Fire Emblem - Coming of the FISH DOCTOR!

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

It's sad to know that with every Fire Emblem game that I have played in my life, I have not finished one game because its so fricken hard!

How do you do it? Like seriously? I don't want to die and to have not completed a Fire Emblem game.

Fail.

FE is pretty easy (well, maybe not Hard Mode). Basically, you need strategy. Don't send units out into the middle of the enemy, they'll die. Don't put low defense units in range of the hard hitters, they'll die. Don't forget to heal units often, they'll die. Don't use bad units, they'll die. Don't ignore the weapon triangle, they'll die. Don't recklessly charge tough bosses, they'll die. Don't let the pegasi get hit by an arrow, they'll die.

Try Sacred Stones Normal Mode for a pathetically easy FE. ALthough it's probably the worst in the series.

Been there done that, died.

I don't think Fire Emblem is my type of game. It's pretty much like chess, though more advanced and I such at chest for a start...

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Really? I didn't care in at all about my characters in RD that much. I kept all of them alive, but I did that in all the Fire Emblem. Indeed, I cared most for the second generation of Seisen - I'd spent so long trying to make their parents fall in love, they damn well weren't going to die on me now!

Yeah. I don't know why but I felt the characters were a lot more alive in RD.

A Seisen remake would be amazing.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

What I'd want to see most from FE is an FE4 remake. The game was genius, yes, but it is still restricted to Japan, and could also do with some of the features implemented later on in the series. Balancing issues (swords rape everything, basically) could also be addressed.

Oh **** yes. Seisen and Thracia remakes for the DS would get me to buy a new one on the spot.

However, due to the tendency of Americans to BAWWWWWWWW uncontrollably whenever something controversial appears in a game, a lot of the controversial stuff (Incest, religion, mass child murder, etc.) would be removed/altered upon localisation.

Originally Posted by Twilight Wolf

However, due to the tendency of Americans to BAWWWWWWWW uncontrollably whenever something controversial appears in a game, a lot of the controversial stuff (Incest, religion, mass child murder, etc.) would be removed/altered upon localisation.

And that's a bad thing?

I mean, the whole point of localization (as opposed to translation) is trying to preserve what the developers MEANT by the game, not just what they SAID. Things such as incest or genocide may have different cultural interpretation across from East to West, so something that may be shocking in a game in the West may not be so shocking in a Japanese game. The developers may not have intended the game to be edgy or controversial, so in essence, NoA would try to preserve their intentions by removing some of the edgier stuff, do you get what I mean?

Another thing, I see some people in this thread (like Twilight Wolf) decry SS and onward in favor of the older games. I'm playing through FE7 right now, and I'm wondering, what EXACTLY makes the older games so much different that you must dislike them? I think I'm detecting some sort of elitism in liking exclusive, Japan-only games or some such, but I'll give you folks a chance to justify yourselves.

Originally Posted by Dr. von Fish

Another thing, I see some people in this thread (like Twilight Wolf) decry SS and onward in favor of the older games. I'm playing through FE7 right now, and I'm wondering, what EXACTLY makes the older games so much different that you must dislike them? I think I'm detecting some sort of elitism in liking exclusive, Japan-only games or some such, but I'll give you folks a chance to justify yourselves.

They're all pretty much the same game really, the SNES games are harder but that is about the only difference really.

That's what I see, but it seems some love the old games and hate the new ones. I know there are minor differences that hardcore fans of the series may or may not appreciate, but why the strong love-hate contrast for two games that are essentially the same? It's like the guy that loves OoT but hates TP. Sure, TP lacks in originality, but it's like the SAME GOD-DAMN GAME!

Originally Posted by Dr. von Fish

That's what I see, but it seems some love the old games and hate the new ones. I know there are minor differences that hardcore fans of the series may or may not appreciate, but why the strong love-hate contrast for two games that are essentially the same? It's like the guy that loves OoT but hates TP. Sure, TP lacks in originality, but it's like the SAME GOD-DAMN GAME!

I guess some people might come down on the newer games for a lack of creativity in the level design as well, or a lack of progression in the series.

