Topic: New Fire Emblem Announced

[NWR_MattB]

The first Super Famicom entry in the series is DS bound.
 http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=23136

 Nintendo updated the official Fire Emblem site yesterday with news that a new Fire Emblem game is coming to the Nintendo DS.      

Entitled Fire Emblem: Monshou no Nazo Hiktari to Kage no Eiyuu in Japan, the game is a remake of the third entry in the series, which was 1994Â’s Fire Emblem: Monshou no Nazo.      

One interesting piece of information is that the original Super Famicom version consisted of a remake of the original Fire Emblem, but seeing as the Nintendo DS has already seen a remake of that back in 2009, this new remake will likely focus on the "sequel" part of the Super Famicom title.   Not much else is known about the game, but a trailer can be seen at the official Fire Emblem site.

[broodwars]

Meh, I really enjoyed the Path of Radiance duo and the 2 GBA Fire Emblem games, but I wish they'd evolve the series to keep up with other franchises evolving the TSRPG genre (like Valkyria Chronicles) rather than release these remakes.  And considering they aren't holding this game back to release on 3DS, I can't help but think this will be another half-assed remake like the last one apparently was.

[Stratos]

Hopefully it contains a way to carry over data from the first game.

While getting these unreleased versions in some form is nice, I hope that the next one is a truly original piece. I'd like to see the series evolve even more. Maybe the next console version will be a brand new one.

Post-post reply: Hey, Brood, why was the last remake a half-assed one? I thought it was a pretty solid game. Nothing terribly groundbreaking, but not a poor game by any means.

[broodwars]

Post-post reply: Hey, Brood, why was the last remake a half-assed one? I thought it was a pretty solid game. Nothing terribly groundbreaking, but not a poor game by any means.

There was just something about it that never clicked with me, never drew me in to want to play more than a few minutes of it.  Maybe it was the lack of some of the nice features that made the later games so enjoyable?  Maybe just the weird visual style?  I dunno.
 
Honestly, it could just be me.  I've found ever since I completed Valkyria Chronicles that I now have an extremely low tolerance for by-the-books, drawn-out, slow as hell tactical strategy play.  It's like having French Ice Cream (seriously, their ice cream is divine), and then having to go back to eating a brand you can buy at the local Publix.  It's really hard to go back. 

[vudu]

Shadow Dragon was utterly disappointing.  I loved the first GBA game and the GCN one (never got around to playing the other two), but the DS game never managed to grip me like the others.  The game would continuously throw generic characters at you non-stop--they weren't useful or even interesting; they just were there to take up space on the battlefield.  And since you had to have a small number of characters in order to recruit secret (more powerful) characters and gain entry to gaiden chapters it meant  you'd have to bring these useless characters with you into battle (thereby taking up a character slot) and letting them die (which sometimes took several turns).  I uncharacteristically gave up around chapter 11 because I just got so bored with the game.

If this new game does away with that mechanic I'll jump in with both feet first.  Otherwise, I'll probably skip it. 

[NWR_Neal]

I've always enjoyed Fire Emblem games, but in a "I'll wait until there's a deal or I can borrow it from a friend" way. I fondly remember playing the first GBA game throughout a few weeks of a high school economics class.

I'm surprised to hear all the hate for Shadow Dragon, though. I remember enjoying it a lot more than either home console games, but I liked the GBA games a good deal more.

[Luigi Dude]

Shadow Dragon was utterly disappointing.  I loved the first GBA game and the GCN one (never got around to playing the other two), but the DS game never managed to grip me like the others.  The game would continuously throw generic characters at you non-stop--they weren't useful or even interesting; they just were there to take up space on the battlefield.  And since you had to have a small number of characters in order to recruit secret (more powerful) characters and gain entry to gaiden chapters it meant  you'd have to bring these useless characters with you into battle (thereby taking up a character slot) and letting them die (which sometimes took several turns).  I uncharacteristically gave up around chapter 11 because I just got so bored with the game.

If this new game does away with that mechanic I'll jump in with both feet first.  Otherwise, I'll probably skip it. 

You might as well skip this one then.  The stuff that people love about the GBA and Gamecube Fire Emblem were features that were added with the 4th game in the series Genealogy of a Holy War.  Shadow Dragons is suppose to be an almost direct remake of the first game, which lacks many of the features of the later games.  Since this new game is based off of the 3rd one, it will also lack many features from the later ones as well.

For everyone that didn't like Shadow Dragons, your better off waiting until they remake the next game in the series Genealogy of a Holy War since that's the one that revolutionized the series to what it later became.

[Ymeegod]

Yeah, the remake Shadow Dragon was a disappointment because the only thing I think they added was a save point feature (which was nice) but alot of the newer rules, classes, abilities, ect from the GC FE game was left out.  Also as someone mentioned you get alot of extra guys but there's no way to up their levels without sacificing our main battle group, these just the arena mode which you can fight for cash/exp but unlike other newer FE games, losing in this arena mode kills that character--which sucks because the battles you fight are random.  There's no extra side missions so you really don't use alot of these later characters so you'll never hear their backstory which isn't a lose because most of them are lame compare to GC FE anyhow.

Hopefully they do more than simply port the game, I wouldn't mind a remake (since we never did get III anyhow) as long as they improve it to match the games later in the series.

