Current Events > So apparently Fire Emblem Engage is good. Like really really good.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lysithea calling the enemy irrelevant >>>> anything

ellis123 posted...

No you haven't. Fates was mostly universally hated.

For the story. Conquest is almost unanimously agreed to have the best gameplay in the series though. Birthright and Revelation do admittedly have an overall negative reception.

Also, on topic people have only gotten to Chapter 8 so I think it's too early to call it either way. Previews do seem to be generally positive, especially for the gameplay.

ellis123 posted...

the stages were awful

The fuck are you talking about? Conquest is praised for its maps, some of the best modern FE has to offer, and even Birthright still has better maps than Awakening and Echoes, and I'd argue even Three Houses.

Yeah there is a lot of valid criticism of Conquest, particularly from a writing/story perspective, but it's gameplay is fantastic and it probably has the best maps in the series and that's damn near universally agreed on.

Chapter 10 is possibly the best FE chapter of all time.

ellis123 posted...

Even Mangs stopped even bothering with his uploads for the entire run just so he could make a video of the highlights about him complaining.

Also, Mangs can fuck all the way right off. Dude is a colossal piece of shit of the highest order.

Azardea posted...

The fuck are you talking about? Conquest is praised for its maps, some of the best modern FE has to offer, and even Birthright still has better maps than Awakening and Echoes, and I'd argue even Three Houses.

You mean aside from the pier chapter, you get like 5-6 chapters of shitty corridors? It's not unanimously agreed lmao. It's a horrendous Lunatic experience, and it was by far the most juggernaut favoring type of map design in the entire series, even more than Awakening which had more open ended maps.

Most people who played everything likes map designs in FE4 or 5 or 8. Calling Conquest map design good is some zoomer shit

Thinking any Fire Emblem after Radiant Dawn is good is Zoomer shit

FEA>>>>>

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/9/0/AAT8UhAAEEZe.jpg
These are some delicious map design btw

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/9/1/AAT8UhAAEEZf.jpg
Whoa there, one cannot handle an entire map of corridors... can they?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/9/2/AAT8UhAAEEZg.jpg
This right here. This shit is some peak corridor. See those ninjas? They're in a difficult to reach chasm with 3 range shurikens that infinitely debuff lmfao

BUt ChAptEr 10?!?!

People just either haven't actually played Conquest or they're just parroting what's widely agreed on. But it wasn't very good. The entire last half is like all corridor except Hinoka's map, where you fight clumps of enemies in 2 bridges... which are basically corridors. It's just chokepoint after chokepoint, and that's the entire fucking game.

legendarylemur posted...

You mean aside from the pier chapter, you get like 5-6 chapters of shitty corridors? It's not unanimously agreed lmao. It's a horrendous Lunatic experience, and it was by far the most juggernaut favoring type of map design in the entire series, even more than Awakening which had more open ended maps.

Most people who played everything likes map designs in FE4 or 5 or 8. Calling Conquest map design good is some zoomer shit

I love 4 but its maps giant size is more than a gimmick than particularly good map design. And it basically renders non-mounted units even less effective than the series normally does.

The back half of FE5 is just a slog. It borderline mandates warp to make them tolerable.

Compsognathus posted...

I love 4 but its maps giant size is more than a gimmick than particularly good map design. And it basically renders non-mounted units even less effective than the series normally does.

The back half of FE5 is just a slog. It borderline mandates warp to make them tolerable.

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

What thought does there need to be for Conquest exactly? Place your tankiest juggernaut in the very glowing terrain that the devs clearly intended for the player to place the Juggernaut on? Literally a single space of pillars highlight where the player should place their favorite unit. It plays the game for you

legendarylemur posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/9/0/AAT8UhAAEEZe.jpg
These are some delicious map design btw

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/9/1/AAT8UhAAEEZf.jpg
Whoa there, one cannot handle an entire map of corridors... can they?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/9/2/AAT8UhAAEEZg.jpg
This right here. This shit is some peak corridor. See those ninjas? They're in a difficult to reach chasm with 3 range shurikens that infinitely debuff lmfao

BUt ChAptEr 10?!?!

People just either haven't actually played Conquest or they're just parroting what's widely agreed on. But it wasn't very good. The entire last half is like all corridor except Hinoka's map, where you fight clumps of enemies in 2 bridges... which are basically corridors. It's just chokepoint after chokepoint, and that's the entire fucking game.

