Author Topic: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones  (Read 65153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #50 on: January 20, 2012, 11:37:41 AM »
That would remove the whole point of the game. Fire Emblem is one of the few games that have actual long term consequences(That you can chose not to accept by reloading an older save). The vast majority of games are short term affairs with no long term impact. Other games claim to have long term consequences, but more often than not it's just an alternate branch in the scripted story.

By making you value your units and grow them, makes you closer to them, at least in a gameplay sense. Whether you have an emotional attachment to them as characters is something different as that depends on how much you care about their story. There are other games where characters die like in Final Fantasy tactics, but you can always grind out a new one from a recruit, making them no different to a unit in Advanced Wars.

And you're not really suppose to grind. It's there to help even out your team. If you'ere using it to over level your team, you're playing it wrong. You have to play smart and the game more than gives you enough information so you know in advance how any given fight would work out. The AI is also very predicable, meaning most of the time, you can pick your battles.

The 3 saves thing is a cost/benefit thing. This is a GBA game made back in 2004. It's not like they gave you one un-resettable save slot as Capcom did for Resident Evil mercenaries because they want to be dicks.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 06:52:59 PM by oohhboy »
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline leahsdad

  • This title stolen by Rhythm Thief
  • Score: 8
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #51 on: January 20, 2012, 12:41:34 PM »
That would remove the whole point of the game. Fire Emblem is one of the few games that have actual long term consequences(That you can chose not to accept by reloading an older save). The vast majority of games are short term affairs with no long term impact.

That may be, but there's 2 problems with thinking about this game in those terms:  First, I don't remember a splash screen or anything in the manual that said "the point of this game is that everything you do has long term consequences" and second, games that embrace that philosophy tend not to be fun, especially for people new to the genre.  It's like permanent death, and that is a horrible gameplay idea.


The sad thing is, this game is so close to being great.  What would make it better?

1) The ability to create more saves than 3, and at any time during a battle.

2) The ability to revive lost characters. You don't have to make it cheap, just possible.

3) More opportunities for/more interesting grinding.


You know what strategy RPG game seemed to address some of your concerns, at least on the 3DS?  Ghost Recon Shadow Wars.  It had a save anywhere system, and though you couldn't revive characters, there was no griding at all --  it was a "everyone levels up" skill-based system that was awarded simply for finishing a mission alive, without any regard for whether you killed more or less enemies.  And you know what?  This worked beautifully.  The game was a little too easy and forgiving, though I think that's because your party members were too overpowered compared with enemies.  But I think if Nintendo and Japanese developers looked at this Russian made game (designed by Julian Gallop, the guy from XCOM), they might see some ideas which, while not completely new and revolutionary, were implemented really well.

And if you've never played it, I may recommend playing Shadow Wars, especially if you're new to the SRPG genre.  It's basically the original XCOM, with all the base building and weapon researching crap taken out, combat that is light years evolved (not better or different, just evolved) from the original XCOM's combat system, and with SRPG character development.  Maybe not any better or worse than Fire Emblem games, but definitely better than any other Western SRPG  since the original Xcom, including all those horrible sequels  (and why do people get excited about Xcom sequels, I will never understand.  They always suck.  Without exception.  Why keep that brand alive?)
[Showing off game collection]

Oh yeah, I know I have 2 sealed copies of that game.   1 is for trading.  But people who collect Amiibos?  They really have a problem!

Offline Ceric

  • Once killed four Deviljho in one hunt
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #52 on: January 20, 2012, 01:46:05 PM »
If you go into this Genre of game and think that when you character dies its going to come back you don't know anything about this Genre.  Most games in this genre make sure that in some way a character dieing is something to be avoided at all cost. 

While it annoys the snot out of me to have to replay levels to make sure all my comrades survive I don't think I be as engaged in the game if that wasn't true.  Why get better when I can Zerg everything?

I do think that games like this really do need a way to do off battle training.  In this case its the tower.  There is nothing like getting to a level and finding you've been working on the wrong set of characters to get past it.  On the basis that you are a Mercenary troop there is no reason you couldn't justify doing training camps.  Also I know the help is good but I really could use some more info when its time to pick class changes.
Need a Personal NonCitizen-Magical-Elf-Boy-Child-Game-Abused-King-Kratos-Play-Thing Crimm Unmaker-of-Worlds-Hunter-Of-Boxes
so, I don't have to edit as Much.

