By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Which is better? Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics?

 

Which is better? Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics?

Fire Emblem! 117 61.90%
 
Final Fantasy Tactics! 51 26.98%
 
I hate them both! 1 0.53%
 
I love both of my parents just the same. 15 7.94%
 
They are both inferior too... 5 2.65%
 
Total:189
Aiddon said:

FFT, Matsuno's plots always gave them an edge (though he makes just about every game writer on the face of the earth look like an amateur). FE only actually got interesting narratives at FE4 (never played 3, so SHUT UP) and even then the execution was basic. Plus FE's perma-death system I always found to be more annoying than interesting

Wow, you're serious about the plot/story for FFT?  I consider that one of the game's low points.  It so bloated and incomprehensible, with some silly plot "twist" after every other story battle.  The two FEs I've played didn't have great narrative, but they served the purpose of moving the game forward, as opposed to FFT, which often just left me going, huh, whut?

FEs perma death is beyond annoying.  I will give you that.  I quit the Gamecube version for several months due to a single battle (I think it was on a bridge).  I wouldn't have even finished it except for a stretch of boredom one week a while later.



Around the Network

With my only experience on the other side being the jumbled mess (though surprisingly addicting for a jumbled mess) that was FFTA2, i would have to go with Fire Emblem quite a few times over.

 

If only they didn't have those idiotic hurdles for the final fight in FFTA2, i would've beaten it, but a final boss that can, without any cost to itself, 100% heal itself whenever it damn well pleases, followed by, without getting a chance to save, mind, an inexplicable and huge real final boss, was more horseshit than i was willing to put up with



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

FFT, I never liked Fire Emblem's addition of enemy re-enforcements in the middle of battles.I find it rather irritating  to replay a level because a useful unit got KO'd by an enemy re-enforcement who just suddenly appeared within attack range.



D-FENS said:
Aiddon said:

FFT, Matsuno's plots always gave them an edge (though he makes just about every game writer on the face of the earth look like an amateur). FE only actually got interesting narratives at FE4 (never played 3, so SHUT UP) and even then the execution was basic. Plus FE's perma-death system I always found to be more annoying than interesting

Wow, you're serious about the plot/story for FFT?  I consider that one of the game's low points.  It so bloated and incomprehensible, with some silly plot "twist" after every other story battle.  The two FEs I've played didn't have great narrative, but they served the purpose of moving the game forward, as opposed to FFT, which often just left me going, huh, whut?

FEs perma death is beyond annoying.  I will give you that.  I quit the Gamecube version for several months due to a single battle (I think it was on a bridge).  I wouldn't have even finished it except for a stretch of boredom one week a while later.

Yes, and I don't say that lightly. The richly realized world of Ivalice was fantastic to explore with the parallel storylines of the tense, post-war political situation as well as the more sinister, fanstastical one the hero was going through. Ramza and Delita also give two diametrically opposed figures that are heavyweights in characterization. Matsuno makes about every other game narrative (except for stuff by Masato Kato) look like juvenile garbage when compared to FFT. Though on reflection, a game's purpose isn't primarily narrative so of course most game narratives are throwaways.



Ogre >>> both.  Hell, Wars >>> both as well.



Around the Network

I've played all the FFT games and couple of FE games (though not extensively).  I would rank FE slightly higher,  but Ogre Battle 64 shits all over both of them, it's the best 1200 points I've ever spent in my life.




Fire Emblem is the best SRPG series.

FFT is a great game, but FE has a deeper strategy system, mainly because of the permadeath. If you cannot have an character killed it completely changes the gameplay- it forces you to consider every possible option.

Also character stat growth is much more important in FE with very limited EXP. You have to make decisions on who you grow and who gets left behind forever.

But SRPG fans should not fight over which game is better, as the genre is so small already.



I've only played FE SD, and I didn't think it was a great game. It had lots of potential, but when it comes down to it the same strategy applies in every battle bar 2, and the tactics don't even have to vary that much.

In FFTA you get more varied situations and often have to apply different strategies.



A game I'm developing with some friends:

www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm

It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.

They are both really excellent series. Fire Emblem's more recent entries have probably been stronger, I'd love to see an hd reboot of FFT though.



I'm with the 3 other members who said Ogre...



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!)