Sounds like you just need to git gud. Most of Conquest map revolves around gimmick map and figuring out the puzzle to get through it. You just can't brute force your way out of it even with a Xander+Charlotte combo. Well, I guess you can if you abuse DLC grinding but that's not really the authentic Conquest experience.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/0/0/AAT8UhAAEEZo.jpg
Nobody defend this map. If you do, we're squabing. I even understand how the wind works exactly, and I fucking hate it. I know the wind loops in the same pattern every 5 turns. But it does not matter

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/0/1/AAT8UhAAEEZp.jpg
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

Demi-Fiend posted...

Sounds like you just need to git gud. Most of Conquest map revolves around gimmick map and figuring out the puzzle to get through it. You just can't brute force your way out of it even with a Xander+Charlotte combo. Well, I guess you can if you abuse DLC grinding but that's not really the authentic Conquest experience.

Uhhh I beat Lunatic Conquest without abusing strats and mostly using canon classes. Then I did it again using Vantage Sol/Nosferatu cheese lmao. Lunatic Conquest is not hard if you know what to do. In fact, you CAN iron man it with 0 death. What puzzle though? Is it the part where you just put your juggernaut on the pillar or the chokepoint? Bro I literally posted multiple proof that a lot of these maps are just weird sprawling corridor where we're lucky if it's 2 spaces wide.

Zikten posted...

Why did they remove the gameplay feature thar is the very reason fire emblem still exists?

The series would have ended years ago but they added in dating, and a whole new wave of players breathed new life into the franchise

Cuz those games sucked. If you like Fire Emblem for the waifus, Fire Emblem Heroes exists for you. We can quarantine that part of the fanbase there and the main games can be good again.

PBusted posted...

For the story. Conquest is almost unanimously agreed to have the best gameplay in the series though. Birthright and Revelation do admittedly have an overall negative reception.

Also, on topic people have only gotten to Chapter 8 so I think it's too early to call it either way. Previews do seem to be generally positive, especially for the gameplay.

Not really, no. While Conquest is definitely substantially more liked than the other two it is not anywhere near close to "unanimously agreed to have the best gameplay." Like, the entire idea of that is utterly absurd as there are nontrivial amounts of people that will actively not go for the #1 being either 4/5 as well as ones that will only go with the GBA games as having the top slot (generally with 6/7 being on top): there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that a single game has anything resembling a unanimous agreement as best. Similarly "Fates" refers to all three "games" (it really is a case of "one game for the price of three"), so cherry-picking out one third of the overall game as better doesn't change the overall statement. Especially seeing as you are talking about removing the actual canon story version of the game as the defacto.

Compsognathus posted...

Also, Mangs can fuck all the way right off. Dude is a colossal piece of shit of the highest order.

That's fair. I mostly bring him up due to just how ubiquitous to the community he is. Even if he's a massive sack it's hard to really talk about "Fire Emblem Youtubers" without thinking of him with just how much more popular he is than the rest, and at the same time it's hard to really come up with one that I can recall off of the top of my head that has done anything even close to resembling a playthrough of anything to do with Fates.

Also, map design isn't literally the only thing when it comes to gameplay. Conquest has good map design, but mediocre gameplay. Stuff like its class system, weapon upgrading, etc. are all a part of gameplay and they are all pretty low on the totem pole. Similarly conceding that it has garbage story only goes so far if you then turn around and act like stages are not impacted by the narrative weight surrounding them. Something like Chapter 19 in Sacred Stones is good just from a level-design perspective but becomes amazing when you factor in the narrative surrounding it. In Conquest's case even good stages are cheapened by the utterly dumb nonsense of a story that surrounds them.

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.

legendarylemur posted...

You mean aside from the pier chapter, you get like 5-6 chapters of shitty corridors? It's not unanimously agreed lmao. It's a horrendous Lunatic experience, and it was by far the most juggernaut favoring type of map design in the entire series, even more than Awakening which had more open ended maps.