Offline noname2200

  • Not a douche. Seriously.
  • Score: 21
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #53 on: January 20, 2012, 03:23:19 PM »
I do enjoy a lot of the character interaction found in the support conversations, though.
 

It looks like I got my Fire Emblem games mixed up. The ones in this game have been pretty stilted, melodramatic, and dry. The sequels do it much better.

Well I started this game and got to the first Fog of War map and pretty much abandoned it.  After three restarts trying to not lose a good character (after already losing one), I decided I'd much rather spend my time on Skyrim sidequest 109 than Fire Emblem.  It's just too unforgiving.  A game can be challenging without being soul-crushingly cruel. I love my 3DS, I don't feel like throwing it out the window.


The sad thing is, this game is so close to being great.  What would make it better?


1) The ability to create more saves than 3, and at any time during a battle.


2) The ability to revive lost characters. You don't have to make it cheap, just possible.


3) More opportunities for/more interesting grinding.


Pretty much any two of those things would completely save the game without taking away the challenge. No, making a game punishing does not make a game more challenging. Running a sub 5-minute mile is challenging. It wouldn't be any more challenging if you got shot in the head at the end if you run it in 5:01.

 While I fervently disagree that the game is cruel (I find it more than fair enough, although the first try at the series is certainly going to be rougher because you haven't practiced the mechanics yet), I do have some good news for you; the Wii game, Radiant Dawn, allows you to save anytime during a battle, and the "grinding" is done by collecting Bonus Experience in each map, which you can distribute between fights however you wish. Even better, doing certain things during some battles increases the amount of bonus experience you get, so it adds an extra goal to shoot for.
 
 In other words, you might want to try to track down the Wii title, since it sounds like it'll be more up your alley.
 

Offline Ceric

  • Once killed four Deviljho in one hunt
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2012, 03:50:46 PM »
The Wii title sounds cool.  Shame I'll never play it because its not portable and I can monopolize the TV for it.
Need a Personal NonCitizen-Magical-Elf-Boy-Child-Game-Abused-King-Kratos-Play-Thing Crimm Unmaker-of-Worlds-Hunter-Of-Boxes
so, I don't have to edit as Much.

Offline syn4aptik

  • NWR Staff
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2012, 07:59:24 PM »



That may be, but there's 2 problems with thinking about this game in those terms:  First, I don't remember a splash screen or anything in the manual that said "the point of this game is that everything you do has long term consequences" and second, games that embrace that philosophy tend not to be fun, especially for people new to the genre.  It's like permanent death, and that is a horrible gameplay idea.



Well said.


Another thing to realize, folks, is that a lot of people who like to play games have jobs and other responsibilities that make the mechanics of a game like FE really prohibitive. Skyrim (and many other PC-style RPGs) is a super long RPG. but it lets you save literally at any time.  So I can play for 30 minutes and get something done, even for a quest that is long.  I can make several saves so I dont have to go way back in the game in order to fix a mistake I made.  FE gives you one suspend state and doesn't let you make multiple saves during a fight. This means if you are not skilled/experienced in the game, you are going to be wasting a lot of time.


Yes, I know a lot of these issues have to do with the age of the game, but I don't have to pretend I live in the past in order to decide whether the game is for me.  FE isn't for me, I just don't have the time or the patience.  There are games out there that our more suited to my lifestyle and patience-level.
Dave Mellert
Contributing Editor

Offline gojira

  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #56 on: January 20, 2012, 08:25:47 PM »
I really liked the GBA games, but I really think Path of Radiance (the GameCube game) is the best I've played.  I haven't finished Radiant Dawn (the Wii game) yet, but so far I like it slightly less than the one on GC.  I really like all the characters (Nephenee!) and it introduced some new gameplay tweaks. 

First is the ability to save mid-battle.  The Wii version later allowed for saves at any time.  But even the ability to save at some point during a fight made late battle losses easier to bear. 

Also they introduced bonus experience.  Instead of worrying about grinding or babying healers you could award them exp.  You get bonus exp by playing well (i.e. fast battles, saving npcs).

