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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What can Fire Emblem learn from Valkyria Chronicles?

SHMUPGurus on 31 January 2009
outlawauron said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Nothing. Fire Emblem is better than VC is the gameplay department. It also has better character development and better writing. Just because a game is traditional doesn't mean that original tradition wasn't vastly better than the new experimental genre anomalies.

VC is a great game though. Just not up to the epic level of PoR or RD.

No, I disagree. Fire Emblem needs to evolve the gameplay in some way. Give yourself a bit more of control of the characters actions. Make it a bit more interactive.

It needs to diffrienate itself from all the other SRPGs.

Why? If I remember correctly, Fire Emblem pretty much "created" the SRPG genre. Final Fantasy Tactics came way after, and Jeanne D'Arc, etc.



Random game thought :
Why is Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 getting so much hate? We finally get a real game and they're not even satisfied... I'm starting to hate the gaming community so f****** much...

Watch my insane gameplay videos on my YouTube page!

Around the Network
Torillian on 31 January 2009

Only thing I really think is easy to take from VC over to FE is that characters don't die immediately, but instead can be saved before a certain number of turns. I found the instant deaths in FE Wii extremely annoying and are the reason I haven't beaten the game.

Other than that, it's a completely different game style since VC uses guns and FE uses mostly melee weapons. YOu can't really just supplant the VC style of gameplay into an FE world.

Also I think any SRPG should take a good look at the book presentation of VC, love that idea.



...

ookaze on 31 January 2009

Fire Emblem can learn nothing from VC.
They're just not in the same league at all, and gameplay is too different.
I love both RD and VC, but I don't want anyone of them to take anything from the other.



http://www.backloggery.com/main.php?user=ookaze

outlawauron on 31 January 2009
SHMUPGurus said:
outlawauron said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Nothing. Fire Emblem is better than VC is the gameplay department. It also has better character development and better writing. Just because a game is traditional doesn't mean that original tradition wasn't vastly better than the new experimental genre anomalies.

VC is a great game though. Just not up to the epic level of PoR or RD.

No, I disagree. Fire Emblem needs to evolve the gameplay in some way. Give yourself a bit more of control of the characters actions. Make it a bit more interactive.

It needs to diffrienate itself from all the other SRPGs.

Why? If I remember correctly, Fire Emblem pretty much "created" the SRPG genre. Final Fantasy Tactics came way after, and Jeanne D'Arc, etc.

It did. But the series has to make some evolution at a point. It was the first along with Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest for the JRPG genre. Mario for the platformers.

While those games are legendary, they still evovled the gameplay. Fire Emblem has not.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Valkyria00 on 31 January 2009
Torillian said:
Only thing I really think is easy to take from VC over to FE is that characters don't die immediately, but instead can be saved before a certain number of turns. I found the instant deaths in FE Wii extremely annoying and are the reason I haven't beaten the game.

Other than that, it's a completely different game style since VC uses guns and FE uses mostly melee weapons. YOu can't really just supplant the VC style of gameplay into an FE world.

Also I think any SRPG should take a good look at the book presentation of VC, love that idea.

I think thats one of the coolest parts of the game. It gives y ou that bit of realism. If you die youre never coming back.

I think the story books is cool I just dont want FE to straight rip the idea.

 



Around the Network
Valkyria00 on 31 January 2009
outlawauron said:
SHMUPGurus said:
outlawauron said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Nothing. Fire Emblem is better than VC is the gameplay department. It also has better character development and better writing. Just because a game is traditional doesn't mean that original tradition wasn't vastly better than the new experimental genre anomalies.

VC is a great game though. Just not up to the epic level of PoR or RD.

No, I disagree. Fire Emblem needs to evolve the gameplay in some way. Give yourself a bit more of control of the characters actions. Make it a bit more interactive.

It needs to diffrienate itself from all the other SRPGs.

Why? If I remember correctly, Fire Emblem pretty much "created" the SRPG genre. Final Fantasy Tactics came way after, and Jeanne D'Arc, etc.

It did. But the series has to make some evolution at a point. It was the first along with Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest for the JRPG genre. Mario for the platformers.

While those games are legendary, they still evovled the gameplay. Fire Emblem has not.

There has been very noticable improvments in gameplay over the series. The games solid its hardly ever needed any major changes.

I agree with someof the above posts. Just a bit more controls over your characters during battles sequences and better presentation is in the end what Id want.

 



Torillian on 31 January 2009
Valkyria00 said:
Torillian said:
Only thing I really think is easy to take from VC over to FE is that characters don't die immediately, but instead can be saved before a certain number of turns. I found the instant deaths in FE Wii extremely annoying and are the reason I haven't beaten the game.

Other than that, it's a completely different game style since VC uses guns and FE uses mostly melee weapons. YOu can't really just supplant the VC style of gameplay into an FE world.

Also I think any SRPG should take a good look at the book presentation of VC, love that idea.

I think thats one of the coolest parts of the game. It gives y ou that bit of realism. If you die youre never coming back.

I think the story books is cool I just dont want FE to straight rip the idea.

 

I think that dying immediately is too annoying and can lead to alot of replays because of unforseen situations, but I understand that others may not feel the same.  But giving even one turn before death so that you can deal with the unforseen without having to load your game or leave the character dead would be preferrable.  Having characters deaths as permanent is fine, I just think they need to make it slightly less easy for them to die. 

And no you are right, I don't want anyone to rip off the idea entirely, but making a system that allows you to progress the story while being able to come back to any part you enjoyed, that's something other SRPG's should look into.

 



...

Phoenix_Wiight on 31 January 2009

having the characters die forever after they lose all HP is something challenging and, IMO, really great and realistic for hardcore gamers, especially those that play RPGs and SPRGs, but for anyone else, or people new to the series, it makes it extremely difficult.



outlawauron on 31 January 2009
Valkyria00 said:
outlawauron said:
SHMUPGurus said:
outlawauron said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Nothing. Fire Emblem is better than VC is the gameplay department. It also has better character development and better writing. Just because a game is traditional doesn't mean that original tradition wasn't vastly better than the new experimental genre anomalies.

VC is a great game though. Just not up to the epic level of PoR or RD.

No, I disagree. Fire Emblem needs to evolve the gameplay in some way. Give yourself a bit more of control of the characters actions. Make it a bit more interactive.

It needs to diffrienate itself from all the other SRPGs.

Why? If I remember correctly, Fire Emblem pretty much "created" the SRPG genre. Final Fantasy Tactics came way after, and Jeanne D'Arc, etc.

It did. But the series has to make some evolution at a point. It was the first along with Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest for the JRPG genre. Mario for the platformers.

While those games are legendary, they still evovled the gameplay. Fire Emblem has not.

There has been very noticable improvments in gameplay over the series. The games solid its hardly ever needed any major changes.

I agree with someof the above posts. Just a bit more controls over your characters during battles sequences and better presentation is in the end what Id want.

I know they are solid. I own and enjoy the 3 of the 4 Fire Emblem games released in America. I didn't get Radiant Dawn and I will get Shadow Dragon when it releases.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

dahuman on 31 January 2009

FE on hardest mode is epic hard, that's why I still play it tbh, VC is something new and interesting, but it's nowhere near as hard, a lot of people today prefer games to be easier though. Overall I think the 2 games are very different and FE would change on it's own regardeless, it has to be generic(maintain the feel) yet with some changes, that's what classic titles are.