Player Taxonomy and Fire Emblem
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- Taxonomy is a system of classification. Player Taxonomy, therefore, is an attempt to divide players into certain types in order to better understand play and market behaviors. In this video, I break down the classic 5-type division from Mark Rosewater, and use it to rate various Fire Emblem games according to how much I feel each game appeals to each type of player.
Feel free to disagree with my rankings, but just know that I'm not trying to say a certain game is "good" or "bad," just that they appeal to different types of players.
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro to Taxonomy
2:12 Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Vorthos & Mel
5:23 Combining the player archetypes
7:42 Getting back to Fire Emblem
9:38 Rating All the Games
Information referenced in this video:
Richard Bartle player types www.arise.mae.usp.br/wp-conten...
Mark Rosewater: Timmy, Johnny & Spike: magic.wizards.com/en/news/mak...
Mark Rosewater: Vorthos & Mel: magic.wizards.com/en/news/mak...
And some videos that inspired this one:
Kohdok talks about Player Taxonomy from a card/board game perspective - • The Player Taxonomy (...
Tim Cain talks about the Bartle types - • Bartle's Player Archet...
Discord: / discord
Join the LaguzGuard to get access to perks like early video access!
/ @mythrilzenith - Hry
Realizing my comments on 3 Houses mechanics feeling "stapled onto the core instead of working with the core" didn't make much sense. I think in my exhaustion at the end of the recording I must have read the wrong line and overlooked it, so let me try again.
I feel like several of the systems of 3 Houses are either self-contained systems that don't really interact with the core class and stat systems of the game, like Battalions, or are systems like unique skill, art and spell lists that completely replace the usual methods for evaluating units such as stats, growths and classes.
While there is definitely some level of interaction between these mechanics, it very much feels like they supercede any traditional Fire Emblem logic, to the point where the game actively transforms into different styles of gameplay as you progress.
This is not necessarily wholly negative, but it is my personal basis for giving a lower Mel score. This is primarily because I would prefer a system wherein the battalions or unique skills or arts or the like complement a unit's stats or classes or the like, rather than becoming their sole identifying factors 90% of the time.
5:42 common misconception, but Se Jun Park was definitely playing like a Johnny/Spike and not a Timmy/Spike when he won the world championship. He didn’t use Pachirisu because it was his favourite, he used it because it was the only Pokémon that had both Follow Me and Volt Absorb, as well as great utility moves in Nuzzle and Super Fang. Those tools made it the perfect support for his Mega Gyrados, which was actually more uncommon in the format than Pachirisu funnily enough.
But he is not describing Se Jun Park hinself, but rather the people that adore that story.
I suppose a better example would be that timm/Spikes want to be the guy that won YGO world with Blue Eyes, but i suppose it is less well known(and a lot more constructed as the banlist at the times iirc favored BE immensely).
I am impressed you were able to explain wolfey's video socshortly by just using this concept
Clearly, I was the target audience for Engage, as it is THE Fire Emblem game for me! (haven't played FE 1-5 though)
There's truly something to genuinely enjoy about the day-to-day map gameplay.
And since the way I usually play FE is on the hardest difficulty while trying to raise every unit, Engage Maddening provides exactly the right amount of difficulty troughout the game.
Some units will be stronger than others, but all are usable and it is especially interesting to try to solve these maps with a suboptimal team-comp and while trying to get as much Exp out of them.
Edit 1: Also, I like layering class-related challenges on top of that, like "every unit in their canon class" (Kagetsu / Panette / Pandreo aren't quite as good in those) or "at least one unit in each class" or "every unit in the class whose max stats distribution best matches the unit's"
Edit 2: I would recommend the game be played in the following order on Maddening: Main game > Divine Paralogues > Fell Xenologue.
Otherwise the Divine Paralogues tend to break the game's difficulty (which is rather finely tuned) / the Fell Xenologue is way too hard to be fun.