It's sort of like Super Mario 64 -> Super Mario Sunshine, except that Fire Emblem games don't really benefit from the advance in technology either.

Originally Posted by Dr. von Fish

That's what I see, but it seems some love the old games and hate the new ones. I know there are minor differences that hardcore fans of the series may or may not appreciate, but why the strong love-hate contrast for two games that are essentially the same? It's like the guy that loves OoT but hates TP. Sure, TP lacks in originality, but it's like the SAME GOD-DAMN GAME!

Can't really say Seisen, Rekka and Radience are similar. Same gameplay, everything else different.

English releases of FE have been pretty hit and miss. Rekka was amazing, Stones definately a miss. Radience was great, bu Dawn is widely regarded as a step down. Pretty much all of the Japanese ones (perhaps not Fuuin) are of a high calibre.

I said why EXACTLY. These generalizations aren't helping me, I need specifics.

I've heard of the "breeding" element in Seisen everyone talks about. That seems to be missing from newer games, how was that? We can start there.

I'm not a hater of "new" games - I liked Fire Emblem 11 a lot (and you can't use the " it is a remake of FE1" excuse, it plays nothing like FE1 except in the absolute basics.). What I disliked, was how in FE8, 9, and 10, Nintendo seemed to be erring towards making the series easier. For example, skirmish maps in FE8 could be easily abused for experience, and it isn't even like this was a loophole - anyone could do it. In FE9 and 10, luck becomes a massive part of the game, to the point where I can't really enjoy the games any more (Oh look. Aether. I win. Yippee...). Many things also seemed entirely unnecessary additions that detracted from the main point of the series - the Laguz being a prime example. Finally, character quality has degenerated. Prime example: Ike. (I've met more interesting statues)

I'm not a liker of all the old games, either. I did not like Gaiden at all, and the original FE1 is merely alright, as opposed to amazing. My favourite Fire Emblem games, in order of precedence, with cut offs indicating the various levels (top tier is amazing, fourth tier is very good, third tier is okay, fourth tier is meh, fifth tier is horribly unwanted) would be:

1. Geneaology of the Holy War [4]
2. Thracia 776 [5]
3. Fire Emblem [7]
-------
4. New Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light [11]
5. Mystery of the Emblem [3]
--------
6. Sword of Seals [6]
7. Dark Dragon and the Blade of Light [1]
--------
8. Sacred Stones [8]
9. Path of Radiance [9]
10. Side-story [2]
--------
11. Radiant Dawn [10]

EDIT:

Right, breeding for Dr. Von Fish.

In Fire Emblem 6 and onwards, you get the birth of Support Conversations. They minorly affect stats, help to flesh out characters, and may activate plot points, which is all very nice (and they were a welcome addition). However, they are just altered versions of a far better predecessor, the Love System.

In Fire Emblem 4, the game was split into two halves, with a twenty year gap between the two halves. During the first half, you play as the first set of characters, lead by my personal favourite Fire Emblem Lord, Sigurd. In the second half, you play as the second set of characters, lead by Celice, son of Sigurd. Almost all of these characters are as boring as heel. Roddlevan is worse than Ike, should so a thing be possible.

Unless.

Unless, you took advantage of the Love system in the first half of the game. If you made males and females fall in love in the first half of the game, it would give them stat boosts, unlock certain storyline events, and flesh out characters (Support Conversations, much?). However, it also did something far more important. The generic characters in part two, are replaced by the children of any pairs you made fall in love in the first half, meaning boring people like Roddlevan are replaced by cool people like Arthur, and so on.

However, Seisen has an extremely intricate system that means who you pair matters. The chilren very much indeed descend from their parents, and their stat growth is wholely relaint on their parents. For example, if you made Levin fall in love with Lachesis, their children will suck, basically. If you made Levin fall in love with Fury, their children will rape the universe. Plus, all of the children are interesting and complex characters, whom you really feel for, on account of having, basically, created them. My Sety (Levin's son), will probably be very different to Twilight Wolf's Sety. It adds a real feel of uniqueness to the second half of the game.