Most people who played everything likes map designs in FE4 or 5 or 8. Calling Conquest map design good is some zoomer shit

Corridors that have strong enemy placing and skill distribution which does the most in preventing you from soloing than almost every previous game besides the Archanea games. I've never heard of 4 and 8 being called top tier maps. FE4 is known for being gigantic open slogs where anything but mounted units are garbage while mounted units dominate (I've seen multiple heavy FE4 fans saying they really hope IS does more to fix FE4 rather archaic maps than Echoes did with Gaiden) and 8 isn't bad but it's pretty simple and straightforward. 5 used to be touted as hard but after the actual good translations have come out people have realized that it's actually not that hard if you know what you're doing with low enemy quality and a lot of busted strategies with staves and wrath. The main difficulty of FE5 comes from blind playthroughs with a lot of bullshit that come out of nowhere and aren't told to you ahead of time.
But the fact that you actually praise Awakening's open maps of all things makes it sound like you're just someone who prefers open maps and juggernauting (which I think you mixed up with turtling since Conquest encourages turtling more with just how strong the enemy are while the games you mentioned encourages OP units juggernauting due to high enemy density and low enemy quality)

There might also be some nostalgia goggles going on here, which Irony's entire gimmick is.

ellis123 posted...

Not really, no. While Conquest is definitely substantially more liked than the other two it is not anywhere near close to "unanimously agreed to have the best gameplay." Like, the entire idea of that is utterly absurd as there are nontrivial amounts of people that will actively not go for the #1 being either 4/5 as well as ones that will only go with the GBA games as having the top slot (generally with 6/7 being on top): there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that a single game has anything resembling a unanimous agreement as best. Similarly "Fates" refers to all three "games" (it really is a case of "one game for the price of three"), so cherry-picking out one third of the overall game as better doesn't change the overall statement. Especially seeing as you are talking about removing the actual canon story version of the game as the defacto.

You were the one being hyperbolic about Fates being universally agreed to be bad first. I was also talking about gameplay. 4/5 and the GBA games are called good due to the whole package (4 in particular is generally considered to have rather mediocre gameplay but is peak FE story), but Conquest is often said to have the strongest gameplay among hardcore players and challenge runners. It's marred by having the worst story in the series which lowers the package by a lot but that doesn't change the gameplay is touted as one of if not the best by hardcore players.
Canonicity has nothing to do with gameplay and iirc Heirs of Fate implies all the routes are canon with Revelation just being the golden ending.

Why am I seeing Conquest being vastly overrated lately

It was completely average level design with easily broken gameplay requiring no thought at all

MarthGoomba posted...

Why am I seeing Conquest being vastly overrated lately

It was completely average level design with easily broken gameplay requiring no thought at all

A lot of FEtubers and players marathoning and replaying all the games which helps take off the nostalgia goggles.

PBusted posted...

You were the one being hyperbolic about Fates being universally agreed to be bad first. I was also talking about gameplay. 4/5 and the GBA games are called good due to the whole package (4 in particular is generally considered to have rather mediocre gameplay but is peak FE story), but Conquest is often said to have the strongest gameplay among hardcore players and challenge runners. It's marred by having the worst story in the series which lowers the package by a lot but that doesn't change the gameplay is touted as one of if not the best by hardcore players.
Canonicity has nothing to do with gameplay and iirc Heirs of Fate implies all the routes are canon with Revelation just being the golden ending.

And gameplay isn't just literally nothing but map design. Heck, in Conquest's case the concept goes even further in that having a gimmick isn't the only thing that has to do with map design. There is sort of a reason that literally nothing about Conquest is ever brought up when it comes to gameplay beyond map design: that is quite literally the only part of the gameplay that isn't hot garbage. 4's big maps are definitely an enormous turn off for quite a few people, but that doesn't change that people that like will tout it as the best.

Though you are correct, Revelations is the golden ending and not the canon one. That said the point still stands as the plot of Revelations is required to understand the core of everything that Fates brings to the table story-wise so discounting it is absurd.

Gamefreak1000 posted...

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.

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.

I already conceded that sometimes FE4 falls back on relying on juggernauts. But in terms of the overall experience, having both micro and macro is a step above Conquest, which only has insane movement techs required in very very few maps (I've seen amazing things done with the snow map, and I think it's one of Conquest's better maps, but I struggle to figure out where else this level of thought is required), otherwise an incredibly lukewarm or no required thought at all is required on the movement in Conquest.

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.

PBusted posted...

Corridors that have strong enemy placing and skill distribution which does the most in preventing you from soloing...