Characters automatically promote at level 21.  No need for items unless you want to promote earlier.

Support increases by battling together not standing next to each other.  So characters aren't handcuffed together if you want to raise their support.  Also the conversations take place between battles, so you don't waste a move by talking.

I also liked the Skill system.  It allowed you to assign characters certain special abilities.

The only problem with these games is that they are on a console.  For some reason I find it so much easier to play this type of game on a portable.  I've been playing Sacred Stones until by battery dies, meanwhile I haven't touched Radiant Dawn (the Wii game) in forever.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 08:32:55 PM by gojira »

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #57 on: January 21, 2012, 01:30:40 AM »
That may be, but there's 2 problems with thinking about this game in those terms:  First, I don't remember a splash screen or anything in the manual that said "the point of this game is that everything you do has long term consequences" and second, games that embrace that philosophy tend not to be fun, especially for people new to the genre.  It's like permanent death, and that is a horrible gameplay idea.

This is bull. What happens if a game is too easy and you waste $$ on a really short/bad game? Are you saying developers should put a self review of the game during the splash screen saying this game sucks, really buggy*cough skyrim* or it's hard or really easy?!?! After you brought the game?! Ridiculous.

Also permanent character loss is in both the manual and the guide in game. That is what the tutorial is for. FE has an "easy" mode that is the same as normal, but takes you through the guide during play to introduce new players to the game.

It's funny you brought up X-Com. That game is brutal, full of long term consequences, non standard game overs where you can economically corner yourself, no tutorial, very basic combat information. The only forgiving thing about it was the save system. There are ways to abuse the game with positive economic loops and certain gameplay elements that I doubt were fully intended, but if you played it straight, it's a hard game, harder than FE.

Shadow Wars is a nice game, but felt restrictive and the game design was too transparent, giving away the designers intent, therefore the whole level far too easily. Once you level your characters, the game ends. There is no way to play with the souped up characters at all.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #58 on: January 21, 2012, 03:26:31 AM »
Permadeath in games usually refers to being unable to undo the death through reloading. Unless you save scum there's no way to reload an old save after dying in a roguelike, Diablo Hardcore mode or Terraria Hardcore mode.

Offline Jonnyboy117

  • Associate Editor
  • NWR Staff
  • Score: 37
    • View Profile
    • Nintendo World Report
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #59 on: January 21, 2012, 11:17:42 AM »
Chapter 6 got rough, and I lost both of my healers. I hope there are more coming soon... down to only 6 starting party members now, but maybe I'll get a boost when I rescue Ephraim.
THE LAMB IS WATCHING!

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #60 on: January 21, 2012, 11:40:12 AM »
Err wow, you're really throwing your people into the meat grinder. You are going to get some people soon(Not healers, I hope you like horses), but you have really done a massive disservice to yourself losing that many people, most critically, the healers. At the rate you're going, you won't have a team left in about a couple of chapters time, assuming it's still possible to past the levels. You're well on your way to a nonstandard gameover.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline noname2200

  • Not a douche. Seriously.
  • Score: 21
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2012, 12:30:56 PM »
The Wii title sounds cool.  Shame I'll never play it because its not portable and I can monopolize the TV for it.

If you ever can manage to, I highly recommend it. It's one of my favorite Wii titles, although it does have one serious flaw (it jumps around between characters, so one minute you have Group A, and a few chapters later you're using Group B instead, etc.).

The difference between it, this game, and FE 7 does go to the point I made earlier though; it really does feel like Sacred Stone was Nintendo's first attempt to try to modernize the series. I assume that was done in response to the decidedly-old school FE 7, and the outcry it generated here in the West. While Sacred Stones mostly tried a brute-force approach to the problem (let 'em grind and revisit shops!), I do appreciate the effort.

Yes, I know a lot of these issues have to do with the age of the game, but I don't have to pretend I live in the past in order to decide whether the game is for me.  FE isn't for me, I just don't have the time or the patience.  There are games out there that our more suited to my lifestyle and patience-level.

 I agree with your final sentiment: the series is simply not for you.
 