Plus, making characters fall in love is fun indeed. All characters start off with a set amount of love points for each other, and every turn that ends with them adjacent to each other, their love points will increase by a set amount that varies among pairs. (much like Support Conversations). As well as that, there are special conversations triggered by certaine evnts, that will massively boost love points, sometimes increasing them by up to 100. When the love points hit 500, characters fall in love. Acheiving this feels great, because it is a difficult, but very rewarding, process.

Hm. That sounds more interesting than the support system. I guess the Japanese Fire-Emblems sound more interesting, but having never played them, I can't really dispute them, so lets talk about two I have played. FE8 and FE7 (only to chapter 24, please no spoilers). You obviously like one much more than the other, why?

I recognize the "abusing the skirmish maps" thing, I did that for experience, but I don't really see how that's a flaw. I liked it, it gave me more options of who I could use and it extended the play value of the game. It's not like you have to do them even if you don't want to either, go ahead and challenge yourself if you think that's cheating.

I like the challenge Fire Emblem presents - I like having to sit down, and think about my moves carefully, planning possible stratagies out. Being constantly weaker than the enemy with most of your characters forces this - you can't run in guns ablazin'. Also, I raised and used all of the available characters anyway, for use in the Link Arena, which means you will raise them anyway, regardless of whether skirmish maps are there. Also, I never did use them, I just disliked the fact they are there. It's much the same thing with Dark Link in OoT - once you find out the Hammer rapes him, it isn't fun. Even if you don't kill him with the Hammer, and insist on using the sword, you know that it isn't really difficult, because you could just kill him at any time with the Hammer. It isn't a real challenge, it is an artificial challenge.

The second point as that in Fire Emblem 8, characters were extremely powerful in relation to the enemies. Almost all of the characters have extremely good stat growths, and they turn out good no matter how you raise them. In Fire Emblem 7, carefully raising characters was much more fun, because you had to be cautious about how you did it.

The third point is monsters. Fire Emblem, especially the early ones, is a serious series, that deals with complex political issues. Fire Emblem 8 didn't, it just had monsters invading. Ooh, I'm so scared. Face it, everyone laughed at the Mogall, and it ruined the tension, and took away from the plot.

Finally, this may be, and probably is, a personal thing, bet I felt Fire Emblem 8 had very weak characters. This is a rather hard point to explain, but I never really empathised with any of them. I felt much more akin to Lyn, Eliwood, and especially Hector, than I ever did Ephraim and Eirika.

Originally posted by Crab Helmet
I'm not a hater of "new" games - I liked Fire Emblem 11 a lot (and you can't use the " it is a remake of FE1" excuse, it plays nothing like FE1 except in the absolute basics.). What I disliked, was how in FE8, 9, and 10, Nintendo seemed to be erring towards making the series easier. For example, skirmish maps in FE8 could be easily abused for experience, and it isn't even like this was a loophole - anyone could do it.

Of course they're making them easier, that's so can actually attract new fans rather can doing nothing to bring it out of its niche status.

But I still cannot fathom how you'd ignore the fact that they continue to let you play on multiple difficulty settings, the higher of which are undeniably hard. I mean, Radiant Dawn didn't even give you an Easy mode, that one definitely wasn't meant to try and draw new fans in because they'd just get pissed off by it.

In FE9 and 10, luck becomes a massive part of the game, to the point where I can't really enjoy the games any more (Oh look. Aether. I win. Yippee...).

This seems really nitpicky given that you're mentioning one character, one move, and really one games where it ever became even remotely a serious happening.

Many things also seemed entirely unnecessary additions that detracted from the main point of the series - the Laguz being a prime example.

The Laguz were a pretty important addition, they were a key factor for creating the entire themes of genocide, racism and living experimentation for PoR, some of which leaked into RD.

Finally, character quality has degenerated. Prime example: Ike. (I've met more interesting statues)

Yeah, and the rest of the cast for PoR was great. Then, in RD, Ike became a much more interesting character. The differences between his iterations in the two games is an awesome evolution, one of the best in gaming.

