Lurker > Gamefreak1000

I'm interested. Been wanting a collection like this for a VERY long time now. Played 1-4 and really enjoyed the series (especially 3) but never got a chance to play 5 and 6. Eager to replay the series and check out the last two games!

VampireCoyote posted...

Im not saying he shouldnt have defended himself, Im saying he went too far

you dont have to agree with me Im allowed to have my own view on the matter

Maybe, but I think the aggressor went too far when he decided to assault a fast food employee. The Taco Bell worker acted in reasonable self-defense, especially since he left it after the drop and didn't engage further with the other man.

legendarylemur posted...

But in terms of the overall experience, having both micro and macro is a step above Conquest

I don't agree that FE4 is a step above just because it has both macro and micro strategy elements. At the micro level, Conquest is leagues ahead of Genealogy. Enemies in Conquest are given various skills that can impact the outcome of battle and make it more important to pick your match-ups carefully. Smaller maps means you're engaging with enemies regularly turn per turn, and the state of the map changes constantly.

By comparison, FE4's micro strategy is incredibly simple. You have a lot of overpowered units, weapons and skills, while enemies are typically vanilla and non-threatening. You have greater control over match-ups as you have multiple turns to plan and send your units over to fight them. This also means you have plenty of time to prepare for any occasional threat. The state of the map is generally quite static with the only change being an enemy group is just a bit closer to you. There's little decision making to be done turn-by-turn once you've set your course.

FE4 is carried by it's macro strategy elements, and whether or not that's a good thing I believe comes down to preference. If you like the macro-strategy element of FE4, you'll probably enjoy that game a lot as no other game in the series attempts what it does. If you don't care for the macro-stategy elements however, I think the game really begins to suffer because it doesn't have good micro strategy to fall back on. I'm really not a fan of FE4's map design, and while I'm not the biggest fan of Conquest, I'd much rather actually play that game than FE4.

Also for that chapter, I'm not arguing in bad faith whatsoever. You do kill most of the dangerous enemies on that bridge, and fliers get too swarmed by the fliers specifically put there so that you're forced to chokepoint onto that bridge. You can chokepoint there for the first 3 turns or so and just reach all the villages. The rest of the enemies in the entire bottom half are not nearly as dangerous as the ones you're forced to immediately fight on top. The Wyverns approach you regardless and half will reach you during the time you're still chockpointing in the right bridge.

If anything the village rescuing is an afterthought. It's really easy once you get past that bridge. The only risk is when you fight the boss clump enemy, which if you use any of the number of cheese builds is a non-factor as most things are in the game.

Fair enough, I do think that's a bit of an over simplification of the map, but I'll concede it wasn't in bad faith. It did come off that way though since you pretended like the side objectives didn't exist, which I think is one of the things Conquest does well. There's often a notable difference between simply clearing a map, and clearing it while getting every goodie it offers.

You have your experience with chapter 13 and it's valid, but personally I quite like that map and enjoy the "puzzle" it presents you. You have two bridges in front of you, and you have to determine which group takes each bridge. The right bridge is closer to the optional objectives (villages) but is also more heavily fortified with armor knights + Takumi (especially since Takumi has pass on higher difficulties). The left bridge is guarded by weaker units, but they have magic so you'll have to adjust accordingly. The group on the left side will be closer to the outlaw and boss, but that side also spawns Wyvern rider reinforcements. Reina is also just present in the middle of the map and can problematic, since you have limited maneuverability to deal with a powerful 1-2 range flier.

I think there's a lot of thought put into the map, and it's pretty cool. At the very least, when it comes to "killing some enemies then awkwardly walking around an empty map", that situation comes up FAR more often in FE4.

legendarylemur posted...

FE4 objectively requires more planning ahead in terms of movement. Ultimately the biggest flaw is that they sometimes don't give you enough units that some units end up having to juggernaut sections of the game, but even that requires a lot more thought

It requires more thought with movement because you're spending multiple turns doing nothing but moving units across an empty field. FE4 has more of a focus on macro strategy than micro, but I don't think it's particularly thought provoking. All I'm really doing is determining where I need to cover and sending OP units like Sigurd, Arya, Lex, etc to guard it. Actual skirmishes between units aren't very difficult and are over in less turns than it took to get there. A game like Conquest actually requires more thinking, turn-per-turn, than a game like FE4.

legendarylemur posted...

I like the part where you have this entire map and you fight 80% of the enemies in the 2 chokehold bridges, and you awkwardly just walk around the entire empty bottom half. I like it. I think this is good

I think you're arguing in bad faith for this one. While you COULD create a choke point at the bridge and hold the entire time, that's one of the worst ways to approach this map. There's 4 villages with some solid rewards at the bottom half, and an outlaw spawns that will ransack them. If you're willing to give up the rewards to favor a defensive play style, you could, but the map is far more fun, challenging, and rewarding if you play it aggressively.

Tyranthraxus posted...

It doesn't give you the mime job until damn near the end of the game.

Forgot about Mime. Sure, that one is locked to act 3, but you get the other 20 jobs before the end of act 1. This is double the amount you'd have by that point in FF3 (as you'd only have 10 jobs by the time you reach the Fire Crystal). Just because Mime isn't until later doesn't hinder the experimentation aspect of the game at all.