 Where I disagree with both you and leahsdad is the assertion that the things you dislike about the game are somehow flaws, or that they're outdated. They are neither. The mechanics of the game are very well refined and generally quite balanced. They are quite old-school, which is to say they demand a commitment from the player and they punish mistakes, but to say that such qualities belong exclusively "in the past" does a disservice to those of us who don't want every game out there to be a complete cakewalk that's measured primarily in hours lost.
 
 It sounds like you don't want to put in the time and energy it takes to get a grip on the series, and that you've come to favor titles whose entertainment value comes more casually. And that's fine. It's also probably widely shared: I mentioned in the poll how I didn't want Fire Emblem to win because I feared many people would give up fairly quickly. But I ask you to realize that, just because a mechanic isn't to your taste, it doesn't mean it's aged. Shoot, the game's only six years old, and the series has had several games release with the same mechanics since then!
 
 
 
Chapter 6 got rough, and I lost both of my healers. I hope there are more coming soon... down to only 6 starting party members now, but maybe I'll get a boost when I rescue Ephraim.

 You'll only get one more dedicated healer, and she won't come around for another three or four chapters. BUT you can easily make do with healing items for quite a while, and nearly all of the magic users promote into classes that let them use healing staves, so long-term you'll be fine.
 

Offline Lithium

  • disparaging user title
  • Score: 14
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2012, 07:43:53 PM »
Err wow, you're really throwing your people into the meat grinder. You are going to get some people soon(Not healers, I hope you like horses), but you have really done a massive disservice to yourself losing that many people, most critically, the healers. At the rate you're going, you won't have a team left in about a couple of chapters time, assuming it's still possible to past the levels. You're well on your way to a nonstandard gameover.


You just kind of made syn4aptik and Leah's dad's point for them. I'm pretty sure this is the stuff that they're talking about. Constant reloading and wasting your time is pretty much a requirement to avoid situations like this where you can't finish the game, especially if you're new to fire emblem. It's one thing to have to restart because you just lost then there's having t restart because one of your healers died right as you're about to end the mission. It's not even about a gameplay flaw, I agree with noname when he says that this is how its meant to be but some people just value their time more than that.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2012, 07:48:16 PM by Lithium »

Offline Ceric

  • Once killed four Deviljho in one hunt
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #63 on: January 22, 2012, 01:16:31 AM »
You know permanently losing people would annoy me a lot less then not being able to go back to shops and resupply between missions.
Need a Personal NonCitizen-Magical-Elf-Boy-Child-Game-Abused-King-Kratos-Play-Thing Crimm Unmaker-of-Worlds-Hunter-Of-Boxes
so, I don't have to edit as Much.

Offline leahsdad

  • This title stolen by Rhythm Thief
  • Score: 8
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #64 on: January 22, 2012, 08:45:37 AM »
That may be, but there's 2 problems with thinking about this game in those terms:  First, I don't remember a splash screen or anything in the manual that said "the point of this game is that everything you do has long term consequences" and second, games that embrace that philosophy tend not to be fun, especially for people new to the genre.  It's like permanent death, and that is a horrible gameplay idea.

It's funny you brought up X-Com. That game is brutal, full of long term consequences, non standard game overs where you can economically corner yourself, no tutorial, very basic combat information. The only forgiving thing about it was the save system. There are ways to abuse the game with positive economic loops and certain gameplay elements that I doubt were fully intended, but if you played it straight, it's a hard game, harder than FE.

Shadow Wars is a nice game, but felt restrictive and the game design was too transparent, giving away the designers intent, therefore the whole level far too easily. Once you level your characters, the game ends. There is no way to play with the souped up characters at all.

Funny enough, Julian Gallop (X-Com guy) just did an interview in Edge in which he basically said the original X-com was, in retrospect,  very flawed and he would make it very differently now.   And I don't agree with your criticism of Shadow Wars' souped up characters (by the last level, your characters are godlike), but you're right, the game got way too easy by the end (I played on the hardest difficulty) and the game design was transparent, i.e. "Hey, you're characters are way too powerful, so here, go on a fight 20 robot monsters IN A ROW!"


Err wow, you're really throwing your people into the meat grinder. You are going to get some people soon(Not healers, I hope you like horses), but you have really done a massive disservice to yourself losing that many people, most critically, the healers. At the rate you're going, you won't have a team left in about a couple of chapters time, assuming it's still possible to past the levels. You're well on your way to a nonstandard gameover.