Main thing I learned about this video is I'm a Vorthos/Johnny
I like Geneology
I like realism and immersion
Berwick saga is my favorite game of all time.
Though uh. if any game deserves S for Vorthos on here it's geneology, A game that is so obsessed with world building the maps perfectly create the actual in canon world map deserves nothing less.
I second this. Genealogy is my favorite game in the series for Vorthos reasons and nothing else. Personally, I'd rate it S in Vorthos and C in Mel because it compromises it's gameplay at every turn to make it more integrated to the story, making it into a not very well thought out, unbalanced mess which can get really dull at times.
Overall, I identify myself as Vorthos/Mel, and while Geneology was definitely my best experience with FE and the one I think back to most fondly, it's also one I really don't want to replay for the most part.
I always found it interesting and frustrating that the FE community specifically bashes on Birthright for 'infinite gold and exp' when FE8 had the Tower of Valni and skirmishes, Awakening had skirmish battlea and dlc maps, and nearly every game has an arena. Why do we specifically take down Birthright when every game does it, at least a little bit?
It's more the contrast to Conquest specifically than anything BR did wrong in a vacuum.
Ooohhhh... i see. I haven't played through the whole series yet, both fates games included, so i wasn't sure. But why don't we just not use them? No one uses the options i mentioned for the other games either, so why not weigh the game without their use?
BR is just in a weird spot generally kind of existing in CQ's shadow. Personally I found it to be a strict improvement over Awakening in both the fairness of difficulty and the core mechanics, though taking a heavy hit to character writing and story in the process (there used to be a sentiment that BR has a better narrative than CQ, and while that is true in some regards it also has a slew of issues in its own right and suffers from some extreme deus ex machina pushing the story along).
I agree that FE Birthright gets hated on too much for having grinding. When picking the path, the game clearly states at the start that it has grinding options to help train units and get more funds.
I’m guessing Birthright kept getting compared to Conquest. Revelation did too, but much more negatively. People played all 3 routes back to back and suffered burnout.
For what it’s worth I think that Birthright improves on FE Awakening’s mechanics and has a Lunatic mode that while much easier that other games, isn’t unfair and can be a decent challenge later on assuming you’re doing minimal grinding. The unique Japanese style classes like ninjas and Kenshi knights are fun to play with and are easily accessible in BR.
Personally I believe a game like Fire Emblem should not have unlimited resources that’s why the open map games (FE8, Awakening, Birthright, Engage even gaiden to an extent) get so much flack, because it’s too easy just to grind and win rather than use what you have to beat chapters
Really loved this video, it kinda spoke to me as I'm trying to play through the whole series while also replaying the games that got me into the series. Playing Awakening and Birthright made me realize that I just couldn't care less about unique unit building, skills, and the more 'sandbox' approach they have to gameplay in the newer titles. But give me a game with rescue dropping and shoving with smaller unique interactions in maps and I am super excited to play. Having a video like this that perfectly encapsulates why I find some games more enjoyable than others based on my vibe and why I play games is SUPER COOL. Mels Unite!
Fellow Vorthos here. My sister who at one point introduced me to Fire Emblem years ago asked me if I remember the names of the characters from Fire Emblem 8, a game she forgot so much about because she preferred Path of Radiance. Needless to say, she was astonished how well versed I was in the lore and characters nearly a decade after she set eyes on Sacred Stones.
I've actually been made fun of several times in the Fire Emblem fandom for outright stating I play FE games for their stories and especially characters over the actual gameplay. Don't get me wrong, the gameplay is definitely nice, but it's only a part of what I love in FE.
The segments of the FE fandom that actively hate on FE stories and act as if they're inferior to all "good" stories (mostly without ever even being clear about what makes a story "good" or "bad" or even giving more than a passing example of what a "good" story is) are among the most obnoxious in the fandom. Sorry you've had to experience that by being outspoken as a fan of the stories.
