Fire Emblem: Wouldn't it be awesome if...

[Fiery Diamond]

...they made a game that was a "create your own adventure"?

Basically, if they made a game that had no story, no chapters, no cutscenes. But instead, what it had was the ability for you to create stuff. It would have...

Classes: In addition to having the standard classes (whichever ones they decided to include), there would be a "create your own class" feature. You would choose what this class looked like by picking and choosing from various templates. You would choose what the class could use and what its stat limits were. This would exist primarily as a way to create "Lord" classes and "BBEG" classes.

Characters: For the portrait/talking torso, you would get to choose things like height, armor type, facial shape, hair style, and colors. For field and battle depictions, you would take the standard template for their class and get to pick an choose little extra flairs and things to add on, in addition to recoloring as you saw fit.

Classes/Characters: For each class, extant or invented, you would be able to set stat caps. For each character, you would be able to set stat growths.

Experience: You could set the amount of experience gained by attacking and by defeating enemies (standard would be 10 for attacking an equal level enemy, 3x value for defeating an enemy).

Class Change: You could set, by character, whether the unit could change class at 21 or whether it needed an item or event. You would also be able to choose what class it would change into and whether it could increase a tier or not.

Items/Weapons: Set prices, availability (by chapter), and stats for weapons and items. Create new items and alter existing ones.

Chapters: Picking from choices, create the battle map. Place unit starting positions and enemy units. Set enemy reinforcements and conditions. Set enemy tactics by unit (for example- charge player, attack if player comes to certain spot, attack if player gets in range, attack if player gets in range but don't move from spot, etc.). Write up pre, post, and mid-battle story sequences, including placement of talking torsos and script. Set pre-battle options (like shop, support, etc.).

And so on.


That would be...the most awesome video game on the planet. Yes, yes it would.

I think we should start a group to send them letters about wanting one. Because even though we would never make an effect, I think we should badger them about this awesome idea anyway. Just in case.

[Zevox]

Basically, if they made a game that had no story, no chapters, no cutscenes.
No, that would not be awesome. That would cut out a good portion of the appeal, in fact, and be a very fast way to make me decide not to purchase the game in question.

A game which is nothing but customization would get boring extremely fast from where I'm sitting. I want to play games, not design them.

Zevox

[Illven]

...they made a game that was a "create your own adventure"?

Basically, if they made a game that had no story, no chapters, no cutscenes. But instead, what it had was the ability for you to create stuff. It would have...

Classes: In addition to having the standard classes (whichever ones they decided to include), there would be a "create your own class" feature. You would choose what this class looked like by picking and choosing from various templates. You would choose what the class could use and what its stat limits were. This would exist primarily as a way to create "Lord" classes and "BBEG" classes.

Characters: For the portrait/talking torso, you would get to choose things like height, armor type, facial shape, hair style, and colors. For field and battle depictions, you would take the standard template for their class and get to pick an choose little extra flairs and things to add on, in addition to recoloring as you saw fit.

Classes/Characters: For each class, extant or invented, you would be able to set stat caps. For each character, you would be able to set stat growths.

Experience: You could set the amount of experience gained by attacking and by defeating enemies (standard would be 10 for attacking an equal level enemy, 3x value for defeating an enemy).

Class Change: You could set, by character, whether the unit could change class at 21 or whether it needed an item or event. You would also be able to choose what class it would change into and whether it could increase a tier or not.

Items/Weapons: Set prices, availability (by chapter), and stats for weapons and items. Create new items and alter existing ones.

Chapters: Picking from choices, create the battle map. Place unit starting positions and enemy units. Set enemy reinforcements and conditions. Set enemy tactics by unit (for example- charge player, attack if player comes to certain spot, attack if player gets in range, attack if player gets in range but don't move from spot, etc.). Write up pre, post, and mid-battle story sequences, including placement of talking torsos and script. Set pre-battle options (like shop, support, etc.).

And so on.


That would be...the most awesome video game on the planet. Yes, yes it would.