Are you just saying that with like an actual evidence of them designing in such a way? I'm not quoting just one sentence btw, I'm quoting the whole thing, just was getting too long. Because in Fates, they only thing they do to actually prevent juggernauting, which they fail at, is that ninjas have stacking debuffs. But... you can just wait it out lmfao, and just go back into juggernauting. I love waiting 16 turns of boredom cuz they just slapped this band-aid solution that only serves to slow the game down and not actually address its worst aspects. How is this a solution? Don't call ME out on nostalgia and then ignore specifics of this game that you're clearly nostalgia-ing over.

Also it sounds like you hate open maps purely on the basis that it's a "slog." Ok... why? Just because things take longer? But while they take longer, they require players to make good unit formations and also have to plan ahead, which is where the macro comes from. I see you saying a lot of things without backing it up with specifics. I can't properly respond to you if you just call things good or bad and just have me take your word for it.

Also I didn't "praise" Awakening. I said it's less juggernaut centric than Fates through its map designs, even though Awakening's skill and weapon design allowed for even more juggernauting (which has nothing to do with the map). And that's in part due to the open map. I never said anything in terms of whether it was actually well designed. You're letting bias put words in my mouth, even though I even specifically numbered shit that I thought needed a lot of thought and creativity compared to Conquest map design.

I'm also not being hyperbolic. How many pictures of maps do I have to post til I can make my point? The whole game? Do I leave out like the 3 good maps or something?

ellis123 posted...

And gameplay isn't just literally nothing but map design. Heck, in Conquest's case the concept goes even further in that having a gimmick isn't the only thing that has to do with map design. There is sort of a reason that literally nothing about Conquest is ever brought up when it comes to gameplay beyond map design: that is quite literally the only part of the gameplay that isn't hot garbage. 4's big maps are definitely an enormous turn off for quite a few people, but that doesn't change that people that like will tout it as the best.

Though you are correct, Revelations is the golden ending and not the canon one. That said the point still stands as the plot of Revelations is required to understand the core of everything that Fates brings to the table story-wise so discounting it is absurd.

That's also just wrong. Fate's gameplay is praised for its dual attack strategies, pairup being completely fixed up from Awakening and something enemies do, ranged weapons being nerfed so people don't just send in their best units with a javelin/hand axe, skills being prioritized over raw stats, reclassing being better than previous games by being more limited but still customizable with A+/S supports etc. It feels like most of your discourse comes from Fates launch while there's been some new discourse over it recently.

I don't give AF about the game, but the aesthetic and animation looks very clean from what I've seen

PBusted posted...

That's also just wrong. Fate's gameplay is praised for its dual attack strategies, pairup being completely fixed up from Awakening and something enemies do, ranged weapons being nerfed so people don't just send in their best units with a javelin/hand axe, skills being prioritized over raw stats, reclassing being better than previous games by being more limited but still customizable with A+/S supports etc. It feels like most of your discourse comes from Fates launch while there's been some new discourse over it recently.

Ok you keep inventing these supposed strawmen that praise Fates or whatever, but in reality, nobody's seriously talking about Fates in the modern days outside of memes, except for Fates fans. They're fans, so they're not gonna look at it as critically as a non-fan who spent the time, like I did, will.

Also by popular whoevers streaming whatsis, uhh... who? There's currently 0 stream on Fates on Twitch and like 0 stream on youtube

I've always maintained Fates had fantastic gameplay but everything else was such fucking garbage that I lost interest.

The pair gimmick was way better than the battalion shit in 3H.

Anyway I remain excited for Engage even though it looks like a mobile game that got derailed mid production in order to not compete with FEH.

PBusted posted...

That's also just wrong. Fate's gameplay is praised for its dual attack strategies, pairup being completely fixed up from Awakening and something enemies do, ranged weapons being nerfed so people don't just send in their best units with a javelin/hand axe, skills being prioritized over raw stats, reclassing being better than previous games by being more limited but still customizable with A+/S supports etc. It feels like most of your discourse comes from Fates launch while there's been some new discourse over it recently.

Its dual attack/pair-ups being fixed is what is praised, not that they are good within the context of the gameplay. Similarly talking about ranged weapons being balanced, skills being prioritized over stats, etc. are basically exclusively "they did something different than Awakening" and are almost entirely based around a pretty nebulous "the game is good because they balanced it better" and not because of anything to do with the gameplay. Heck, it is even more questionable when you consider the actual gameplay choices in the game rather than just things that are carry-over complaints from Awakening. Things like its maligned weapon upgrading system is something that exists that is completely ignored due to its completely irrelevant and absurdly grindy nature. It very much is Fates' very own "Draw" system.