Literally the only player type I don't identify with is Spike. I often find though that Vorthos tends to be the most dominant as, if I don't vibe with the story, a game loses me quickly, while a great story can draw me into a game I would never normal touch.
Order of Dominance:
Vorthos
Mel
Timmy
Johnny
An addendum
I LOVE mechanics in Engage. The skill system is second only to conquest, and the difficulty is basically perfect.
Maddening is a challenge, except when using dlc but that's normal for fire emblem.
There are multiple powerful builds but have many flaws. Wrath vantage Panette loses to a single mage, for instance.
Player phasing is the way to go, since tankiness doesn't really exist in many places.
Every map is memorable and has something unique to go for it. The mix-match of all the tropes do really well for a "best hits of FE" game. The desert map does not have hidden items, which is a miss. And the legendary weapons are really quite bad - nova and Willie glanz.
However, the gameplay is just stellar. No ambush spawns, powerful enemies that take dedicated answers or ganging up, the best boss design in the series, the break mechanic being meaningful up until endgame. The maps themselves are incredibly well designed, with unique win conditions and side objectives. High quality enemy loot is also a plus. The forging system borrowed from echoes is also very good.
This is unrelated to the video, but I'd love to see a follow up to the worst maps, with the best maps of every FE game.
I'll take that into consideration and see if I can find someone to tackle that mountain with me.
@@MythrilZenith i wonder if a certain Doyle is up to the task 😱 you guys have such great chemistry lol
I'm probably Johnny-Mel and I absolutely _loved_ Engage.
From the "Johnny" perspective: while it can still kind of become "Skill Emblem," I don't mind this because the class and skill systems are more transparent and accessible than ever. Inheriting skills from Emblems is far easier than chewing through multiple seals to get skills from different classes. And they actually _show you_ what skills you get from each Emblem, rather than keeping it all hidden and requiring you to go to a wiki. The forge system also makes it very straightforward to try out different strengthened weapons, not only because of the engrave system, but because regular forging only takes gold and 3 different types of ingot, instead of a billion random little materials like in Fates and 3H.
From the "Mel" perspective: perhaps this is because I played it after 3 Houses, but I was very happy that Engage does keep the core mechanics the central part of the game. Even though there is still a bit of filler stuff in the Somniel, ultimately it's very easy to ignore-I rarely touched Tower of Trials, the pond, or the exercise training. (Compare to 3H which borderline forces you to go through a bunch of irrelevant tedium.)
I couldn't disagree more with the game feeling like 2 layers stuck together. The Emblems are not a "second game," they're equippables. Like 3H's battalions giving you extra stats and a 1- or 2-use attack, but highly expanded with each one granting you skills as well. It's not like there's a giant second set of Emblem-specific mechanics, they keep it pretty simple. Pretty much everything you do with Emblems is directly in service to the main gameplay.
Also, what is said at 24:13? It sounds like "Whether you love seeing Ryoma shred through Nohr thride into on a dream"
Yeah that mic take was rough. "Seeing Ryoma shred through Nohr with a Raijinto and a dream" was what was written. I didn't catch how bad it actually was until I had already cut it down and was towards the end of editing.
Def a Vorthos myself, though playing through SoV is so awakward cuz one moment your enjoying the amazing ost, characters and story to an extent, then you actually have to play the game.
With the definitions at 7:44, i definitly am a Vorthos/Mel with a little bit of Timmy and a pinch of Johnny when I'm feeling it
i feel like everyone who is willing to play anything before awakening have gotta has at least a little spike in them
I'd probably be considered a Mel under this taxonomy, although I can definitely become a Vorthos if a game clearly wants me to be a Vorthos. I very much appreciate it when the optimal strategy for a map is more complex and interesting than "Throw Seth/Titania at the problem until it stops being a problem" and when game mechanics take steps against the problems of Horsespam and Juggernauting (this is probably why I like FE3 and FE5 so much). I'd probably lower the Mel scores for Sacred Stones and Path of Radiance just because of how much the likes of Seth and Titania completely trivialise the whole game and make it unnecessary to actually engage with the mechanics and come up with clever plans. It does take the wind out of my sails a bit when I come up with a clever plan to complete a map and realise that it would have been easier if I had just soloed it with a broken unit.
