Toggle shoutbox
Shoutbox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wat do u thnk should b changed to make the FE series better?
Started by Syaoran79, Jan 07 2009 04:10 AM
23 replies to this topic
#1
Syaoran79
-
- Members
-
- 1 posts
Newbie
Posted 07 January 2009 - 04:10 AM
wat do u think should be add/removed/changed to make the FE series better? im curious to see how people think this series can be improved. make sure you guys are specific. feel free to post your opinions as long as they are not hurtful, deconstructive, etc. Have fun!
#2
bblues
-
- Veterans
-
- 5,547 posts
The Greatest
- Gender:Male
- Location:United Kingdom
- Interests:Stuff.
Posted 07 January 2009 - 12:22 PM
| QUOTE (Syaoran79 @ January 07, 2009 05:10 am) |
| wat do u think should be add/removed/changed to make the FE series better? im curious to see how people think this series can be improved. make sure you guys are specific. feel free to post your opinions as long as they are not hurtful, deconstructive, etc. Have fun! |
Well, they could make it more difficult, it's been getting too easy. Maybe add more replay value to it. Lose the lords at some point. Stop splitting the magic up. Make the final boss a challenge. Maybe more classes.
#3
badkiara
-
- Members
-
- 726 posts
Capitalism, ho!
- Location:The Netherlands
- Interests:Girlz<br>Girls<br>Vacation :D<br>PERSONA 4 FUCK YEAH<br>Recettear<br>^Child me lawl
Posted 07 January 2009 - 03:08 PM
I would like it if you can play the bad guys in some chapters so you don't get those annoying flash backs or that they tell you what happened. Just get to play a chapter with the bad guys and it will be awesome.
I agree with ancient for the lords. It would be good to leave them out for a chapter or if it is just one then that there happened something to him/her and (s)he can't fight.
Magic only as: Light, Dark, Anima, Staves. Like in the GBA FE.
Not really more classes but something like, a mercenary with a axe or a fighter with a sword.
I agree with ancient for the lords. It would be good to leave them out for a chapter or if it is just one then that there happened something to him/her and (s)he can't fight.
Magic only as: Light, Dark, Anima, Staves. Like in the GBA FE.
Not really more classes but something like, a mercenary with a axe or a fighter with a sword.
Best FE character (Click Here To Hide/Show Text)
#4
bblues
-
- Veterans
-
- 5,547 posts
The Greatest
- Gender:Male
- Location:United Kingdom
- Interests:Stuff.
Posted 07 January 2009 - 09:07 PM
| QUOTE (badkiara103 @ January 07, 2009 04:08 pm) |
| I would like it if you can play the bad guys in some chapters so you don't get those annoying flash backs or that they tell you what happened. Just get to play a chapter with the bad guys and it will be awesome. I agree with ancient for the lords. It would be good to leave them out for a chapter or if it is just one then that there happened something to him/her and (s)he can't fight. Magic only as: Light, Dark, Anima, Staves. Like in the GBA FE. Not really more classes but something like, a mercenary with a axe or a fighter with a sword. |
Mercenary with Axe = Fighter
Fighter with sword = Mercenary
I don't get it. Unless you mean personalised units.
#5
badkiara
-
- Members
-
- 726 posts
Capitalism, ho!
- Location:The Netherlands
- Interests:Girlz<br>Girls<br>Vacation :D<br>PERSONA 4 FUCK YEAH<br>Recettear<br>^Child me lawl
Posted 08 January 2009 - 03:21 PM
| QUOTE (The Ancient Mariner @ January 07, 2009 10:07 pm) | ||
Mercenary with Axe = Fighter Fighter with sword = Mercenary I don't get it. Unless you mean personalised units. |
The animation of a mercenary but it has an axe equipped and the animation of a fighter but with a sword equiped.