And post something that actually talks about Fates in any level of a positive light from the last year or two. All I can find, beyond the fact that I've kept up with Fire Emblem on Youtube, are things that talk about Fates in less than stellar light with the "best" thing being commented on is that Conquest is substantially better than the other two.

legendarylemur posted...

Are you just saying that with like an actual evidence of them designing in such a way? I'm not quoting just one sentence btw, I'm quoting the whole thing, just was getting too long. Because in Fates, they only thing they do to actually prevent juggernauting, which they fail at, is that ninjas have stacking debuffs. But... you can just wait it out lmfao, and just go back into juggernauting. I love waiting 16 turns of boredom cuz they just slapped this band-aid solution that only serves to slow the game down and not actually address its worst aspects. How is this a solution? Don't call ME out on nostalgia and then ignore specifics of this game that you're clearly nostalgia-ing over.

Also it sounds like you hate open maps purely on the basis that it's a "slog." Ok... why? Just because things take longer? But while they take longer, they require players to make good unit formations and also have to plan ahead, which is where the macro comes from. I see you saying a lot of things without backing it up with specifics. I can't properly respond to you if you just call things good or bad and just have me take your word for it.

Also I didn't "praise" Awakening. I said it's less juggernaut centric than Fates in reality, even though Awakening's skill and weapon design allowed for even more juggernauting (which has nothing to do with the map). And that's in part due to the open map. I never said anything in terms of whether it was actually well designed. You're letting bias put words in my mouth, even though I even specifically numbered s*** that I thought needed a lot of thought and creativity compared to Conquest map design.

I'm also not being hyperbolic. How many pictures of maps do I have to post til I can make my point? The whole game? Do I leave out like the 3 good maps or something?

Stacking debuffs, poison strike/grisly wound, hexing rod, infinite reinforcements that give no exp, enemies with capped stats etc. There's the fact that Conquest is the first full game that actually has enemies with specifically tailored skillsets after Awakening's challenge maps. You're obviously not meant to wait dozens of turns to get those debuffs to be gone just so you can juggernaut after. This is entirely a you problem which seems to be the case for most of your complaints about Conquest not letting you play the way you're used to. Which is actually a good thing that Conquest prevents the usual lowmanning tactics to trivialize most previous games. And you are absolutely not juggernauting Conquest Endgame by any means.

It's generally considered that open maps are less well designed and encourages juggernauting which is the reason why Awakening, Genealogy, and Valentia's maps have been some of the most criticized. You praising them just makes it sound like you're intentionally going against the grain. Which is fine but you're just being completely inaccurate when you claim "most people like FE4 maps" because that is just not true. FE4 is negatively memed for its maps.
https://www.reddit.com/r/shitpostemblem/comments/zcesnx/i_love_chapter_2_of_geneology_i_love_just_moving/
https://www.reddit.com/r/shitpostemblem/comments/ojsqej/its_me_im_fe4_fans/
https://www.resetera.com/threads/fire-emblem-engage-previews-thread.672187/page-16#post-99328153
legendarylemur posted...

Ok you keep inventing these supposed strawmen that praise Fates or whatever, but in reality, nobody's seriously talking about Fates in the modern days outside of memes, except for Fates fans. They're fans, so they're not gonna look at it as critically as a non-fan who spent the time, like I did, will.

Also by popular whoevers streaming whatsis, uhh... who? There's currently 0 stream on Fates on Twitch and like 0 stream on youtube

Excelblem, the newest FE challenge run streamer who's already doing more stuff than people like Mangs and Mekkkah just had multiple runs dedicated to Conquest. Speedyhawk had a recent Conquest Hard ironman as did JBR Channel. It's interesting you're talking about views since obviously Fates content has a lot more views than older games.

ellis123 posted...

Its dual attack/pair-ups being fixed is what is praised, not that they are good within the context of the gameplay. Similarly talking about ranged weapons being balanced, skills being prioritized over stats, etc. are basically exclusively "they did something different than Awakening" and are almost entirely based around a pretty nebulous "the game is good because they balanced it better" and not because of anything to do with the gameplay. Heck, it is even more questionable when you consider the actual gameplay choices in the game rather than just things that are carry-over complaints from Awakening. Things like its maligned weapon upgrading system is something that exists that is completely ignored due to its completely irrelevant and absurdly grindy nature. It very much is Fates' very own "Draw" system.