You just kind of made syn4aptik and Leah's dad's point for them. I'm pretty sure this is the stuff that they're talking about. Constant reloading and wasting your time is pretty much a requirement to avoid situations like this where you can't finish the game, especially if you're new to fire emblem. It's one thing to have to restart because you just lost then there's having t restart because one of your healers died right as you're about to end the mission. It's not even about a gameplay flaw, I agree with noname when he says that this is how its meant to be but some people just value their time more than that.

You know, I've been playing this game, like I play pretty much any game, like an OCD maniac.  I'm still in Chapter 6, probably reloaded about 20 times.  I've had to pretty much give up every other game I'm playing right now.  Mighty Switch Force.  3D Land.  Skyward Sword.  Mario Kart 7.  Catrap.  All on hold.  While the quality of Sacred Stones is good enough to keep me going, I wouldn't begrudge anyone who quit.  As far as SRPG games go, FE is pretty standard fare.  Keep your strongest units in front to take the brunt of attacks, keep your weak range units in back and save them as finishers so they can "mop up" left over EXP (because the game stupidly gives the most experience to the unit that actually kills enemies, even if someone else did all the work).  From X-com, Ogre Battle, these are all fairly standard gameplay conventions.  Hell, even Starcraft follows this philosophy.  So if someone decides to stop playing this game, hey, I hear ya.   Though the game is fun, don't get me wrong, and I will finish it.  It's got its hooks in me.


BUT if I'm reloading 15 or 20 times to the beginning of the chapter anyway, and if this is a practice shared by many people who play the game (and I'm sure it is) then obviously, saving and reloading any time would be nothing but a great benefit to playing the game.  Because people will do it anyway, so why not just make it that much easier?  Now, apparently from other people in this thread, the Wii games do let you save anytime.  I really hope the 3DS game does as well.  And I hope the fix the leveling system, which seems so flawed in the "coup-de-grace gets the most exp" philosophy.
[Showing off game collection]

Oh yeah, I know I have 2 sealed copies of that game.   1 is for trading.  But people who collect Amiibos?  They really have a problem!

Offline gojira

  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #65 on: January 22, 2012, 09:55:08 AM »
Beat the game.  I could tell I played well because I had no real problems with the final levels.  I even dominated the 'survival' level.  I had a handful of supports at level B at the end.  I wish I got them to A before beating the game.  However it makes me want to replay to get those.  Also I kinda want to play again to level up other characters.

Offline leahsdad

  • This title stolen by Rhythm Thief
  • Score: 8
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #66 on: January 22, 2012, 09:55:31 AM »
Oh, whatever!   I just finished chapter 6, and the bit with the bracelet was so predictable.  No, it was stupider than predictable.  Argh, stupid anime story.  Why do I pay attention?

On another note, I was only able to save 1 of the villagers from the spider.  Will that affect me in any way?  Would it have been better to save all 3, other than saving innocents from a horrible gruesome death and stuff.  You know, a benefit that actually matters?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 09:57:23 AM by leahsdad »
[Showing off game collection]

Oh yeah, I know I have 2 sealed copies of that game.   1 is for trading.  But people who collect Amiibos?  They really have a problem!