Best FE character (Click Here To Hide/Show Text)
#6
bblues
-
- Veterans
-
- 5,547 posts
The Greatest
- Gender:Male
- Location:United Kingdom
- Interests:Stuff.
Posted 08 January 2009 - 04:31 PM
Ok, I understand it better now, but it's not really a new class, the promoted would make it different.
#7
Holy Kensai
-
- Veterans
-
- 1,693 posts
Kaiser.
- Location:Canada
Posted 11 January 2009 - 11:35 AM
| QUOTE (badkiara103 @ January 08, 2009 11:21 am) |
| The animation of a mercenary but it has an axe equipped and the animation of a fighter but with a sword equiped. |
No offense but I dislike this idea. As Anicent Mariner said
"Mercenary with Axe = Fighter
Fighter with sword = Mercenary"(I don't know how to quote twice.
)So adding the abilities to wield each others' weapons would make at least one of the classes useless. Also, it would devaluate the promotion bonuses.
First of all, I do not consider Fe9 and Fe10 real Fire Emblems, as I found Fe9 pretty lame and way too easy. Fe10 I have not played as I do not have a Wii, and I have stubborn pride. Fe11, I know nothing about, but will not disregard as last I knew there is high hopes for it.
The only thing I would take away from Fire Emblem would be the addition of random battles (moving around on the map, the tower, and the ruins, of Fe8).
As for adding, make the Lord a generic soldier. That would be cool and open many possibilities. Have five training maps before the game, and from those (having you decide what weapon to use, which mount - using the mount/dismount system from the old Fire Emblems in these maps only, and so forth) the game would decide what class your Lord would be. Thus he could be a special class, but also very realistically be a normal class.
The games would definitely be harder, and I would like a two player co-op mode. Or a four-player tactical battle mode. It would be cool going through a story mode with your friend, each controlling your own set cast of characters (like normal, but just so that one person can't recruit them all, each person can get a certain 25 out of 50 characters or whatnot.) For example, Fe7, the battle where in Eliwood's story you get Hector, and visa versa. Playing that with one person controlling Hector's group, the other controlling Eliwood's group. Of course enemies would have to be stronger and perhaps more numerical, but that would also be part of the harder. As for four-player tactical mode, the same as co-op, but two versus two, or three versus one, or free for all on certain stages, like the bonus maps.
I definitely did not like the Laguz, but the idea of having a few monsters on your team would be nice. A random skeleton in search of his flesh who stalks your group until you let him join up.
Supporting was real nice, but add some drama. Have characters who hate each other. Who make you choose who to keep, which can influence who you can get later on. Like, Guy A hates Guy B, you choose Guy A. Now since you needed Guy B to get Guy C, Guy C will not join you. And maybe at some point Guy B will on the enemy's side directly to attack Guy A.
Also. I liked how Fe7 handled Lords. Your team should have three lords.
Lord A, Lord B, Lord C. Split the game into two parts, or Books like before. The first have you all saving the world, have Lord A and Lord C fall in love, Lord A being your main character. Then, at the end of the first, pull some crazy plot twist. Have Lord A betray Lord B and C, just having used Lord C, right after you've "saved" the world. Lord A kills Lord C, and injures Lord B. Have half your team killed off. Start Book 2, all your characters have lost a few levels, and Lord A has a new army, with some of your old friends as generals. Suddenly the game is a lot more intense.
Ditch the overly happy music. Make it happy, but touching. Like when you hear Final Fantasy 1 theme playing and you see a hardcore fan crying from memories. That would be amazing. Music that actually gets you involved and addicted, instead of annoying.
I think that's all. I liked the custom weapon making from Fe9, but did not like how it changed the battle animation. Maybe have everyone in the beginning maps trainees along with your Lord(s). To add on to earlier, depending on what you made your Lord A, Lord B would be the same, and Lord C would be chosen from it. Like, You have Lord A as a Myrmidon, Lord C becomes the opposite, a magic user like a Troubadour.