I think we should start a group to send them letters about wanting one. Because even though we would never make an effect, I think we should badger them about this awesome idea anyway. Just in case.

You should join one of the games on this board. You get to create a character, and make your own conversations with the other players.

[Fiery Diamond]

No, that would not be awesome. That would cut out a good portion of the appeal, in fact, and be a very fast way to make me decide not to purchase the game in question.

A game which is nothing but customization would get boring extremely fast from where I'm sitting. I want to play games, not design them.

Zevox

I take it this is something along the same lines as "I want to read books, not write them" only with games? For me, the appeal is almost the same in consuming and creating. I would love to be able to custom-make games without having to do programming. Different people have different preferences. Being able to take one of my favorite video games and do custom things with it would be like a dream come true.

The creative process is not a boring one for me, it is in fact part of what keeps life worth living. Merely consuming without creating is like eating without drinking.

Obviously, for this hypothetical game, one would be able to play their self-created game. I mean, otherwise, what would be the point? It would be like fixing dinner and not eating it. Sure, cooking might be fun, but if you don't get to eat what you made, that's not satisfying.

[Zevox]

I take it this is something along the same lines as "I want to read books, not write them" only with games?
Not especially, as I do enjoy both reading and writing. But with games, I expect to be getting something other than "okay, you go you make this whole thing up yourself." As I said, a game which is mere customization would bore me quickly. Heck, there are already some TRPGs which rely too much on customization for their appeal and thus fail to maintain my interest - the Final Fantasy Tactics games, whose only really good aspect is the character customization.


Obviously, for this hypothetical game, one would be able to play their self-created game.
Which would be significantly less interesting than playing a regular game from where I'm sitting, since you'd know everything that is in it already. Nothing would ever surprise you. This is especially an issue in an RPG, where the story is supposed to be a prime focus of the game. It wouldn't even be like replaying a game you've already played, but like reading a book you wrote. The only point would be to look for areas where you could improve it... and that would swiftly become a rather pointless point, unless you had other people interested in playing the scenario you made.

Zevox

[Mando Knight]

Which would be significantly less interesting than playing a regular game from where I'm sitting, since you'd know everything that is in it already. Nothing would ever surprise you. This is especially an issue in an RPG, where the story is supposed to be a prime focus of the game. It wouldn't even be like replaying a game you've already played, but like reading a book you wrote. The only point would be to look for areas where you could improve it... and that would swiftly become a rather pointless point, unless you had other people interested in playing the scenario you made.

Zevox

Yeah... this. A campaign editor included in some kind of super-FE game would be fine, but not at the expense of the game itself. Sturgeon's Law (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle3tinj4tz) applies much more to fan-created content than it does to Nintendo-created content, where the law is practically reversed. After all, I doubt that an infinite number of monkeys bashing on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time, even with certain parameters, could have come up with Ike, Hero of Crimea and father of Sothe's children (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/HoYay/FireEmblem).

[TheSummoner]

This entire thread makes me think of Little Big Planet and Yahtzee's rant about it. Essentially if Nintendo did this they'd be spending enormous time and resources to make what ammounts to a blank slate. A blank slate that the majority of people will use to write swear words and doodle naughty bits on. Sure, there would be a few gems, but the majority would be buried beneath piles of excriment so massive that they would never see the precious light of day.

Fiery Diamond, I understand exactly where you're coming from with the desire to create your own story for one of your favorite games. Perhaps you should start a Forum Emblem game... they seem to be pretty damn popular... Or if you prefer, you could try making a romhack. I've never personally tried romhacking Fire Emblem (considered it once but it never went anywhere), but you'd be surprised what kind of fun stuff you could do if you take the time to learn it (and here is where I shamelessly pimp a few things I did back in Spring for Super Mario World before getting bored and stopping... Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLvXNVNRmxI) here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvsXWPLX_Y4) here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itPZc1iFCR8) here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmppXluDc1g) here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lewhmeyic8) here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmuEXmQrlpg) and most impressive, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S3gkTiSaPE).)