Feel like fates overall got a bad rap, the games have some flaws issues mainly in the plot being in the oven for too long, but on terms Timmy, Johnny, and Mel there is a lot to dig in
Nearly every character is viable and has uses in all routes with even the worst ones having either lesser roles or able to be “made to work”. Along with the very flexible and vast reclass and skill systems means Timmy’s can make some very strong power trip characters for all three routes. Johnny’s can have a field day optimizing skill and unit combos and inheritance for some broken builds (super Ophelia for conquest examples).
Spike does take a hit for BR and REV as they aren’t very difficult games with rev having a better time due to the amount of optimization allowed… vorthos struggles with the plot being conflicting, birthright is quite strong with it being narratively consistent with a few plot contrivances but a strong aesthetic different from any other FE Game, conquest has probably the worst plot in the series but great unit feel, and rev has an unpolished plot.
Mel though gets as much out of fates as Johnny’s do. Between reclass options in every units personal combinations, personal skills to distinguish every unit, marriage options to allow for a fully planned generation 2, a very opened sandbox approach to resources and meta that can be tackled in multiple directions and three distinct metas unique to each game (such as the role kaze fills between an early game backpack in BR, mid game reclass enabler and mage killer in CQ, and an early game combat lead to fast support into midori for finance buffer). Fates giving any unit the tools to succeed gives the tinkerers of Mel’s so much room to express their hypotheses for the meta and fully appreciate how the gameplay systems come together
That's very fair. I probably didn't give it enough detail just because I personally haven't played the games in awhile and didn't really enjoy them when I did play them, so there's definitely a form of personal bias going on in terms of what my brain processes/remembers.
I don't know if I agree with the spike rating for BR being lower than Awakening. It's true that BR doesn't have the sheer masochistic difficulty of Awakening's lunatic+, but lunatic+ is also an infamously rng heavy difficulty that's filled to the brim with unfair design choices. Is a bad hard mode better than an easy hard mode? I'm not really sure myself (granted, Awakening does have some solid dlc as well that could potentially be a more fair challenge, I don't recall Fates ever getting an Apotheosis type challenge map.)
@@platonismisoop2152 fates did not, it had the heirs of fate series which gave you specific premade units so was more of a puzzle mode.
Lunatic+ is extremely luck dependent with especially it’s early game most of the time made mathematically impossible by the wrong generics getting the wrong broken skills randomly. It requires you to do unorthodox play patterns just for a chance at accomplishing anything (luring enemies while in the river in the first chapter) and very small cast of viable characters and builds leading to a save or suck experience. It tried to be like lunatic reverse in new mystery ds which overall might still be harder than lunatic+ but was just made far more annoying. Maddening mode in three houses accomplished the goal better that lunatic+ but still fell into the same pitfalls just without the “completely luck reliant setup of skills”
This is such an interesting video idea, really fascinating to think about.
Personally I see myself as a Johnny/Vorthos combo, though I have been a bit indecisive as I can imagine parts of a Timmy or Mel as well.
But your definition of experimenting within the lore accuracy was very spot on and looking at which games are prefered by either side explains why I like most FE games.
As if you think about it most games either give you a ton of options to play around with or have a consistent aesthetic and interesting story.
But my favorites usually do both unsurprisingly.
As someone who's put far too much time and thought into Conquest, I will say I disagree with your rankings for it slightly, in that I think the game is generally a lot more appealing to a Johnny or Mel than a Spike. Playing the game optimally can be pretty boring sometimes if your only goal is to get from beginning to end asap, it's why Fates players tend to gravitate more towards challenge runs more than LTC play. For a Johnny, there's a lot of fun to be had with making different or unique builds and pairings, especially if those builds/pairings can beat a map similarly to something that's more standard or meta. And for a Mel they'd definitely appreciate the way all the system mechanics intertwine and how they all affect the game's units. Cool video, I think player taxonomy is a really cool topic and in some ways I think it's a better way of evaluating a game than just trying to give it a score on a scale of 1 to 10
I think you've definitely hit the bullseye on this analysis.