That's all for Tactical games. But as for an MMoTRPG, I would love to see; Set classes for Lords you can choose from that just surround weapon/magic. Such as how Ephraim uses a spear, Eliwood a sword, and Hector an Axe. Be able to choose one like them, or a magic user. Then you get a simple castle and a town. You do some easy politics to get money, and then you can hire an army, or go into a map editor mode to edit your castle. and as your territory expands you could edit it as well. Then you could ally or invade your neighbors, sell your army out as mercenaries, or hoard up money and train. Have monster dens that you can invade to level your guys up, and it would cost money due to the weapon system being the same as single player. Also, then someone could invade while your main force is out, making it so you would need more than one. As you captured neighbors you could recruit or free the lord if he/she doesn't flee. If recruited, it'd be possible to give them a small army to basically be a general and help you run your kingdom. Seeing as how some players would disagree with this, also add an execute/suicide option, so the person would not have to take you, or you could just kill yourself. Motivation for joining them would be less troops, politics, and troubles to take care of. More focus on battles. More time to train, and more money (from a paycheck or training or whatnot) to spend on custom/stronger weapons. Maybe add armor and accessories to the game that do nothing, but change your battle animation. And this sets up for more drama as your generals could betray you, and thus have to earn your trust. If you were retreating from a battle you could use them as a rear guard, or home protection, or ambushes, or whatever else you could think of. The way it's set up is that if someone really wanted to, and had the proper situation, they could write a book from it. Lords would need better stats, as you could not use them as front-line troops anymore, seeing as how when your lord dies, you lose the battle. There would need to be a lot more types of individual weapons, and maybe have some legendary weapons floating around. Legendary weapons can break too, so they might not be used much. If you wanted, you could store them in a secret room of the castle. As your castle and town grew, there'd be more shops and thus more selection, more classes to hire, and you'd be able to design more maps for it. Thus the secret room could be your last resort if you're being invaded. Oh, and spies would be a great help, as would thieves. Lords you capture could then be generals, spies, or thieves. It would not report if something was stolen, you would just be invaded on day and go to whip out Durandal, and it's be gone.
The only problems I personally can see with that is; 1)It may be too much work. 2)Battles, tactical battles online would be too long.
1) I can't really help with that, maybe add bots that do an average job of running things, letting you focus entirely on battles? Or you could just surrender to another Lord and become a general/spy/thief of his? Maybe even a recruiter for other lords, or a diplomat, or whatnot?
2) Strict Battle Rule and Time Limit. One you move, you moved. Then you can look at the stats for attacking, and choose to or not. Simple. You move in the wrong place, whoops. You may have just lost the battle because of it. You move next to the little guy who turns out to be super strong? Oh well. Just don't attack and hope he returns the favour - not likely. Time limit, maybe five minutes for you whole team. Thus each turn would last from 0 to 10 minutes. During your opponent's five minutes, you could watch his movements, check out his teams and guy's stats, and if you're lucky/daring, go back to your castle and set up other things. Be careful though, while you're setting up, say, an ambush unit to go around back and reinforce your army, your opponent may have ended his turn. Thus your five minutes might be halfway gone, or fully gone by the time you get back. And your opponent might realize what's happening, and do the same thing.
Strategy would be a very big key factor.
I guess battle animations would have to part of the battle map, otherwise your five minutes would be gone very fast. Maybe a screen pops up in the bottom left corner that shows it, so you can already begin moving your next character. Only problem here is if someone is too fast they might have another battle start before the first one ends. Simple here, have the new battle replace the old one, and the old one's results pop up in a little window directly over it.
All of this could make battle very dramatic. As you would be Blue, going against Red, with your Green ally as reinforcements, and his yellow as his. You have your own units coming from behind on turn 10. They meet some of his, so you now have two battles on the go. There is a random white unit whoever talks to can recruit, maybe some of your units are friends with some of theirs and can get a few to switch sides. Then big twist and your PC general betrays you. So your the battle went from, say, 30 versus 30 to 28 versus 28. You have five units reinforcement versus their four. So
28 vs 28
and
5 vs 4.