But hell, even in PoR, he managed to be something you never see in JRPGs; realistic. And, given his age and troubles in that game, the fact that he didn't become a totally emo character is commendable.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Of course they're making them easier, that's so can actually attract new fans rather can doing nothing to bring it out of its niche status.

Making it easier won't effect whether it is a niche or not. It is an SRPG, therefore it is part of a niche genre.

But I still cannot fathom how you'd ignore the fact that they continue to let you play on multiple difficulty settings, the higher of which are undeniably hard. I mean, Radiant Dawn didn't even give you an Easy mode, that one definitely wasn't meant to try and draw new fans in because they'd just get pissed off by it.

I find it worrying that people think Radiant Dawn's Hard Mode possesses any difficulty at all.

This seems really nitpicky given that you're mentioning one character, one move, and really one games where it ever became even remotely a serious happening.

Lethality from the Sacred Stones, Miracle, Counter, Corrode, Aether, Stun, Flare, Sol, Astra, Luna, Colossus, Deadeye, Lethality, Roar, Cancel from Path of Radiance, and practically every single skill from Radiant Dawn there is. (going through a list would be boring and tedious, as I'd be looking for exceptions to overpoweredness, rather than overpoweredness itself).

Note that I did dislike the skill system is Seisen too, to an extent. However, it was less of a problem, because the skills were much, much less powerful, much, much rarer, and the RNG hated you, so they never activated. The only skills I like, are ones that are always activated. Anything that has a ~% chance of activation annoys me, on account of adding luck, something which should be minimal in a strategy game.

The Laguz were a pretty important addition, they were a key factor for creating the entire themes of genocide, racism and living experimentation for PoR, some of which leaked into RD.

Racism, genocide, and living experimentation would have been a far bigger punch if they'd actually been racism, and genocide. (living experimentation I'll give you). It was actually speciesism and massacre, seeing as the Laguz weren't human. If FE9 had had the guts to make the Laguz people, just a different type of people from the Beorc (be it religion, skin colour, whatever), that would have had a far greater impact. As it was, I never viewed the Laguz more than over-glorified furry-service.

Yeah, and the rest of the cast for PoR was great. Then, in RD, Ike became a much more interesting character. The differences between his iterations in the two games is an awesome evolution, one of the best in gaming.

The rest of the cast for PoR was almost unanimously boring. Also, Ike never changed. He was always dull. If you want to see character change, look at Alvis. He goes from a noble young man, to a jealous and twisted adversary, to a mad megalomaniac, to a sad puppet trying to do the best for his people despite what had happened, to a demented end.

But hell, even in PoR, he managed to be something you never see in JRPGs; realistic. And, given his age and troubles in that game, the fact that he didn't become a totally emo character is commendable.

So... not saying anything and having the general expression of cardboard is realistic now, is it? Also, you play too many ****ty RPGs. Having a non-emo character is normal for good RPGs. Ike's situation really isn't that bad, either. You want to see bad situation? Deidre was captured, brainwashed, raped by her half-brother, and killed by her possessed son.

Originally posted by Crab Helmet
Making it easier won't effect whether it is a niche or not. It is an SRPG, therefore it is part of a niche genre.

It has the potential to be at least recognized though given that it's a Nintendo franchise. Their name bears a ton of meaning with how popular this series could one day be.

I find it worrying that people think Radiant Dawn's Hard Mode possesses any difficulty at all.

You're an unusual character, then.

Lethality from the Sacred Stones, Miracle, Counter, Corrode, Aether, Stun, Flare, Sol, Astra, Luna, Colossus, Deadeye, Lethality, Roar, Cancel from Path of Radiance, and practically every single skill from Radiant Dawn there is. (going through a list would be boring and tedious, as I'd be looking for exceptions to overpoweredness, rather than overpoweredness itself).

I can't say anything for 8, still haven't played it and I've always heard a lot of criticism about it.

I don't know how much you let them become such an attraction, but I've played FE putting emphasis on Skills, and other times paying very little attention to them. Not much difference in my experiences with gameplay, difficulty, success etc. I think you make a bigger deal out of them than they actually are.