I'll make an argument for Vorthos to like FECQ, and Fates in general.
In my opinion these games have the single best looking classes and *generic* designs.
Hoshido is the most novel, but Nohr classes give an interesting lavish and Roman spin to medieval classes. Without delving into the details, they're fancy looking!
Also, this game has the best looking horse armor and most variety of mounts in the franchise and in general.
Paladin's looking all heroic with wing motifs.
GK's looking like inside a diving armor.
Dark Knight's with multiple demonic faces.
Oh and CQ in particular has the easiest time at making a whole army of varied cavalry!
Counterpoint:
My units look cool and have awesome designs, then they lose half of their cool designs as they take damage in battle.
I think the timmy archetype would love thracia.
Scrolls make units like the wind mage or even marty unkillable monsters that can't get crit.
Using the magic example.
Time stretch is a timmy card.
Asbel with favoritism is time stretch.
Forgive the logical leap, but maybe you get what I mean.
The low stat caps means anyone can become a god.
That's why I like Starshards in FE3
When you went over the different types I immediately had to check which ones I think I would be- had never heard those terms before.
Based on the First and second segment (single category and Category1/Category2) I thought "I'm probably primarily a mix of timmy vorthos & mel."
Then when going over the games I already played I have no idea anymore.
[Games I played: FE6, 7, 8, POR (currently), Awakening, Fates (all), SoV, FE3H, Engage]
- My favorite game is Awakening for being what got me into the franchise (after not getting into the game with RD as my first, also unfinished FE) and while the gameplay is a broken mess, it's my broken mess ( + I love the characters and story)-
- Probably followed by Conquest for it's great replayability and customizability and PEAK gameplay (subjective) with the finalized version of pair up. (It's story is bad though, so I just skip it by now, and the characters are hit or miss)
- FE3H's gameplay didn't do much for me, with it's bland maps and weird class tree stuffs, so after playing every route I probably won't return to it, doubly so for the monestary gamplay- BUT the story and characters I love a ton. So it might be my 3rd favourite?
- Path Of Radiance got an amazing story and solid gameplay, there really isn't anything to complain about- but I somehow don't appreciate those things as much as I did with FE3H and Conquest-
- FE7 and 8 I liked a lot too, both story and gameplay wise. though I'd be more willing to replay FE7 for reasons unknown to me.
- Engage I played without Emblem rings for my only play-through so far, so I'm sure some of the scores don't really count for me, but after watching analysis videos on the story... that part might be worse than fates? The characters were a mixed bag like in conquest as well, though a bit lower quality on average to me I think- though I don't know them as well as the conquest cast yet. (more than willing to replay the game however, because the gameplay felt good for the most part [I dread the SP grinding])
And even if I tried finding what consistency there may be for those categories here-
I still dislike SoV (because of it's gameplay. The story and characters may be good but I won't willingly touch the game again) and FE6 (because of it's gameplay, but also to an extent due to it's bland presentation of the greater story, which has a lot of potential)
so yeah- cool video and cool topic but I can't figure myself out 👍
Thracia is a game with such rich depth and interesting challenges (no staffs, warpless, No magic, no promos etc) without save states a lot of the game is about risk management as some maps can get quite long if not skipped, the combat itself isn't challenging but the game itself is like a big puzzle thats so fun to take apart and learn about
also scrolls go burr if u wanna make ur favorite scrunko cap their stats
ALSO Id like to add Thracia is very much a AU of fe4 there is no "canon" gen 2 according to interviews
I don’t necessarily agree with all of your analysis of every game but I really appreciate the effort put into this video!