Then you get the white guy, and some of their units switch, some get killed. Assume your side stayed the same.
28 vs 17.
3 vs 0.
Turn ten. Arrival of your ambush.
25 vs 10.
Alright. So you're winning. And then the PC General switches. Assuming half half, round up for you.
13 versus 22.
Suddenly you're screwed, and another turn or two later is
5 versus 20.
And you have to retreat and use your back-up units, hopefully you didn't bring your best or give your best to the PC general. They keep invading, and hopefully your allies can save you. If not, chances are the PC general will get rewarded with your castle, minus any special weapons, and maybe you. Or he might pull a double betrayal and attack his new Lord, taking over both places.
And I just realized I forgot about including the allies. Even more drama there.
Thinking about it, you'd have to balance your army with magic-users and weapon-units, otherwise you may just get pwned. And there would have to be a limit on the amount of soldiers you can have under your command according to castle size. Army limit would always be fairly low, like 15 or something. The only way to get bigger would be have NPC Generals or PC Generals. PC Generals would obviously be able to control more units, and better too. And you could reward them with castles so they'll hopefully remain more loyal to you, you won't have to look after them (castles) and be able to spread your territory even more.
Of course there would have to be limited land, limited castles, and limited towns. So there'd need to be more than one server.
Imagine joining a server and it already being pretty much five nations, two versus two, and the smallest just being all the new people joined together so they don't get decimated.
Eh. Wow. I went very far with all that. I may edit more in. I'm sorry if I've stolen the topic.
Edit: I really like the playing bad guys idea for a map or few idea.
| QUOTE (Ryrumeli) |
| Yeah, that is what we get. Never mess with Kensai. XD |
| QUOTE (badkiara103) |
| Who doesn't want to kill a helpless little girl. |
The Holy Kensai Fan Club!
Holy Kensai Suzaku Seraph Ryoku Mankut8397 Blazer Oblivion Riadansen Caladbolg Pie
#8
cox21
-
- Members
-
- 587 posts
Cormag the Red, Ruby of the Grado Empire
Posted 11 January 2009 - 02:25 PM
| QUOTE (Holy_kensai @ January 11, 2009 06:35 am) | ||
No offense but I dislike this idea. As Anicent Mariner said "Mercenary with Axe = Fighter Fighter with sword = Mercenary"(I don't know how to quote twice. )So adding the abilities to wield each others' weapons would make at least one of the classes useless. Also, it would devaluate the promotion bonuses. First of all, I do not consider Fe9 and Fe10 real Fire Emblems, as I found Fe9 pretty lame and way too easy. Fe10 I have not played as I do not have a Wii, and I have stubborn pride. Fe11, I know nothing about, but will not disregard as last I knew there is high hopes for it. The only thing I would take away from Fire Emblem would be the addition of random battles (moving around on the map, the tower, and the ruins, of Fe8). As for adding, make the Lord a generic soldier. That would be cool and open many possibilities. Have five training maps before the game, and from those (having you decide what weapon to use, which mount - using the mount/dismount system from the old Fire Emblems in these maps only, and so forth) the game would decide what class your Lord would be. Thus he could be a special class, but also very realistically be a normal class. The games would definitely be harder, and I would like a two player co-op mode. Or a four-player tactical battle mode. It would be cool going through a story mode with your friend, each controlling your own set cast of characters (like normal, but just so that one person can't recruit them all, each person can get a certain 25 out of 50 characters or whatnot.) For example, Fe7, the battle where in Eliwood's story you get Hector, and visa versa. Playing that with one person controlling Hector's group, the other controlling Eliwood's group. Of course enemies would have to be stronger and perhaps more numerical, but that would also be part of the harder. As for four-player tactical mode, the same as co-op, but two versus two, or three versus one, or free for all on certain stages, like the bonus maps. I definitely did not like the Laguz, but the idea of having a few monsters on your team would be nice. A random skeleton in search of his flesh who stalks your group until you let him join up. Supporting was real nice, but add some drama. Have