The biggest issue with FF3's job system is more like there's no reason to use anything other than Ninja / Sage as soon as you get them.

Those are among the final jobs you get, you'd get Mime in FFV before them lol. That leaves another 70% of the game or so where you have to use other jobs, and the game has more issues than simply Ninja/Sage, as posted here:

MarcyWarcy posted... I think it's more than just the fine tuning of the jobs in FF5 that makes its jobs so much better than 3, it's also that just about every other aspect of the game is fine tuned to it. FF3 is incredibly brutal in a lot of parts, probably moreso than any other game in the series, and the job system is weirdly antithetical to that. There are times where it basically wants you to do a certain thing with your party as a certain class makeup, and if you don't do that, it's grueling and unfun to play.

To provide further context, FF3 forces you to use White/Black magic for Toad/Mini on a few occasions. If you don't have one of those in your group, you're PUNISHED for swapping to one for the spells, and you're punished further upon changing back. FF3 is full of dumb design decisions like this that don't sync with the job system. None of this type of design is present in FF5.

FF5 has a similar issue with Traveler and Mime but at least that's gated behind asstons of grinding so you're forced to use the other jobs and they're more like rewards for mastering them all instead of just straight up superior replacements.

I don't think these are "similar issues" at all, as the OP jobs in FF3 are provided just for doing the story, while FF5 Freelancer requires going significantly out of your way to make it that strong.

Also, since you mentioned "straight up superior replacements", I want to note that's more of an issue with FF3 since it provides you with things like Black Belt, Devout, and Magus, basically doubling up on jobs that you already had. FFV doesn't do this and doesn't have to since anything you learn from one job you can take to another (unlike 3). As a result, FFV has significantly more job options and variance than FF3.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The only real difference is you could mix the job abilities. They were otherwise the same system although FF5 was easier because they scrapped the change penalty.

You're massively underplaying how significant of a difference being able to mix job abilities is. The systems between III and V are more different than they are the same. The rewards you get for leveling jobs in 5 is way better than the nothing you get from 3. You're actually encouraged to experiment in 5 unlike 3 which punishes you for doing so, and FF5 provides you all the jobs in the game by the end of act 1, allowing you to use whatever you want for most of the game. FF3 doesn't give you all the jobs until like 75% in.

Tyranthraxus posted...

"But job system!" You say which was mostly copied from FF3

I'm playing 3 right now as well, and coming straight from 5, the differences are really night and day.

I liked 5 a lot because of its party flexibility and hybrid job system. I think it's really cool that I can train someone in white magic for a bit, then turn them into a physical based class but still have some utility as an off-healer. I mastered every class in FFV just to see what sort of abilities they'd give you.

3 doesn't really provide you any advantages for training multiple jobs, and actually punishes you every time you swap. Characters in 3 are much more set in their field, while in 5 you could turn someone into a white mage out of battle just to heal, then turn them back. It's WAY more unbalanced admittedly, but that's what makes it fun lol. I find 3's job system incredibly stifling by comparison.

Beat FFV yesterday for the first time. Really fun game, I enjoyed it a lot. I do have more respect for IV though as it was the first time Square tried to put an actual story in their games (relative to the NES entries at least) and I think the soundtrack is better, but V is overall way more fun and I think a better game.

gunplagirl posted...

Viable doesn't mean shit when certain jobs are obviously much more powerful even without any other job skills.

Completely disagree. The point of having viable classes is you can still clear the game relatively smoothly even if you're playing sub-optimally. I wanted Leena to be a Dragoon simply because Dragoon's are awesome. Prior to the Earth Crystal, she was a two-handed Knight/Mystic Knight. Once I made her a Dragoon, she performed notably worse. I didn't really care though, because I wanted a Dragoon, the rest of my party was strong, and the game is easy enough as it is. I also eventually did find a secondary ability that worked well on Dragoon (Jump/Revive combo) completely by accident. Leena was still weaker than when she was two-handing a sword, but it ultimately didn't make a difference because Dragoon is still viable, even if weaker. It's an important thing for every job to be decent so that the player can clear it with whatever party they want, and much preferable than forcing the player to swap off a bad class they find cool just to beat a boss.

Yeah, graphics update should be with the launch of 7.0, which likely won't be until early 2024.

NeonTentacles posted...

So what's the best place to start? 01? Sengoku? I know all these games are connected and lead into each other sequentially

I'd just start with Sengoku Rance. Haven't played much of the series at all except that one, but it has no right to be as good as it is. The main story is a pretty good game on it's own, but after beating it you unlock various NG+ bonuses and additional routes which change major events. Game has a ton of replay value, and you could sink hundreds of hours into just that entry alone.

It is the 7th game in the franchise and has some light references to other games (mainly in some extra characters you can recruit) but it's self contained enough to where none of it is necessary.

I like season 6. It has some really memorable moments (Battle of the Bastards and Hold the Door) and I think Cersei's play in the season finale is hype.

Season 7 is where the real falloff begins for me, and it just plunges deeper with 8.

JKwaffle posted...

Question, now that I've had my first reset. Are the game endings primarily based off of which doors/combos of people I pick to go with, or are there other decisions that I need to be careful about?

Generally it's just doors, though a couple endings have some other flags (but even these are determined by the doors you picked).

I'd recommend just trying to fill out the flowchart at first to see every room.