And post something that actually talks about Fates in any level of a positive light from the last year or two. All I can find, beyond the fact that I've kept up with Fire Emblem on Youtube, are things that talk about Fates in less than stellar light with the "best" thing being commented on is that Conquest is substantially better than the other two.

Not just in comparison to Awakening, in comparison to all the games. Dual attacks gives more strategic options and depth than all the much more simpler gameplay of previous games. Ranged weapons being OP has been a problem in almost all the previous FEs. Skills being more strategic is not just more strategic than Awakening but more strategic than the FEs that practically don't have skills at all and rely solely on stats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mjPezTUILE including the comments
Excelblem has also said something of the sort within one of his videos.
Mekkkah who admits to not liking skill emblem still acknowledge's Fate's high but fair difficulty.

PBusted posted...

Not just in comparison to Awakening, in comparison to all the games. Dual attacks gives more strategic options and depth than all the much more simpler gameplay of previous games. Ranged weapons being OP has been a problem in almost all the previous FEs. Skills being more strategic is not just more strategic than Awakening but more strategic than the FEs that don't have skills at all and rely solely on stats.

Dual attacks give more options versus nothing, but that doesn't make any of the previous games any less complex. Heck, I would call the Tellius games more complex because shoving and rescuing are vastly more complex than making sure that you have at least one strong attacker on your front line next to your new attacker (which is basically all the strategy of dual attacks boils down to). Similarly previous games mostly had no ranged weapons that are any more OP than what is in Fates. If anything until you can rewrite Ryoma to not exist in Fates (no, hiding behind Conquest is not good enough) Fates has the most overpowered ranged nonsense that the series has ever had by a country mile. And as skills are a mainstay since IV, I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say. 9+ certainly had more of an emphasis on skills but I'm not sure what the value of pointing out that 1-3 are less strategic is supposed to be.

And that video has its Conquest takeaway to be "far more stressed than satisfied" when talking about the gameplay. I don't know if that is supposed to the glowing praise you are looking for. Similarly when I went to the comments one of the very first ones was that he should get a medal for playing the same game six times: a thing that wouldn't be considered all that high of a praise for any other game in my eyes.

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.

ellis123 posted...

Dual attacks give more options versus nothing, but that doesn't make any of the previous games any less complex. Heck, I would call the Tellius games more complex because shoving and rescuing are vastly more complex than making sure that you have at least one strong attacker on your front line next to your new attacker (which is basically all the strategy of dual attacks boils down to). Similarly previous games mostly had no ranged weapons that are any more OP than what is in Fates. If anything until you can rewrite Ryoma to not exist in Fates (no, hiding behind Conquest is not good enough) Fates has the most overpowered ranged nonsense that the series has ever had by a country mile. And as skills are a mainstay since IV, I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say. 9+ certainly had more of an emphasis on skills but I'm not sure what the value of pointing out that 1-3 are less strategic is supposed to be.

And that video has its Conquest takeaway to be "far more stressed than satisfied" when talking about the gameplay. I don't know if that is supposed to the glowing praise you are looking for. Similarly when I went to the comments one of the very first ones was that he should get a medal for playing the same game six times: a thing that wouldn't be considered all that high of a praise for any other game in my eyes.

It logically does. Heck, one of the criticism of some old-timers like Mekkkah and one that you're using yourself is it's too complex. Of course, that's a personal thing and I'd think more hardcore players would generally appreciate the complexity.
Also, Fates actually did have Rescue in the form of the Shelter skill (which Excelblem used very generously in his runs). So does Shove but it's less useful.
Ryoma not existing in Conquest (and is in fact an enemy boss twice) is a valid argument to make about Conquest being more balanced and challenging.
I meant "practically". Skills have existed since genealogy but games like Tellius and the GBA games they're almost completely unimportant outside of a handful of stuff like Wrath Resolve and Nihil. You certainly don't have to worry about the enemies packing them.