I would imagine a romhack of Fire Emblem wouldn't be terribly hard to do... Mostly just map design and enemy placement. I'd imagine enemy stats are randomly generated and you would just have to pick their class, level, and inventory, though thats pure speculation.

Point is, if you want to make your own Fire Emblem game, you've got options that don't require Nintendo to do a thing.

[Ozymandias]

Interestingly enough, there's a "create-a-unit" feature built into the latest Fire Emblem game (won't get it in the English speaking world for quite a while though) that lets you determine the class/appearance of a unique "personal" unit. If you seriously want to edit the games a bunch, you can check out the modding tools on Serene's Forest (you'll have to look around the forums a bit); there are modules for each of the games and a program called "Nightmare" that you can use for pretty much anything - there's a hack floating around that has the cast of FE7 vs. the cast of FE8 in a sort of battle royale floating around, for example, as well as many that replace the main game with another with different characters, classes, etc. They're not especially difficult to use for rudimentary editing (changing classes, reinforcements, etc) but I imagine more elaborate hacks (adding new abilities, victory conditions) require a bit of time and maybe some fooling around - there's an ongoing project that is going to (if it's ever released - there is a demo out right now) recreate FE4 (Japan-only SNES title) in the framework of the GBA games, but it's highly ambitious and thus pretty slow going.

Obviously, this isn't quite what you're getting at, and requires quite a bit more time and effort than if the tools were built-in. It would be nice to have a sort of worldbuilder type thing as an optional mode in a Fire Emblem game, but as mentioned the appeal to most people isn't really just the tactics, but the characters/story as well. It'd be an "unlock after you beat the game" type of deal, I imagine.

[Nick_mi]

That sounds awful. It sounds sweet because people could make some sweet games, but I would want other peoples work, not that game.

[Mx.Silver]

Not really. In regards to making FE better (or, if you're like me, making it good) it can pretty much be boiled down to these 3 points.


Trim the amount of characters
Allow for mid-battle saves
Stop the weapon degredation



Turning into a build-your-own tactical RPG program is probably not going to please many people. Nor will it do much to improve the series.

[Tengu_temp]

Not really. In regards to making FE better (or, if you're like me, making it good) it can pretty much be boiled down to these 3 points.


Trim the amount of characters
Allow for mid-battle saves
Stop the weapon degredation



1. That'd ruin the game. FE is all about having a huge amount of characters, each one different, and discovering which ones are your favorites.
2. I'm not the one to talk, since I cheat and use in-built emulator saves, but some people would argue that the lack of saving is a vital aspect of FE. The latest game lets you select a Casual Mode where you don't lose units permanently, but that's all.
3. Weapon degradation is there so you wouldn't just murder everything with your strongest weapons. It's a gameplay decision, and it works well if you ask me.


This entire thread makes me think of Little Big Planet and Yahtzee's rant about it. Essentially if Nintendo did this they'd be spending enormous time and resources to make what ammounts to a blank slate. A blank slate that the majority of people will use to write swear words and doodle naughty bits on. Sure, there would be a few gems, but the majority would be buried beneath piles of excriment so massive that they would never see the precious light of day.


Funny, I thought about Yahtzee and LBP as well.

[TheSummoner]

Great minds think alike I suppose.

[Mx.Silver]

1. That'd ruin the game. FE is all about having a huge amount of characters, each one different, and discovering which ones are your favorites.
Which is fine and good. The problem is that a fair number of characters in most FE games are almost completely useless. Especially the auto-upgraded ones of whom the ones you get in the early game simply screw the rest of you team by syphoning off all the experience points. Yes, anyone who's familiar with the series will know that and take steps to avoid but that doesn't make using those characters any less of a 'newbie-trap'. Most characters in the later game tend to be pretty useless since by that point you'll already have a team sorted and almost all of whom will be notably inferior to earlier characters you picked. There's also the issue of redundancy: FE: The Sacred Stones, for example, had a total of 33 playable characters (note that the maximun amount of units you coulc field was between 9-13) and up to 9 of them (depending on your upgrades) were part of the 3 cavalry classes (the basic Cavalier, or promoted Paladin or Great Knight).