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #67 on: January 22, 2012, 10:02:52 AM »
I believe this is the interview you're referring to? And I believe you are talking about this statement.
Quote
Is there anything about X-COM you'd like to see being addressed in this remake?
 Yeah, of course. Mainly in the realm of accessibility, which some people might call 'dumbing down' In the early 90s of course you didn't have in-game tutorials or help, because it was all in the big thick manual. Today people do not read manuals, they expect the game to teach them how to play it. Which is fair enough. In Shadow Wars we put a fair amount of effort into making the game accessible, teaching the systems as you're playing the game, hopefully keeping the player interested as they're learning.
This is the major thing, but it doesn't mean you have to dumb anything down in the sense that the full complexity of the game would be eventually revealed to the player as he learns all the systems. That was one thing that was difficult about the original UFO [X-COM was known as UFO in the UK]. It put you there and forced you to make decisions straight away without much idea of what you were supposed to be doing!
You massively misinterpreted his line of thinking. There wasn't anything wrong with the fundamentals. The game just wasn't transparent enough to the player. Everything is in the manual, no tutorial, stats that lied to you like hit chance since it doesn't account for obstacles, hidden stats, poor UI. What he really wanted is to give players more information, a better UI and more direct control over character development(Mentions Skill trees later). Of course he would make a very different game now as technology has advanced greatly not only in power, but concepts and expectations.
With Shadow Wars he went a little too far.
Quote
If you have some boring turns where you're just moving guys around without any real interesting decision-making then turn-based games can get very dull very quickly. It's difficult to get right. We had this issue with Shadow Wars - although I tried to minimise it by stressing it to the level design team, but it's not easy to do. But the temptation is to make things big and complex and therefore ultimately a bit dull.
When you entered a new level you instantly knew how the level designer wanted you to play the level for the most optimal result. They over engineered the levels to eliminate one problem only to create another. It became less about tactics and more I have to go here and there, oh look, there is some convenient cover, I so wonder what's going to happen. To make up for it, instead of exploiting the one weakness you have which is numbers, they threw robots at you and upped the stats of the mooks +1(If you have played SW, you will know what I mean). At no time do you ever come to a situation that says, "Hey there are too many to take on, lets tactically retreat". It also meant there was one way to play a level and having an overpowered team was only partially to blame. Still a neat game, but I wish there was more to it.

FE:SS could have done with more modernising as seen with the other games in the series, but one of the great things about it is that it is tactically diverse something GR:SW doesn't really have. It means as your team increases in size, you have more options as how to go about a level. With just chapter 6, there are multiple ways to achieve victory. You can do a fighting retreat right, hold a defensive position at start, send the flyer with/out a bodyguard for the civilians, airdrop the lord to assassinate the boss, choose not to save the villagers, use Seth or god forbid, use Zerg tactics or some combination. The only thing that is mandatory about the map is the victory condition (Kill Boss) and have something to clear the fog of war, whether it's by scouting or more efficiently, use of torches (You get given one from last level) and staffs from a shop you can go back to before the battle.

I just can't see how you have managed to reload 20 times and not figured out a play style that suits you. Bosses never move and will only engage if attacked, even then they don't move. The AI is very predicable, always takes the bait and is suicidal. Any more abusable, and it becomes a puzzle game if not for the stats and the random number god.

Post chapter 6 completion note:Saving all the villagers gets you an Orions Belt for your archer so you can upgrade on level 10+, but for best result upgrade at level 20
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline TheYoungerPlumber

  • Thy Rod and Staff
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 10
    • View Profile
    • Nintendo World Report
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2012, 12:06:40 PM »
As others have noted, this game's story isn't the greatest.... The GC entry is definitely my favorite from both a storytelling and gameplay perspective. (The Wii game is too long for its own good.)

More advice for those struggling and restarting several times:

1) Play defensively. Often it is advantageous to let the enemy strike first, since you can more easily respond to injury at the start of your turn. Inch your front line up so that only a few enemies are in range of attack at a time, and few baddies may attack a single unit (since your units will be buffering each other).

2) Consider beating a chapter even with men down. Then, save into a different slot and retry the mission. Playing through a full chapter will give you a better idea of the battle rhythm and how to best attack the boss. And if you get too fed up retrying, you can just take your losses and continue onward.

3) Excercize your healers. I heal whenever I can for EXP, even if its only on a unit with 1 HP from max health. Healing rods are cheap and readily available in the armory.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 12:41:22 PM by TheYoungerPlumber »
::Michael "TYP" Cole
::Associate Editor
Nintendo World Report

"Only CHEATERS mess up!" -Waluigi

Offline Ceric

  • Once killed four Deviljho in one hunt
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #69 on: January 22, 2012, 01:46:43 PM »
Yeah, I don't think there are any bonusses given for being offense or defense in attack as there are in these games sometime.

Most of the time I'm playing defense.  I look at where all the monsters can strike and place characters where only 1 or 2 can get them.  If you go offensive there are normally multiple Opponents that can get you and they'll lynch you.