He says the gameplay system and mechanics in Fates is the best in the series

Anyway
https://forums.serenesforest.net/index.php?/topic/73528-best-and-worst-gameplay-in-the-series/
https://forums.serenesforest.net/index.php?/topic/88116-if-conquests-gameplay-is-among-the-best-in-the-series-what-are-the-other-best-gameplay-titles/#comments

Recent one in FEuniverse from last year.
https://feuniverse.us/t/ranking-fire-emblem/11500/12

The award for the best gameplay of the series goes to:
FE14 Fates - Conquest route with 4.11 points!
Not very surprising, Conquest is universally agreed to have the best gameplay despite its abysmall writting.
The second place goes ex equo to Blue Lions route of FE16 and FE10 with 3.86 points. Next we have the Golden Deer route with 3.83 points (closely followed by Black Eagles route with 3.8).
The award for worst gameplay goes to (again) Revelation. Its a bad game.
Surprisingly FE6 got much worse score than the other GBA games.

Search "fire emblem "best gameplay" reddit" on google too and most results from the last three years will have Conquest listed.
This honestly should be common knowledge.

PBusted posted...

It logically does. Heck, one of the criticism of some old-timers like Mekkkah and one that you're using yourself is it's too complex. Of course, that's a personal thing and I'd think more hardcore players would generally appreciate the complexity.
Also, Fates actually did have Rescue in the form of the Shelter skill (which Excelblem used very generously in his runs). So does Shove but it's less useful.
Ryoma not existing in Conquest (and is in fact an enemy boss twice) is a valid argument to make about Conquest being more balanced and challenging.
I meant "practically". Skills have existed since genealogy but games like Tellius and the GBA games they're almost completely unimportant outside of a handful of stuff like Wrath Resolve and Nihil. You certainly don't have to worry about the enemies packing them.

Just "no" to basically all of that. Shelter was not at all like rescue, it was just a way to Pair Up from the perspective of the secondary character. Ryoma existing in Fates at all makes Fates have the most OP ranged nonsense period. Heck, you could even go with the route that Xander being the second most OP ranged character (though obviously ignoring the MC from Awakening in both cases, who is arguably the strongest character in FE history) means that Conquest only just barely squeaks into a weird second/third place when it comes to "most OP ranged nonsense" in the series. Fates taking all three of the top slots is not a good look even if Conquest is the #3 in this context. And skills were very important in Tellius. Wrath + Vantage + Resolve was the most OP, but the system as a whole was extremely relevant. At worst you can say it was vastly more balanced than was in Awakening/Fates and thus doesn't entirely steal the show like it does with them, which isn't a particularly damning thing in my eyes.

And the poll is not at all "recent" and is just as easy to point to feelings towards Conquest being high almost immediately after its launch. If anything it is showing you being revisionist about how its reception was, not that it is currently viewed highly. The second one is still older than Three Houses, so it's a bit of a wash as well. That said it is very much not a blanket "the gameplay is the best" topic, with many posts refuting the allegations outright (a highlight being #7). The FEUniverse one is certainly the one I was looking for you posting the most out of the lot as it does show that there is some amount of people that like Conquest, but with the almost entirely dead website and no poll data beyond the scores I do not find it particularly compelling. Mekkkah, moving away from Mangs, gets more per-video views than FEUniverse gets posts almost per year. I would put him and his viewer-bases impressions on Conquest more than I would FEU's, and his isn't the highest praise.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Cuz those games sucked. If you like Fire Emblem for the waifus, Fire Emblem Heroes exists for you. We can quarantine that part of the fanbase there and the main games can be good again.

Heroes is a mobile game. Does it even have dating? Yiu can't say the games sucked when they literally saved Fire Emblem's life

Zikten posted...

Yiu can't say the games sucked

You can easily say that since Echoes and Three Houses got rid of it.

dave_is_slick posted...

You can easily say that since Echoes and Three Houses got rid of it.

Echoes is a remake. It not having it isn't a removal of a mechanic at all.

dave_is_slick posted...

You can easily say that since Echoes and Three Houses got rid of it.

3 houses has dating in it

tremain07 posted...

Altear brought be into it simply for this
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/1/8/AAPa_qAAEEYW.jpg
After Corrin the wishy washy and Blyeth the non-character I had given up hope that an MC would ever be willing to kill after Robin but I'm glad to see that's not the case. Now let's see if they have their own "Checkmate" style line

Um Byleth was more than willing to kill. What are you talking about?

Zikten posted...

Heroes is a mobile game. Does it even have dating? Yiu can't say the games sucked when they literally saved Fire Emblem's life

I would have rather the series died than continued like Fates and Awakening. Fortunately Echoes and Three Houses significantly restored and improved the quality.

