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.



Any SRPG that allows you to grind is usually crap by default, because the makers of the game usually require you to grind at one point or the other. Disgaea would be the prime example of this practice. With grinding the strategy involved in battles takes a backseat or even becomes non-existent. At this point you have to ask yourself why you even play a Strategy-RPG.

FFT is much richer than FE when it comes to available attacks and skills. However, roughly 95 % of FFT's stuff falls into the range of barely useful to completely useless. In FE you will rarely come across a skill or an item/weapon of which you think that it has no good purpose at all. The same goes for the classes and the balance between them. Once again, FFT offers a lot, but you quickly realize that a few classes are way more powerful than the rest, just like in the regular FF games that use the job system. In FE pretty much every class is useful and none is almighty as everything comes with their own strengths and weaknesses (which become more apparent once you play on higher difficulty settings).

When you compare the speed at which FFT and FE are played, then FE wins hands down. The amount of enemies you take out and the experience and level ups you can gain within an hour of playtime is worlds apart. Another major difference is that in FFT you move your characters more at random across the map, because there really isn't much strategy you can apply at all. In FE you use different formations, depending on the enemies you are facing at the moment which usually change several times within a level.

In short: the only aspect in which FFT is better than FE are the graphics.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club