Racism, genocide, and living experimentation would have been a far bigger punch if they'd actually been racism, and genocide. (living experimentation I'll give you). It was actually speciesism and massacre, seeing as the Laguz weren't human. If FE9 had had the guts to make the Laguz people, just a different type of people from the Beorc (be it religion, skin colour, whatever), that would have had a far greater impact. As it was, I never viewed the Laguz more than over-glorified furry-service.

This is laughably nitpicky, now. The sheer discrimination and wiping out of an entire civilized, intelligent race should be plenty impactful. They don't need to be humans to have such heinous acts like that be disturbing.

And really, if it were normal humans, there wouldn't have been any of the themes like the unity between the different races, the different ways of life between the various Laguz, the barriers they had to break down while working with a completely different species (the humans). Having the Laguz offered motifs that wouldn't have been the same with normal humans.

The rest of the cast for PoR was almost unanimously boring. Also, Ike never changed. He was always dull. If you want to see character change, look at Alvis. He goes from a noble young man, to a jealous and twisted adversary, to a mad megalomaniac, to a sad puppet trying to do the best for his people despite what had happened, to a demented end.

Yeah, and Ike went from being an impatient, immature, reckless, kid in PoR to being a leader by example in RD. He didn't need to be an Alvis to show such notable change, now you just sound like an elitist.

So... not saying anything and having the general expression of cardboard is realistic now, is it?

No, but his overall character premise, his slow, gradual ascent to being a leader, his blunt and fiery diplomacy, and just the difficulty he had being a leader was realistic.

Plus, for once we didn't a royal priss that no regular gamer wouldn't have a chance to relate to. Ike's far more like the average human than any Sigurd or Marth or Roy.

Also, you play too many ****ty RPGs. Having a non-emo character is normal for good RPGs.

For the most part, JRPGs have get teenaged emo characters. A few gems like Dragon Quest and Rogue Galaxy didn't have it, but they're in a minority for Eastern RPGs, as that's just a character trait that isn't minded as much across the Pacific. Western RPGs luckily avoid this far more often, if not, always.

Ike's situation really isn't that bad, either. You want to see bad situation? Deidre was captured, brainwashed, raped by her half-brother, and killed by her possessed son.

Same thing three respones above.

Originally Posted by Jeff

It has the potential to be at least recognized though given that it's a Nintendo franchise. Their name bears a ton of meaning with how popular this series could one day be.

It'll always be a Nintendo series, regardless of difficulty. Non sequitur.

You're an unusual character, then.

No, I'm just a character who has played Thracia 776 with the AI set to Hard Mode.

I can't say anything for 8, still haven't played it and I've always heard a lot of criticism about it.

I don't know how much you let them become such an attraction, but I've played FE putting emphasis on Skills, and other times paying very little attention to them. Not much difference in my experiences with gameplay, difficulty, success etc. I think you make a bigger deal out of them than they actually are.

Nope. I really did not like them at all, and they constantly annoyed me. I used to hate it when Ike Aether'd someone. It always felt like cheating instead of winning on account of my tactics.

This is laughably nitpicky, now. The sheer discrimination and wiping out of an entire civilized, intelligent race should be plenty impactful. They don't need to be humans to have such heinous acts like that be disturbing.

Oh, yes, it was effecting. I just felt real humans would have done so much better than copping out with Laguz.

And really, if it were normal humans, there wouldn't have been any of the themes like the unity between the different races,

Yes there would. Jeff, people of different ethnic backgrounds and countries don't even get along in the real world, never mind the Fire Emblem world.

the different ways of life between the various Laguz,

People all over the world live in entirely different ways.

the barriers they had to break down while working with a completely different species (the humans).

No greater than the barriers of having to work with black people for many white Americans in the 1960s.

Having the Laguz offered motifs that wouldn't have been the same with normal humans.

Not true, as evidenced above.

Yeah, and Ike went from being an impatient, immature, reckless, kid in PoR to being a leader by example in RD. He didn't need to be an Alvis to show such notable change, now you just sound like an elitist.