characters who hate each other. Who make you choose who to keep, which can influence who you can get later on. Like, Guy A hates Guy B, you choose Guy A. Now since you needed Guy B to get Guy C, Guy C will not join you. And maybe at some point Guy B will on the enemy's side directly to attack Guy A. Also. I liked how Fe7 handled Lords. Your team should have three lords. Lord A, Lord B, Lord C. Split the game into two parts, or Books like before. The first have you all saving the world, have Lord A and Lord C fall in love, Lord A being your main character. Then, at the end of the first, pull some crazy plot twist. Have Lord A betray Lord B and C, just having used Lord C, right after you've "saved" the world. Lord A kills Lord C, and injures Lord B. Have half your team killed off. Start Book 2, all your characters have lost a few levels, and Lord A has a new army, with some of your old friends as generals. Suddenly the game is a lot more intense. Ditch the overly happy music. Make it happy, but touching. Like when you hear Final Fantasy 1 theme playing and you see a hardcore fan crying from memories. That would be amazing. Music that actually gets you involved and addicted, instead of annoying. I think that's all. I liked the custom weapon making from Fe9, but did not like how it changed the battle animation. Maybe have everyone in the beginning maps trainees along with your Lord(s). To add on to earlier, depending on what you made your Lord A, Lord B would be the same, and Lord C would be chosen from it. Like, You have Lord A as a Myrmidon, Lord C becomes the opposite, a magic user like a Troubadour. That's all for Tactical games. But as for an MMoTRPG, I would love to see; Set classes for Lords you can choose from that just surround weapon/magic. Such as how Ephraim uses a spear, Eliwood a sword, and Hector an Axe. Be able to choose one like them, or a magic user. Then you get a simple castle and a town. You do some easy politics to get money, and then you can hire an army, or go into a map editor mode to edit your castle. and as your territory expands you could edit it as well. Then you could ally or invade your neighbors, sell your army out as mercenaries, or hoard up money and train. Have monster dens that you can invade to level your guys up, and it would cost money due to the weapon system being the same as single player. Also, then someone could invade while your main force is out, making it so you would need more than one. As you captured neighbors you could recruit or free the lord if he/she doesn't flee. If recruited, it'd be possible to give them a small army to basically be a general and help you run your kingdom. Seeing as how some players would disagree with this, also add an execute/suicide option, so the person would not have to take you, or you could just kill yourself. Motivation for joining them would be less troops, politics, and troubles to take care of. More focus on battles. More time to train, and more money (from a paycheck or training or whatnot) to spend on custom/stronger weapons. Maybe add armor and accessories to the game that do nothing, but change your battle animation. And this sets up for more drama as your generals could betray you, and thus have to earn your trust. If you were retreating from a battle you could use them as a rear guard, or home protection, or ambushes, or whatever else you could think of. The way it's set up is that if someone really wanted to, and had the proper situation, they could write a book from it. Lords would need better stats, as you could not use them as front-line troops anymore, seeing as how when your lord dies, you lose the battle. There would need to be a lot more types of individual weapons, and maybe have some legendary weapons floating around. Legendary weapons can break too, so they might not be used much. If you wanted, you could store them in a secret room of the castle. As your castle and town grew, there'd be more shops and thus more selection, more classes to hire, and you'd be able to design more maps for it. Thus the secret room could be your last resort if you're being invaded. Oh, and spies would be a great help, as would thieves. Lords you capture could then be generals, spies, or thieves. It would not report if something was stolen, you would just be invaded on day and go to whip out Durandal, and it's be gone. The only problems I personally can see with that is; 1)It may be too much work. 2)Battles, tactical battles online would be too long. 1) I can't really help with that, maybe add bots that do an average job of running things, letting you focus entirely on battles? Or you could just surrender to another Lord and become a general/spy/thief of his? Maybe even a recruiter for other lords, or a diplomat, or whatnot? 