I abused that bosses don't move in the tower to level all my characters capable of range quickly.  If I could buy Longbows Neimi be set.
Need a Personal NonCitizen-Magical-Elf-Boy-Child-Game-Abused-King-Kratos-Play-Thing Crimm Unmaker-of-Worlds-Hunter-Of-Boxes
so, I don't have to edit as Much.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #70 on: January 22, 2012, 03:13:40 PM »
HAHAHA. I made 30K+ with virtually no risk in arena.

Pick an archer equivalent since they don't have a weapon that they are explicitly weak to. Also pick as low level as you can. The arena will always pick other ranged characters like magic users and other archers which you will almost always out class. Innes in chapter 10 is perfect for this as he is level 1 and there is also a dancer you can level at the same time. Bring healers and clear the map except for the boss. Once you get to level 10+ more dangerous foes start appearing, at 14+ it's rocket arena, which means it's time to quit or you can get a couple levels higher than that, but you better be quick with that maths since it stops being risk free. The only thing you use up are heals and mends which also level up your healers.

Attacking first is useful if you want to have first strike for a one hit KO. Or critical targets like Archers VS Flying, or range VS non-range assuming that doesn't immediately place that person in danger the next turn.

The most important thing is to pick your battles. This cannot be stressed enough. Fight only when the odds are in your favor and it doesn't leave you in danger afterwards. There will be times where high speed enemies pop-up meaning they will have the initiative, but they will have very obvious weaknesses or you are already near a choke point if you have incoming cavalry. Make them fight on your terms. Tactically retreat. Very few bonus objectives are hard timed and mostly they have a soft timer you can stop by killing a single unit.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline Jonnyboy117

  • Associate Editor
  • NWR Staff
  • Score: 37
    • View Profile
    • Nintendo World Report
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #71 on: January 22, 2012, 03:40:45 PM »
My goal is to get as far as possible for this RetroActive, so constant restarts are not an option. If I can beat the mission without a unit, I figure that I have a chance to beat the next one too. If this attrition funnels me into a "nonstandard game over" then that is one of the most interesting outcomes I can imagine for this feature! But I am now up to Chapter 9 and have plenty of dudes, just no healers. Main issue seems to be dwindling medicine -- where can I get more???
THE LAMB IS WATCHING!

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #72 on: January 22, 2012, 04:33:42 PM »
Go back into the shops in previous towns on the over world map. If you have the cash, you can get the meds. Problem with that is it's more expensive than healers and staffs per heal for fewer HPs especially on higher levels and you miss out on the EXP, plus taking up a slot and the healers can become a very versatile or powerful class later. Which means you end up having to grind for more money for more items, but without healers, you can't effectively grind arena for money or use the tower for EXP/items.

Chapter 10 can get you 4 powerful units.

However in chapter 11 and 12 you will have a chance to get another (2)healer(s). Another way is to promote your magic users early (10+) so they can use wands, but they will start at level E wands and you lose up to 10 levels worth of stat growth! You can keep losing about one character per chapter, assuming you recuit everybody, the problems are obvious, lost equipment, EXP, stats and most importantly tactical flexibility. You are about half way through the game, so it it's not as long as a lot of people make it out to be, but a lot of people are making it hard on themselves trying to brute force the game instead of stoping and thinking. You don't have to be a chess master about it, but think at least beyond the current turn and you can very effectively simulate the current turn with some quick maths with details battle information. I usually only restart once or twice a chapter to see the scripted movements and the odd mistake. You can try to stick to a core group which can over level them, but once again, you would be losing flexibility.

Consequences, consequences, consequences.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline Glad0s

  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
    • Reagan's Music Reviews
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #73 on: January 22, 2012, 06:50:57 PM »
LOL, Jonny seems to be playing this the exact way I am.
"Isn't Karl like Mexican or something"

Offline Jonnyboy117

  • Associate Editor
  • NWR Staff
  • Score: 37
    • View Profile
    • Nintendo World Report
Re: RetroActive #21: Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
« Reply #74 on: January 22, 2012, 07:23:33 PM »
My magic users have all died too, but it looks like I'll have a new one in the latest chapter. Every soldier left behind! I place no value on Fire Emblem lives!
THE LAMB IS WATCHING!