[Stratos]

I really do hope a new Wii FE comes after this. This is two handheld releases in a row and both are remakes. Feels like the series is coasting :/

[BeautifulShy]

Stratos the majority of the Japan releases never made it out of Japan. I think it is nice that we are seeing where the series roots started. Also I think things might be different if the first Fire Emblem came out first than the GBA Fire Emblem that we got. Different perspective on the series.

[greybrick]

New Fire Emblem AnnouncedAh, you had me fooled for a second there. New just doesn't mean what it used to.

[broodwars]

Stratos the majority of the Japan releases never made it out of Japan. I think it is nice that we are seeing where the series roots started.

I guess some people are more interested in where a series has been than where it is going.     Come to think of it, that pretty much describes the whole Retro movement I have so much disdain for.

[TJ Spyke]

New Fire Emblem AnnouncedAh, you had me fooled for a second there. New just doesn't mean what it used to.

It's a remake, not a port. So it IS new. Is the currently A Nightmare on Elm Street not a new movie because it is also just a remake?

[NWR_Neal]

New Fire Emblem AnnouncedAh, you had me fooled for a second there. New just doesn't mean what it used to.

It's a remake, not a port. So it IS new. Is the currently A Nightmare on Elm Street not a new movie because it is also just a remake?

Is a reimagining new but a remake isn't? I don't know these rules anymore!

[greybrick]

New Fire Emblem AnnouncedAh, you had me fooled for a second there. New just doesn't mean what it used to.

It's a remake, not a port. So it IS new. Is the currently A Nightmare on Elm Street not a new movie because it is also just a remake?

It is a remake of an old game, not a new game. By your logic you would call Pokemon Heart Gold a new game (a stellar examples of a remake, really) but I just don't think that counts as a new game. Is Dragon Quest V for the DS a new game? No. How about FF3 and FF4 on the DS? No.  Chrono Trigger? Nope. A game can improve itself in another iteration, that does not make it a new game.

If you would rather just point to other medium instead of citing examples withing gaming, when someone covers a song they don't refer to it as a new song. When a song is remastered it is also not referred to as a new song. I have here a "remake" of 22 Acacia Avenue, it sounds different but it is the same song.

[TJ Spyke]

Remakes are NEW games, that is fact. You may not like it, but I don't see how you can see it any other way.

As for songs, covers are new songs. Digital remastered versions are not.

[Ian Sane]

I think this is a new Fire Emblem in an NBC re-run "if you haven't seen it, it's new to you" way.  For North America this is essentially a new Fire Emblem.  I don't like it when companies rather blatantly recycle content because it requires less work.  The whole concept seems to be a very intentional con to get us to buy the same thing twice that numerous people fall for again and again.

But I cut them slack in two situations.  The first is when the game is out-of-print and this just merely re-introduces the game to market place.  When Nintendo puts Super Metroid on the VC they don't act like THAT is the new Metroid game.  It is released along side new Metroid games.  It is not promoted as a new game and does not take the release date slot of a new game.  The design is to get the old game back in the market, not get a new product out cheaply by recycling old content.

The second situation is when a game has never been released in a market before and now finally is.  For almost all of North America this is a new game.  Nintendo denied us Fire Emblem for years and now we finally get to play the originals.  Now I would prefer a translated VC release as it would be more accurate and would take less resources but this isn't that bad.  Back in the day when Super Mario All-Stars came out I was pretty thrilled to see Lost Levels released over here.

[greybrick]

Remakes are NEW games, that is fact. You may not like it, but I don't see how you can see it any other way.
As for songs, covers are new songs. Digital remastered versions are not.

I think the allcaps was what really sold me on your argument, but I missed the part where you cited any sort of example or reference. I put my favorite parts in boldface.

[NWR_Neal]

I kind of agree that remakes are new games. DQV never hit the states before, neither did FF3. To us, those are new games, as are both of these Fire Emblem DS remakes. Hell, HG/SS are new games in my opinion as well.

Are they what we want? Depends on who you ask, but much in the way that a cover song is a new song, a remake is a new game. It just borrows heavily from a pre-existing game, sometimes too much.

[greybrick]

I kind of agree that remakes are new games. DQV never hit the states before, neither did FF3. To us, those are new games, as are both of these Fire Emblem DS remakes. Hell, HG/SS are new games in my opinion as well.

Are they what we want? Depends on who you ask, but much in the way that a cover song is a new song, a remake is a new game. It just borrows heavily from a pre-existing game, sometimes too much.

Borrow from the old games? They are the old games!

Describe Pokemon Heart Gold to me in such a way that you convince me that it is not the old game with things added. I suppose in the sense that they literally are a new cartridge yes they are new. Being new "to us" or to people that haven't played it doesn't make it new either.

[NWR_Neal]

Is Reel Big Fish's cover of Take On Me the same as A-ha's original version?

[greybrick]

Is Reel Big Fish's cover of Take On Me the same as A-ha's original version?

No, it is a different version of the same song but still the same song.

I am not saying that remakes are exactly the same as the originals. If I cut my hair and change my wardrobe I am the same person.

[vudu]

Is Reel Big Fish's cover of Take On Me the same as A-ha's original version?

Is No More Heroes:  Heroes Paradise the same as the original No More Heroes?  Pretty much.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

No, cuz NMH HP looks and plays worse.  The experience went from cool to awful.

But legitimate remakes are New Products delivering Old Fundamental Experiences.

[TJ Spyke]

Is Reel Big Fish's cover of Take On Me the same as A-ha's original version?

Is No More Heroes:  Heroes Paradise the same as the original No More Heroes?  Pretty much.

NMH HP is a port, not a new game.