2) Strict Battle Rule and Time Limit. One you move, you moved. Then you can look at the stats for attacking, and choose to or not. Simple. You move in the wrong place, whoops. You may have just lost the battle because of it. You move next to the little guy who turns out to be super strong? Oh well. Just don't attack and hope he returns the favour - not likely. Time limit, maybe five minutes for you whole team. Thus each turn would last from 0 to 10 minutes. During your opponent's five minutes, you could watch his movements, check out his teams and guy's stats, and if you're lucky/daring, go back to your castle and set up other things. Be careful though, while you're setting up, say, an ambush unit to go around back and reinforce your army, your opponent may have ended his turn. Thus your five minutes might be halfway gone, or fully gone by the time you get back. And your opponent might realize what's happening, and do the same thing. Strategy would be a very big key factor. I guess battle animations would have to part of the battle map, otherwise your five minutes would be gone very fast. Maybe a screen pops up in the bottom left corner that shows it, so you can already begin moving your next character. Only problem here is if someone is too fast they might have another battle start before the first one ends. Simple here, have the new battle replace the old one, and the old one's results pop up in a little window directly over it. All of this could make battle very dramatic. As you would be Blue, going against Red, with your Green ally as reinforcements, and his yellow as his. You have your own units coming from behind on turn 10. They meet some of his, so you now have two battles on the go. There is a random white unit whoever talks to can recruit, maybe some of your units are friends with some of theirs and can get a few to switch sides. Then big twist and your PC general betrays you. So your the battle went from, say, 30 versus 30 to 28 versus 28. You have five units reinforcement versus their four. So 28 vs 28 and 5 vs 4. Then you get the white guy, and some of their units switch, some get killed. Assume your side stayed the same. 28 vs 17. 3 vs 0. Turn ten. Arrival of your ambush. 25 vs 10. Alright. So you're winning. And then the PC General switches. Assuming half half, round up for you. 13 versus 22. Suddenly you're screwed, and another turn or two later is 5 versus 20. And you have to retreat and use your back-up units, hopefully you didn't bring your best or give your best to the PC general. They keep invading, and hopefully your allies can save you. If not, chances are the PC general will get rewarded with your castle, minus any special weapons, and maybe you. Or he might pull a double betrayal and attack his new Lord, taking over both places. And I just realized I forgot about including the allies. Even more drama there. Thinking about it, you'd have to balance your army with magic-users and weapon-units, otherwise you may just get pwned. And there would have to be a limit on the amount of soldiers you can have under your command according to castle size. Army limit would always be fairly low, like 15 or something. The only way to get bigger would be have NPC Generals or PC Generals. PC Generals would obviously be able to control more units, and better too. And you could reward them with castles so they'll hopefully remain more loyal to you, you won't have to look after them (castles) and be able to spread your territory even more. Of course there would have to be limited land, limited castles, and limited towns. So there'd need to be more than one server. Imagine joining a server and it already being pretty much five nations, two versus two, and the smallest just being all the new people joined together so they don't get decimated. Eh. Wow. I went very far with all that. I may edit more in. I'm sorry if I've stolen the topic. Edit: I really like the playing bad guys idea for a map or few idea. |
Awesome
#9
Destran
-
- Members
-
- 179 posts
~Winged Saint~
- Location:A Tree
- Interests:Guess...
Posted 12 January 2009 - 03:03 AM
O_O
Huge post, much?
Either way, I'd like better supports, since recently, they've been cutting down on general storyline uniqueness. Furthermore, it would be nice if they could have more remember-able maps...
Huge post, much?