Every single Fire Emblem Lord ever goes through that change. An elitist? Not really, I just appreciate quality character development in my games, not kid to man cardboardism.

No, but his overall character premise, his slow, gradual ascent to being a leader, his blunt and fiery diplomacy, and just the difficulty he had being a leader was realistic.

All of the Fire Emblem lords have difficulties being leaders. Again, this is no new thing. Also, all of them have gradual ascents to being a leader. Ike didn't do anything any other Lord hadn't done before.

Plus, for once we didn't a royal priss that no regular gamer wouldn't have a chance to relate to. Ike's far more like the average human than any Sigurd or Marth or Roy.

Sigurd was the lord I have empathised the most with throughout the series. A royal priss? Better than a common prick.

For the most part, JRPGs have get teenaged emo characters.

As I said, too many ****ty RPGs. I like to play good RPGs.

A few gems like Dragon Quest and Rogue Galaxy didn't have it, but they're in a minority for Eastern RPGs, as that's just a character trait that isn't minded as much across the Pacific. Western RPGs luckily avoid this far more often, if not, always.

Also, none of the Fire Emblem lords have ever been emo, so this doesn't really make Ike special.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

I like the challenge Fire Emblem presents - I like having to sit down, and think about my moves carefully, planning possible stratagies out. Being constantly weaker than the enemy with most of your characters forces this - you can't run in guns ablazin'. Also, I raised and used all of the available characters anyway, for use in the Link Arena, which means you will raise them anyway, regardless of whether skirmish maps are there. Also, I never did use them, I just disliked the fact they are there. It's much the same thing with Dark Link in OoT - once you find out the Hammer rapes him, it isn't fun. Even if you don't kill him with the Hammer, and insist on using the sword, you know that it isn't really difficult, because you could just kill him at any time with the Hammer. It isn't a real challenge, it is an artificial challenge.

That's crazy talk.

When you played Seisen on your emulator, did those save states come in handy? I imagine it made the game made the game much easier. Assuming you did use them, did it make you fume to know that you could save and load states on the fly? What about that "add code" button at the top of the emulator? Did it annoy you knowing you could looks up codes at any time and cheat? After all, I'm sure many people complete the Fire Emblems that way.

The difficulty, like anything else in the game, is just an illusion. The idea of disliking the game because you had the CHOICE to do something you didn't want to do anyway is just unreasonable. If you can't help that, then fine, but that means that there's nothing wrong with the game, but something wrong with you.

Also, as I'm sure you've noticed, you are unusually good at Fire Emblem. Things like the skirmishes allow us common folk to do things in the game with characters that we normally wouldn't get to do, and if you don't want to do it, you don't have to. Everybody wins, but I suppose that's what bothers you.

The second point as that in Fire Emblem 8, characters were extremely powerful in relation to the enemies. Almost all of the characters have extremely good stat growths, and they turn out good no matter how you raise them. In Fire Emblem 7, carefully raising characters was much more fun, because you had to be cautious about how you did it.

I pick the characters I like, give my favorite ones the stat boosts, promote them at level twenty, and just level them up in general. Given the randomness of level ups, I don't see how there could be much more to character growth beyond supports. Not that complicated, really. I do the same thing I did in FE8 to FE7, and I've yet to notice a huge difference in play styles.

The third point is monsters. Fire Emblem, especially the early ones, is a serious series, that deals with complex political issues. Fire Emblem 8 didn't, it just had monsters invading. Ooh, I'm so scared. Face it, everyone laughed at the Mogall, and it ruined the tension, and took away from the plot.

The plot was less focused on epic child rape and genocide or whatever, and focused on more homely themes. Loyalty and patriotism are important political themes present prominently in FE8, but mostly it was about the relationships between the characters, mostly Ephraim, Erika, and Lyon. Lyon was an especially intriguing villain. He is possessed, but it is difficult to reconcile his own innocence in his evil deeds.

Finally, this may be, and probably is, a personal thing, bet I felt Fire Emblem 8 had very weak characters. This is a rather hard point to explain, but I never really empathised with any of them. I felt much more akin to Lyn, Eliwood, and especially Hector, than I ever did Ephraim and Eirika.