I think I’m a Timmy/Vorthos when all is said and done
Congrats on finishing such a big one! Crazy I found your channel through Age of Empire on the DS only to then find out you also made FE videos lol!
I know! I love both games but sadly the audience for a 20+ year old DS spinoff is fairly limited so I've had to diversify lol
@@MythrilZenith Very true lol, it's a hard world for us DS AoE fans
I'm gonna be real after watching this video I still don't know what taxonomy I would consider myself, the games I've played so far and happen to like are Sacred Stones, Fates (currently going through birthright), and three houses. Three Houses and Fates being tied for the games I like the most. I also think Engage and Path of Radience and Raidant Dawn are cool from a gameplay perspective (Engage's story is generic anime storyline and Path of Raidence/Radiant Dawn idk what the story is). I think I seem to value gameplay more than the story (not difficulty though, Id on't like insanely difficult chapters), but having a great story helps too.
I feel like the Mel score for Conquest should actually be A. While it is very much a game where creating builds is necessary for the highest tier of play, even lunatic can be handily beaten with pure fundamentals. You may see someone like Zoran getting through the game with a frankly unholy concoctions of skills (which depending on your preferred arbitrary metric of optimization is not even optimal play), you can certainly get through the game with characters who are very strong out of the box but still need to be used wisely to not face the wrath of Conquest's anti-juggernaut measures. I know Mel doesn't mean "reclassing bad" but I wanted to use that example to demonstrate that Conquest does seriously reward mechanical mastery just as much as making busted builds.
"Handily beaten" is a bit of a stretch. While I agree that the vast majority of the game can, Endgame SPECIFICALLY punishes you for not building some form of abusive optimization or meta-strat, as not everyone will go out of their way to plan pass-rescue and playing that map legitimately makes my brain bleed. I've got a save to Lunatic Endgame with minimal reclassing and skill shopping ON HARDWARE without a maxed WiFi setup or any of that, but I just can't beat the final map after well over a dozen attempts. It's one of the few challenges in FE that I have yet to actually overcome myself.
@@MythrilZenith I can't really argue against that since endgame is truly an awful map but I don't think one chapter should dictate the entire rating of that game. It's like saying Johnnys wouldn't like Path of Radiance because you have to use Ike or a dragon against Ashnard instead of obscure Brom tech and give no other reason for them not to like it when there is an entire rest of the game they may actually like.
Based on this, I'd prolly say I'm a Johnny/Mel, primarily Mel. I 100% treat FE as a puzzle, play on average growths, always try to go for 100% hit rates for every combat if I can, and resetting often for the "perfect run". And I absolutely love taking the smallest of mechanics and using that to my benefit. Example, I see the 0 damage/0% hit rule in Conquest, and I'm like "ok how can I exploit this mechanic to its fullest" and I end up with goofy builds like General Xander that honestly aren't bad lol.
I do very rarely play as a Timmy. I mostly reserve those moments for if a game by nature goes against the way I play. Like with Revelation due to the horrendous unit balancing, the really boring enemy design, and time-wasting map gimmicks, I'm extremely open to just going for cool. Say hello to Onmyoji Hana with Horse Spirit Gamble/Astra/Sol. But normally, if I'm playing something like Conquest or Birthright I will actively avoid the cool-looking crits and proc skills solely because they add a layer of inconsistency and unpredictability to the strategy.
Spike I don't relate to. I don't adhere to "the ends justifies the means" mindset. When it comes to FE, I am very against skipping maps with Warp/Rescue and/or just defeating the boss to end the map early unless it's a map with zero substance otherwise. You can imagine my frustration when the common mentality of beating CQ Endgame is to save your Rescues to skip it.
And of course, I only care for gameplay so a Vorthos I am not.