Zikten posted...

3 houses has dating in it

It does not have dating. No, one event at the very end is not dating.

ellis123 posted...

Echoes is a remake. It not having it isn't a removal of a mechanic at all.

The fact that it's a remake means they easily could've added it since it was VERY bare bones to begin with. Not including it was a choice.

ellis123 posted...

Just "no" to basically all of that. Shelter was not at all like rescue, it was just a way to Pair Up from the perspective of the secondary character. Ryoma existing in Fates at all makes Fates have the most OP ranged nonsense period. Heck, you could even go with the route that Xander being the second most OP ranged character (though obviously ignoring the MC from Awakening in both cases, who is arguably the strongest character in FE history) means that Conquest only just barely squeaks into a weird second/third place when it comes to "most OP ranged nonsense" in the series. Fates taking all three of the top slots is not a good look even if Conquest is the #3 in this context. And skills were very important in Tellius. Wrath + Vantage + Resolve was the most OP, but the system as a whole was extremely relevant. At worst you can say it was vastly more balanced than was in Awakening/Fates and thus doesn't entirely steal the show like it does with them, which isn't a particularly damning thing in my eyes.

And the poll is not at all "recent" and is just as easy to point to feelings towards Conquest being high almost immediately after its launch. If anything it is showing you being revisionist about how its reception was, not that it is currently viewed highly. The second one is still older than Three Houses, so it's a bit of a wash as well. That said it is very much not a blanket "the gameplay is the best" topic, with many posts refuting the allegations outright (a highlight being #7). The FEUniverse one is certainly the one I was looking for you posting the most out of the lot as it does show that there is some amount of people that like Conquest, but with the almost entirely dead website and no poll data beyond the scores I do not find it particularly compelling. Mekkkah, moving away from Mangs, gets more per-video views than FEUniverse gets posts almost per year. I would put him and his viewer-bases impressions on Conquest more than I would FEU's, and his isn't the highest praise.

Shelter allows you to transfer a tapped unit from one spot to a more advantageous spot, the exact same as rescue. The only difference is that rescue cuts your stats but that's made up by the fact that everyone can use rescue in the older games while shelter was a class based skill so you had to plan out ahead of time someone to get it and also make room for it in their skill list. It's a different type of drawback but it allows for the same concept on the map.
Again, Ryoma not existing in Conquest means Ryoma doesn't factor into Conquest. Are you just referring to Normal/the lowest difficulty or something? Xander can't even beat the boss on the chapter after his recruitment by himself on Lunatic. Xander is several levels below RD Haar who has entire tiers dedicated to him and can solo RD Hard rather easily with just a few favoritism (outside the DB maps which still have ways to cheese them. And by part 4 you get the invincible laguz royals), something you can't do with Xander.

Skills are not needed at all for PoR outside of Black Knight and Ashnard. They're just little bonuses. Same with RD where all mastery skills are just instakills and other skills are also more useful bonuses but aren't required unlike in Conquest. And of course no enemy uses them in both PoR and RD outside the endgame bosses. Skills in those games were almost entirely a player thing which like pairup in Awakening isn't a balanced concept.

Those polls were after Echoes. They were before TH, true, but that only elevates Conquest's opinion as TH's gameplay was not considered as good as Conquest even if its story and character writing is infinitely better.
The fact that you're focusing at the few refutations means that you understand those are the minority going against the majority opinion that Conquest is the best gameplay, unlike your original claim that most people only see it as above the other Fates games and not as one of the best in the series.
I've already provided enough evidence myself. You should go find any recent poll putting older games above Conquest if you want me to put any stock in your claim.
Excelblem gets even more views per video than Mekkkah these days and Conquest is his most played game. Mekkkah himself also says Conquest is "gameplay good story bad" which even if he doesn't think it's the best doesn't mean he thinks it's only above the other Fates games and bad otherwise like you originally claimed. Most of the comments on his video also tell him that Conquest gets better when you're used to the skills since he only played a blind run so it's still viewed positively by his viewers.

Also, I never said the reception wasn't high at launch. I said your discourse sounded like things from launch. Conquest's gameplay was considered high at launch but it was still mired in controversy due to all the other aspects of the game and people would air their grievances over those other aspects by associating it with the gameplay as well. Over time, a lot of those kneejerk sour players grew out of it and more people began to realize that even if the story and premise is awful the gameplay is still top notch.