Either way, I'd like better supports, since recently, they've been cutting down on general storyline uniqueness. Furthermore, it would be nice if they could have more remember-able maps...
You jelly bro?
#10
bblues
-
- Veterans
-
- 5,547 posts
The Greatest
- Gender:Male
- Location:United Kingdom
- Interests:Stuff.
Posted 12 January 2009 - 07:15 AM
| QUOTE (Destran @ January 12, 2009 04:03 am) |
| O_O Huge post, much? Either way, I'd like better supports, since recently, they've been cutting down on general storyline uniqueness. Furthermore, it would be nice if they could have more remember-able maps... |
Very, mostly about an online FE game, which I don't think exists officially, but I'm not sure.
And yeah, the maps are pretty bad in that respect. They all just blend into one. Maybe a siege level would be nice.
#11
Holy Kensai
-
- Veterans
-
- 1,693 posts
Kaiser.
- Location:Canada
Posted 12 January 2009 - 08:22 AM
| QUOTE (The Ancient Mariner @ January 12, 2009 03:15 am) |
| Very, mostly about an online FE game, which I don't think exists officially, but I'm not sure. |
It doesn't. I'm just saying it's one of the changes I would make- making an MMoTRPG. And that's how I think the mechanics of it should work.
I really liked the intro map in Blazer's Fire Emblem Universe. The little island with a fort was my favorite part of it.
| QUOTE (Ryrumeli) |
| Yeah, that is what we get. Never mess with Kensai. XD |
| QUOTE (badkiara103) |
| Who doesn't want to kill a helpless little girl. |
The Holy Kensai Fan Club!
Holy Kensai Suzaku Seraph Ryoku Mankut8397 Blazer Oblivion Riadansen Caladbolg Pie
#12
bblues
-
- Veterans
-
- 5,547 posts
The Greatest
- Gender:Male
- Location:United Kingdom
- Interests:Stuff.
Posted 12 January 2009 - 07:46 PM
| QUOTE (Holy_kensai @ January 12, 2009 09:22 am) | ||
It doesn't. I'm just saying it's one of the changes I would make- making an MMoTRPG. And that's how I think the mechanics of it should work. I really liked the intro map in Blazer's Fire Emblem Universe. The little island with a fort was my favorite part of it. |
Well, it would be more of a spin-off, I still think the series will be console-based single player. Although multiplayer battles would be fun on consoles. I believe that this has happened on the DS.
#13
Fire Blazer
-
- Creator
-
- 12,103 posts
You ready?
- Gender:Male
- Location:U.S.A.
- Interests:Too many to list. =P
Posted 12 January 2009 - 10:24 PM
FE11 has Wi-Fi capability for a battle with up to 2 players, while GBA games' link arena can do up to 4, but is much less convenient.
There is a FE-online game, but it's not official at all, it's just a fan game. It's called Fire Emblem Tactics Online and it isn't completely FE-based but it's still worth a shot, I guess.
There is a FE-online game, but it's not official at all, it's just a fan game. It's called Fire Emblem Tactics Online and it isn't completely FE-based but it's still worth a shot, I guess.
Signature thanks to Shu.
#14
bblues
-
- Veterans
-
- 5,547 posts
The Greatest
- Gender:Male
- Location:United Kingdom
- Interests:Stuff.
Posted 13 January 2009 - 07:13 AM
| QUOTE (Mugiwara no Luffy @ January 12, 2009 11:24 pm) |
| FE11 has Wi-Fi capability for a battle with up to 2 players, while GBA games' link arena can do up to 4, but is much less convenient. There is a FE-online game, but it's not official at all, it's just a fan game. It's called Fire Emblem Tactics Online and it isn't completely FE-based but it's still worth a shot, I guess. |
Yeah, I think it would be better if it had multiplayer on the console itself, so you can just plug another controller in.
#15
Fire Blazer
-
- Creator
-
- 12,103 posts
You ready?
