number of things that aren't games as well) suggest to me that it's no way to approach life. In chess a good player knows when and how to trade pieces as well as when to avoid trading; in poker a good player knows when to risk money even though there are better hands the opponent might have or cards yet to be dealt which could be extremely unfavourable. Busting and losing is a part of life, and the "all characters survive" condition in FEH seems to me an attempt to deny it.

I'm all for fantasy in play, but I believe that even fiction is a microcosm of reality or some part of reality, just like any other aspect of life. So when it represents a philosophy to which I am starkly opposed, my interest will suffer.

Alright.

For Fire Emblem vs Realism
Fire Emblem is a game where loss matters more than in other games. Do you care if a pawn dies in chess? Nobody has an emotional connection with a pawn.
Same with a bit of money in poker. You don't want to lose it, but all that matters is the bit of net profit.
The whole point in fire emblem is to make you care about your army of unique characters and make you want to keep them alive.
That is not realistic, but do you know how many people would be frustrated if they had to kill off their favorite characters?
There was one game (FE11) that rewarded players who got people killed with extra chapters and characters. And that wasn't a succes.
Yes you can make a case against the Fire Emblem AI. But even with that AI, fire emblem can get pretty hard.
I can't force you to like the fire emblem games, but I will defend it agaist flawed logic like this.

You clearly like your games with a sense of realism, and thus a game like Fire Emblem is simply not going to give you that. It's a Strategy-RPG, not a realist war game. It's not and it shouldn't be.

One last thing. Most of the good maps have an insentive for not going slow and taking advantage of the AI. Loot to be gotten, characters to get, a time limit.
And often enemy units will move in groups, or at the very least you can't 'just' take the brute force.

As for FE vs Feh
I find it wierd that you seem to be so put off by FE, yet so clearly see feh as lesser.
Anyway, feh brings short and often specific chalanges. It's simple but there are enough differences to enjoy both.

The flow of normal fire emblem games is just a lot differend from Feh. And in Feh skills and builds matter, everyone is the same level. And the maps are hard and quick.
In FE normal, a lot of fights can take a while, and it matters a lot more on how efficient you play and how well you level your characters.

The differences between them make me enjoy both.

Anyway, if you have no experience beyond watching LPs, maybe you should try to play FE on a emulator. One of the GBA games is a good start.

I actually like the permadeath thing in FE. Do people fall in battle? Yes, and we try to avoid it. Is it not a war crime to fire at medical personnel bearing proper insignia? In original FE it hurts to lose units, both due to combat potential and because of the person that gets lost. I'm definitely for a strategy game where the loss of a unit comes with emotional cost outside what they can do for the army. It's the same reason why I appreciate what happens to Azura at the end of the two original variants of Fates. It's not sweet, but it's meaningful.

Turn limits also I don't like, though I guess I don't mind it so much as a way of introducing fatigue as a dimension of the battle. And in AR I think it's a good balancing mechanism - defense is plenty hard even with it.

Your counterarguments have helped me find maybe what wearies me most about FE, especially FEH. It's that I'm constantly trying to defend and protect against lunacy and idiocy. In a lot strategy games and even sports, which are maybe contests of physicality mainly but also of strategy, one side loses to something respectable - strength or insight that someone worked hard to build, strategy that they spent a lot of time refining. And I don't mind losing so much, in AR for example, if the defense is really well designed. But the AI is beyond idiotic and I feel stupid for fighting an idiot. (Also, I've had to do it too much in real life; I don't need it in the form of a game.) I'm not sure why it seems so much more tolerable in FE other than Heroes... maybe story and character development that's better many times over so that I'm not putting up with an idiot just for the sake of victory ("good for me, I beat up an idiot"? Would not I be the fool?) but because there's something worth defending.

I'm thinking of buying an original FE, actually. If the games are genuinely good I'd like the franchise to have a bit of my money. The problem is that I barely have any. Heroes would be a nice way to let them have a tiny bit because it doesn't require a console, but when it's cash grab after cash grab and five Camilla alts I don't think I should give them money.

I could talk military doctrine all day. But regarding your last question about every unit must survive, I do think FEH weighs too heavily into it. Arena, CC, AR... not as much of a fan of that game play strategy.

Perhaps it's a perfectionist's compulsion or a self-challenge. Perhaps one feels terrible letting their characters die. Not everyone has a "no unit left dead" policy, but I see it as a sense of tactical triumph when I complete a map with everyone left alive.

Also, I am surprised I even have to put this here, for you of all people. We've got chronic blue hair syndrome, magic of all kinds cast rampantly and gratuitous dragons, among many other anime fantasy things. Are you really trying to look for realism in this? I mean, you do you, but two cents and all.