2. I'm not the one to talk, since I cheat and use in-built emulator saves, but some people would argue that the lack of saving is a vital aspect of FE. The latest game lets you select a Casual Mode where you don't lose units permanently, but that's all.
It's not the lack of in battle saves in principle that I object to, it's their absence in a game like FE which has a habit of throwing things at you that you have no way of predicting or countering and then combines it with permenant character death. The first examples are critical chances. The stone-paper-scissors weapon mechanics are all well and good, all it takes is one spot of bad luck and a enemy unit that should have been an easy win gets lucky and crits your protagonist into oblivion resulting in a 'lol, game over' moment after which you have to play the 20-minute battle out again.
Then you have the maps with randomly spawning enemies, where your entire
battle plan get royally screwed over when you inevitably get caught off when an enemy strike force arrives completely unnanounced right behind your front lines. Since you won't have been planning for this, unless you've got lucky in your troop arrangements you're probably going to lose some characters. Don't even get me started on the random level-up bonuses thing.

This is not good game design, it's fake difficulty. A 'rookie mode' would do something to lesson it, but it still shouldn't be there at all.


3. Weapon degradation is there so you wouldn't just murder everything with your strongest weapons. It's a gameplay decision, and it works well if you ask me.
I disagree, unsurprisingly. Aside from weapon degredation being utterly retard at establishing any sort of versimilitude (which it is), it again acts as player punishment when combined with the problems in point 2 (e.g. 'oh look, randomly spawning enemy, who you use double strikes against, just attacked you and basically destroyed your weapon which you'd obviously been saving for later boss fights, lol'). It also pretty much requires you to clog up your characters inventories with weaker, replaceable weapons just to keep them effective.
If a designer wants to prevent the dominance of uber-weapons then there are a lot of better solutions. Such as, say, not giving you them until the endgame where most of the enemies will be tough enough to take the hits. Or limiting the amount of times you could use them per battle which would make using it a significant decision while not actively penalising players for using them in earlier battles (which is again, the sort of thing a new player is likely to do). Point being, there are many ways to limit weapon dominance and any one of them is preferable to a weapon degredation system, which just serves to throw an unpleasant element of packrat reasource managemet into a tactical combat game.

[Zevox]

Trim the amount of characters
Depends on which game we're talking about. Relative to Shadow Dragon? Hell yes. Relative to the rest? Maybe slightly, but not by much. Even Radiant Dawn didn't have too much excess given it was spread across three teams and the game was so huge in terms of length.

They should stop throwing new characters at you so late in the game, though. Either they're useless or dull and you don't want to use them, or they're good or interesting and you do, but don't have much time with them. Either way isn't a good idea. About the only type I'd be fine with is the way they gave you the Laguz Kings to help out at the very end of PoR and RD.


Allow for mid-battle saves
Suspends exist. That's all the series needs for that. Ruins the purpose of permanent deaths otherwise (which is to force you to choose between accepting the loss of the character or redoing the stage entirely - either way, it makes death a significant problem).


Stop the weapon degredation
No. That forces a form of inventory and money management quite unique to the series that I would not want to see gone, particularly with regards to the rarer, more powerful weapons.

Zevox

[Cubey]

I'd say that all three of above elements: lots of characters but they die forever; no saves mid-battle so death prevention isn't just a load away; and breakable weapons that force you to juggle equipment; is what makes Fire Emblem series what they are. Remove these elements and it stops being FE, from a mechanical point of view at least.

[Arcanoi]

I still hate the very idea of weapon degredation. Watching your Legendary axe fall to pieces after it mows down 30 mooks, even respecting Hammerne, which only has 3 uses before it breaks, is annoying.