- Gender:Male
- Location:U.S.A.
- Interests:Too many to list. =P
Posted 13 January 2009 - 03:03 PM
Yeah, I was hoping they'd do that for the GC and/or Wii, but they didn't... IMO missing out on a good opportunity. :/ For whatever reason, it seems they didn't want to include it though.
Signature thanks to Shu.
#16
Vivek
-
- Members
-
- 182 posts
The perv that pisses you off
- Location:California
Posted 23 January 2009 - 02:06 AM
Probably the general downward direction it took after FE8.
youtube.com/vivekbob
And yeah, I'm still learning how to hack, be easy on me. Unlike some *Cough Xeld Cough*
#17
Mariobro3828
-
- Members
-
- 151 posts
Great Member
- Location:Oklahoma
- Interests:Drumming (Rudimental), Hanging out with friends, games (of course :P)
Posted 23 January 2009 - 02:43 AM
Support Convos! Those have really gone downhill lately. They were decent in FE9, but in FE10 it just felt like the characters were just forcing themselves to say one nice thing about the other person to the point where it just sounded awkward. They really weren't trying at all when they thought those up. =\
As far as the challenge level goes, I think hard was definitely pretty hard, as the name would hopefully imply. I kinda thought the distribution of difficulty throughout the game was a bit odd. I mean, take the Dawn Brigade, who is chalk full of Jeigans, and under leveled noobs, who require much extra attention if they are to become great (save Edward, Nolan and in some cases Jill). That being said, the hardest chapters are in the first part, which doesn't make all that much sense. Part 1 was a challenge, Part 2 I really didn't care much for, but it wasn't very hard, Part 3 gives you ridiculously good characters, and Part 4 maps can be solo'd very easily (*coughnepheneewithimbuecough*), and the endgame isn't a challenge.
Anyways, to get back on topic, the games could be harder, but hard mode IMO is a good enough challenge for a lot of people. At least FE10 was tons harder than FE9 though. >_>
As far as the challenge level goes, I think hard was definitely pretty hard, as the name would hopefully imply.
I kinda thought the distribution of difficulty throughout the game was a bit odd. I mean, take the Dawn Brigade, who is chalk full of Jeigans, and under leveled noobs, who require much extra attention if they are to become great (save Edward, Nolan and in some cases Jill). That being said, the hardest chapters are in the first part, which doesn't make all that much sense. Part 1 was a challenge, Part 2 I really didn't care much for, but it wasn't very hard, Part 3 gives you ridiculously good characters, and Part 4 maps can be solo'd very easily (*coughnepheneewithimbuecough*), and the endgame isn't a challenge. Anyways, to get back on topic, the games could be harder, but hard mode IMO is a good enough challenge for a lot of people. At least FE10 was tons harder than FE9 though. >_>
#18
Vivek
-
- Members
-
- 182 posts
The perv that pisses you off
- Location:California
Posted 23 January 2009 - 05:57 AM
Supports would be good to change as well...
youtube.com/vivekbob
And yeah, I'm still learning how to hack, be easy on me. Unlike some *Cough Xeld Cough*
#19
bblues
-
- Veterans
-
- 5,547 posts
The Greatest
- Gender:Male
- Location:United Kingdom
- Interests:Stuff.
Posted 23 January 2009 - 10:36 PM
| QUOTE (zeldafreak007 @ January 23, 2009 03:06 am) |
| Probably the general downward direction it took after FE8. |
This actually sums it up quite nicely. If it (the series) can be steered back towards the older FEs, then it would be an improvement.
#20
Mankut
-
- Veterans
-
- 635 posts
Mega Member
- Gender:Not Telling
- Interests:You
Posted 22 February 2009 - 01:45 AM
They should make the series harder and maybe balance the game more so there are no "Super Soldiers".
| QUOTE |
| Fire Blazer -- Man Cute is on |
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