Well, i didnt beat all GHB At infernal-higher-impossible mode yet.
And If You make wrong move (aaaaarg) You fail everything, And a bad Seal/equipment make difference If You are reckless.
But nowadays... People do It with bad Seal refine And 4 star characters. I mean, its Fine to question...And You?

Comparing game rules to real life... seems like a drunk post so it is perfect for me in my current state to answer.

Very long reply ahead so you caould just read the last paragraph for the summary.

I have not tried any FE game other than FEH, but I have switched to FGO recently, and in FGO it is perfectly okay to have someone dead (they still get bond points which is the only direct benefit of bring one unit to a battle). It is almost the flipside of FE games, because of that there are many kamikaze strategies that we can utilise (or you can say - we must, sometimes).

Personally, from what I have heard, permanent death is the iconic mechanic in FE, and it does reflect reality as well. Sure, you can use kamikaze strategy, but don't forget that you will lose that subordinate/asset permanently, and that person could be important for future plans/strategies as well. That makes the game challenging in a fun way because it encapsulates a unique yet reasonable side of commander role-playing.

Unfortunately it is quite different in FEH though, because we don't lose that unit permanently. It feels more like a carried on theme that is reduced to a mere element of challenge. We just lose out compared to other players if someone died. We can't pass a stage if someone died. FEH lacks the impact of losing a unit forever, and to me was a disappointment when I heard that a mobile FE game is available. It is understandable that such mechanic is not suitable for a mobile game that targets the general masses, while to remove it completely will lead to backlashes from many FE fans. But to a new FE player, like me, who doesn't share the sentimental attachment to the permadeath mechanics, it feels quite annoying that we need to have that middle ground (half-ass) mechanic.

As to the comparison to real life, I don't really get the point that you are trying to convey. Well there is no 100% of course. Since you brought up the engineer terms, I would like to add on that the law also recognise that it is impossible, and inefficient to warranty a complete 100% in real life. The law usually expects things to be done "with reasonable care" or just do as what a "reasonable and prudent ____ would do". Even when incriminating someone the jury just need to be "sure" of that, and that is not the same as being 100% sure. But mate, this is a game, with fixed and pre-recorded rules, mechanics and algorithm. The fun of having a game is to have varying outcome with varying input (also including RNG) or else it is just a replay of recordings, but it is technically much more possible to achieve 100% - reflected by the difficulty level intended by the developers and death consequences are the form in which difficulty manifests in FE. To ask for easement for not achieving the 100% will straight up deprive the game of its fun element. Even in real life, when the unfavourable incident happens, albeit how unlikely, we have to face its consequences to a degree usually - and in FEH that would be a deduct in score/failing the stage. Quite reasonable I think.

To sum it up, yes I think the permadeath thing is annoying but it is inevitable and not too big of a problem actually. And to ask it to be removed due to our inability to secure a 100% is just the same as asking for the difficulty level to be reduced.

Some reasonable points you make. I'd like to focus on the last part.

If everything else about the game stays the same, yes I think removing the "all units survive" condition takes a lot of the challenge out of it. I'm arguing that the game shows itself inferior for depending on this mechanism. In chess or rts, 100% isn't necessary, but a high level of play is required depending on the opponent. If you play willy nilly, you don't just get through minus a unit (which is still a victory right? But no, in this game it's a loss due to an arbitrary mechnanism); you stand to lose the entire battle. What games like chess and StarCraft prove is that this "all units must survive" thing is entirely unnecessary if the rest of the game is properly balanced.

While some might argue that in FE the outcome of battles carried on to the next one to some degree (exp or permadeath) unlike Starcraft and chess, FEH is practically played on match by match basis at this point. In that, I completely agree with your point. The penalty feels unnecessary and just a victory condition with little fun value attached.
Now that I am more sober I realised that I wrote too much yesterday lol. The last part was mostly redundant and not contributing to the argument much because difficulty level is not really the issue here, but the fun element that was suppose to follow with it.

I've only played FEH, but my friend who introduced me to FEH plays several FE. I think perfect score (not dying) is the only thing currently that makes these games as challenging as they get. I guess the balance to the challenge in FEH is including game modes where deaths won't automatically result in a loss (i.e. chain maps, story mode). These game modes, to me, provide good balance, but I find a huge problem in how there never seems to be enough of them. Am I being too greedy in wanting more story plot? Maybe. But they provide much needed relief from the every-unit-must-survive modes. So I would really appreciate it if IS gives us more balance to this perfection concept. I guess Aether Raids has *some* leniency in a sense that I can still lose a few battles (thanks to escape ladder), or a few units (enough to keep me in green chair ranking). But you have a good point and I have been perturbed by the every-unit-must-survive concept in FEH.