[Cubey]

Which is why you don't use the legendary axe on mooks. You use the iron one.

[Zevox]

Which is why you don't use the legendary axe on mooks. You use the iron one.
Don't be silly. By the time you have the legendary axe, you can afford to use a silver one on mooks. Or at least a steel one.

Zevox

[Mx.Silver]

Suspends exist. That's all the series needs for that. Ruins the purpose of permanent deaths otherwise (which is to force you to choose between accepting the loss of the character or redoing the stage entirely - either way, it makes death a significant problem).
Which would be fine were it not for all the completely arbitrary ways the game can screw you over due to it's very RNG-based mechanics. Lack of saves works prefectly well in games with little to no random factors as then it adds a legitimate element of danger. Putting it in a game where you can get completely screwed based solely on whatever the RNG churns out is fake difficulty and, if we're honest, was only included in the first place due to hardware limitations.


No. That forces a form of inventory and money management quite unique to the series
The reason it's unique is because it's a terrible mechanic. As I mentioned before you can get achieve much the same results in a variety of different ways, none of which would further compound the already present random cheap-shots problem nor further increase the number of 'traps' that new-comers would have to deal with.


I'd say that all three of above elements: lots of characters but they die forever; no saves mid-battle so death prevention isn't just a load away; and breakable weapons that force you to juggle equipment; is what makes Fire Emblem series what they are.
Yes: sub-par games. Especially for the studio that created Advance Wars.


Remove these elements and it stops being FE, from a mechanical point of view at least.
Well, aside from the unit progression, the combat system and the support mechanics anyway.

[Cubey]

@Zevox:
Probably, yes. But if you're really careful then you have an iron weapon set aside for occassions such as these, for maximum efficiency.

It helps if there's an easy access to a merchant/stockpile though.

Anyway, the biggest thing about Fire Emblem's inventory is: exotic items are rare. Cheap items are common. But, except for dealing with bosses and even some of them, the common ones are strong enough. The iron sword you can buy from the start of the game? It will be useful until endgame. It never becomes obsolete. Stronger weapons provide an advantage, but that advantage is not as important as using terrain, the weapons triangle and, of course - the character's stats.

Because it's Fire Emblem. Random Number Goddess is the queen here. Her whims turn wimps into men of destiny, and the other way around.

@Mr.Silver:
You say subpar, I say unique. The elements I mentioned do not make a game intrinsically worse (or, I admit, better), they make it different. They're parts of what makes Fire Emblem what the series is. Complaining about them is like complaining that roguelikes have permadeath.

[Zevox]

Which would be fine were it not for all the completely arbitrary ways the game can screw you over due to it's very RNG-based mechanics. Lack of saves works prefectly well in games with little to no random factors as then it adds a legitimate element of danger. Putting it in a game where you can get completely screwed based solely on whatever the RNG churns out is fake difficulty
I disagree. The purpose of the lack of mid-stage saving is not increased difficulty (and as such cannot be "fake difficulty"), but to make character death meaningful. As I said, it means you have to choose between accepting an irreversible character death or restarting the stage entirely, which in either event makes the death a genuine problem. Add mid-stage saves - especially at any time, rather than just the save points that Shadow Dragon had - and suddenly that's no longer much of an issue at all.

Incidentally, the only way the RNG can screw you in battle is if the enemy gets a critical hit or an attack with a low probably of hitting does/your attack with a high probability misses. But all turn-based RPGs have that - it's a part of the genre.


and, if we're honest, was only included in the first place due to hardware limitations.
Regardless of why it was in in the first place, it has good reason to remain.


The reason it's unique is because it's a terrible mechanic.
I disagree - it's a perfectly good mechanic which makes each weapon you choose to give each character, and each attack you choose to make with that weapon, a strategic decision, precisely because it makes inventory and money management quite important. It is an important part of the series and should certainly never be removed.