Probably is a personal thing. I very much liked the Lords, mostly because their relationship closely mirrors my relationship with my own dear sister. Speaking of, we actually both played the game seperatley. She chose Erika's route, I chose Ephraim's. See? :3

Originally Posted by Dr. von Fish

That's crazy talk.

When you played Seisen on your emulator, did those save states come in handy? I imagine it made the game made the game much easier. Assuming you did use them, did it make you fume to know that you could save and load states on the fly? What about that "add code" button at the top of the emulator? Did it annoy you knowing you could looks up codes at any time and cheat? After all, I'm sure many people complete the Fire Emblems that way.

Use save states? Me?

...

I'm insulted.

Also, those aren't part of the game. If you want to take it that far, any game is reduced to pitifulness, as you can just mod everything. I don't hack (unless it's a series where hacking is practically encouraged, like Pokemon), or use anything the game doesn't allow, so this a null point for me.

The difficulty, like anything else in the game, is just an illusion. The idea of disliking the game because you had the CHOICE to do something you didn't want to do anyway is just unreasonable. If you can't help that, then fine, but that means that there's nothing wrong with the game, but something wrong with you.

Not really. That's like saying TP was very difficult because you can do a three hearts run through (although that wasn't particularly difficult at all, unless the Wiimote's ****ty responsiveness killed you). Yes, you can do a three hearts run through, but that isn't the game. The game is twenty hearts of "I'm an immortal!".

Also, as I'm sure you've noticed, you are unusually good at Fire Emblem.

See, that's not a natural talent, it is the result of practice. I didn't magically become good, I started off on the Easy Mode, moved up to Normal, and then had my head blasted off by Thracia 776. I've never objected to Easy, Medium, and Hard Modes. The trouble is, I like to complete games 100%, and skirmish maps and the like ooffer ways which are far too easy.

Things like the skirmishes allow us common folk to do things in the game with characters that we normally wouldn't get to do, and if you don't want to do it, you don't have to. Everybody wins, but I suppose that's what bothers you.

No, I firmly believe everyone should be able to win. However, I don't believe everyone should be able to win straight away. You should have to spend a few good hours dying, practicing, making calculations, until you know the game well enough not to abuse skirmish maps.

I pick the characters I like, give my favorite ones the stat boosts, promote them at level twenty, and just level them up in general. Given the randomness of level ups, I don't see how there could be much more to character growth beyond supports. Not that complicated, really. I do the same thing I did in FE8 to FE7, and I've yet to notice a huge difference in play styles.

The stat growths aren't completely random, and the growth rates of FE8 units are higher on average than FE7. It doesn't become obvious until maybe half way through each game, but you need to be slightly more careful with your meatshields and bruisers in FE7.

The plot was less focused on epic child rape and genocide or whatever, and focused on more homely themes. Loyalty and patriotism are important political themes present prominently in FE8, but mostly it was about the relationships between the characters, mostly Ephraim, Erika, and Lyon. Lyon was an especially intriguing villain. He is possessed, but it is difficult to reconcile his own innocence in his evil deeds.

See, all the other games had relationships between characters, AND kick ass plots. FE8 just has relationship between characters. Also, Lyon was an appalling villain. He was possessed? What a lame way to make a villain. It's the equivalent of Zant in TP - he serves no role other than puppet, and in the end you dislike both characters for being hollow.

Probably is a personal thing. I very much liked the Lords, mostly because their relationship closely mirrors my relationship with my own dear sister. Speaking of, we actually both played the game seperatley. She chose Erika's route, I chose Ephraim's. See? :3

Fair enough, I did say that was personal.

I just completed Path of Radiance. The Black Knight was hopelessly easy, thanks in no small part to Ike spewing Aethers from every orifice. Ashnard wasn't much more challenging.

Currently getting stuck back into a long-forgotten Radiant Dawn save. Trying to get through without losing anyone this time. While I do consider Radiant Dawn the superior game in most respects, the support conversations are horrible. Generic text with the name changed does not character development make. PoR had much better supports.