Yes: sub-par games. Especially for the studio that created Advance Wars.
We will certainly never agree if that's what you consider the series, as aside from Shadow Dragon, I'd rate Fire Emblem above Advance Wars. And I like Advance Wars. Heck, the only TRPG series I like as much as Fire Emblem is Disgaea.

Zevox

[Mirrinus]

Not really. In regards to making FE better (or, if you're like me, making it good) it can pretty much be boiled down to these 3 points.


Trim the amount of characters
Allow for mid-battle saves
Stop the weapon degredation


While I agree that those things make FE unique, you know what's ironic? FE4, widely regarded as the best game of the series by many veterans, actually has all three of these things!

1. There are fewer characters available for your use at any one time than in most other FE games. In fact, the game didn't even have an arbitrary headcount limit for any of its chapters because of this! You're allowed to use everyone you've got at all times.

2. At the beginning of your turn, so long as you haven't made any actions, you're allowed to save the game. You can restart from this save even if you screw up several turns later. Good thing, too; this game throws some wicked curve balls at your armies that will probably catch you by surprise and slaughter you horribly. I always save before capturing any castle because of this.

3. Weapons still have limited uses, although most have 50 uses before they break. However, the game does offer unlimited weapon repair, so long as you've got the money to afford it. Even broken weapons can be kept in storage and repaired at your castle base. Stronger weapons cost a small fortune to repair, but at least you won't ever lose it permanently. This does put a strain on your war funds, but that just gives the Thief class greater importance (thieves can steal money from enemy units).

[Mx.Silver]

I disagree. The purpose of the lack of mid-stage saving is not increased difficulty (and as such cannot be "fake difficulty"), but to make character death meaningful.
No, the purpose was to overcome hardware limitations. Fake difficulty is merely a side-effect of this.
The ability of a game to arbitrarily screw you over based on factors that completely outside of the player's control is fake difficulty. Intent never enters into it. You may not see it as being a problem in this case, but that doesn't stop it being fake difficulty.



Incidentally, the only way the RNG can screw you in battle is if the enemy gets a critical hit or an attack with a low probably of hitting does/your attack with a high probability misses. But all turn-based RPGs have that - it's a part of the genre.

Except that said RPGs typically lack permament character death and that fights in them (aside from boss fights) rarely take the 20-30 minutes that's the norm for FE battles, making the odd unlucky moment less of an arbitrary screw you to the player. (I wouldn't consider FE an rpg at all, really, just a TBS with a few RPG elements, but that's another story).



I disagree - it's a perfectly good mechanic which makes each weapon you choose to give each character, and each attack you choose to make with that weapon, a strategic decision, precisely because it makes inventory and money management quite important. It is an important part of the series and should certainly never be removed.
All of which can be done in far, far, better ways and has been done in a whole range of other games. If they scrapped it you could also start making use of the inventory system more beyond being just a reseve weaponry pile (which is all it is in FE), maybe to add some elements of proper character customisation beyond 'make sure character has a weapon that can be used'.



We will certainly never agree if that's what you consider the series,
as aside from Shadow Dragon, I'd rate Fire Emblem above Advance Wars. And I like Advance Wars. Heck, the only TRPG series I like as much as Fire Emblem is Disgaea.
I made my opinion of the series known in my opening post, so we're probably not going to be in aggreement. Particularly when I'm unable to compare it's combat system favourably to the one in the RPG Resonance of Fate, which does the character death, no saves, thing far better than FE ever has (mainly due to a lack of RNG dependence).



You say subpar, I say unique.
The two are not mutually exclusive.


The elements I mentioned do not make a game intrinsically worse (or, I admit, better), they make it different. They're parts of what makes Fire Emblem what the series is.
This is a poor argument, because by following its logic you can declare any non-bugged mechanic in any game completely immune to criticism. Whether it's Navi's annoyance fact in Ocarina of time, the mining minigame in Mass Effect 2, the A.I's outright cheating in Heroes of Might and Magic 5, anything so long as it was deliberately programmed and not the result of a bug or glitch.