I don't think I agree with the Spike rating for CQ tho tbh. From my experience and from those I talk to, there's quite a bit of distaste towards optimizing Conquest, with certain things being grossly overtuned (guard gauge, Camilla) and how easy it is to stack stats to bulldoze and skip maps without much effort. Conquest Lunatic doesn't even pose much of a challenge in this context despite its reputation as a hard FE game. It's less a Spike game and more of a Timmy/Johnny game; a lot of the popular content from Fates loves to emphasize the different builds you can make with the freedom of reclassing and analyze the different avenues you can take to reach those goals (LnD/Vantage Ophelia being a prime example).
What an awesome idea for a video! Being a longtime Fire Emblem fan who lived through the Casual/Elitist wars of Fateswakening, player appeal has been on my mind a lot when it comes to fan discussions of the games. Idk if I would personally be so harsh in my Mel score for Engage--I personally found the basic mechanics like emblem abilities, staves, and Breaking to be a lot more intuitive and easy to pick up and dig into compared to, say, adjutants and battalions in 3H, especially as a veteran of the series who came into it off of Shadow Dragon and the GBA games. If Mel gives Fates and 3H a B, I feel like Engage has at least earned, like, a C maybe?
But idk, maybe that's my inner Timmy the Filthy Casual talking, haha.
I feel I am a Timmy/Vorthos with a bit of johnny.
Geneology is definitly my fav in the series especially because of the holy weapons, kid builds, and story. It is all just peak to me.
Engage and Awakwening are the runner ups with SoV just behind those.
Everything else I have played is about the same in how much I like them. I enjoy each for their own reasons.
Conquest is the only FE game I actively dislike though. It just doesn't work for me personally and I was left a sour taste in my mouth by the end of my Lunatic run of the game. Everything about it runs counter to how I like to play Fire Emblem.
I think I'm a Mel but I really liked Engage. I really liked the gameplay mechanics and map design, and while I didn't like some of the mechanics outside of the actual tactics gameplay, I was able to ignore them for the most part by not using reclassing, the somneil minigames, the tower of trials or skirmishes. Also am I the only one to notice that more than half of the games got exactly a B rating for Mel?
Mel was hard to rate for at a certain point because yeah, a lot of FE is just about appreciating how the small things are done well, and I just felt like so many of the small things in Engage weren't *actually* handled that well, but it was also about to get a B myself anyway.
I enjoyed the game a lot on first playthrough, but everything after that has been a slog to get through or just revealing of its core flaws.
@@MythrilZenith and i think Engage actually does many of the small things better than most for a single reason: Fixed Mode.
From a Mel perspective random growths are a super important core mechanic that do not really work with anything else. The best strategy more often than not is just to assume the worst case scenario and go from there.
In engage, Fixed Mode mean you can plan ahead knowing your exact stats at any level. There is no " Bob double cavaliers on chapter 14 if he is given a speedwing and grow speed at least 2 times" there is "Bob double cavaliers on chapter 14 if it is level 19, or level 15 with a speedwing".
Warning: This is gonna be a long essay of a comment.
This was a pretty interesting video. I think a lot of people realize that Fire Emblem has a lot diversity in design philosophy to the point where I once considered these differences within the fanbase akin to political factions in how polarized they were during the Fates/SoV era, but I don't think I've ever seen someone actually dive into why that is until now.
That being said, I honestly don't know exactly what mix of these archetypes I fall under. I have some strange favorite games and I'm also just bad at analysis. I feel like I definitely fall into the Mel archetype to some degree. I know that I definitely enjoy looking at the history of the series. I will also be the one guy who will shout from the rooftops that Light Magic has not been applied very well at all in any game (I can't speak on Tellius due to inexperience) and I'm likely one of few people who aren't begging for it to make a return. Maybe it would help if I type out how I feel about these games individually.
I enjoy playing FE1 because I just have a fascination with retro games. Sure, the game has aged horribly compared to even Gaiden, but I enjoy the simplicity of its mechanics and I also think the music is pleasant.
I like how Mystery of the Emblem continues that style, with those two games while also polishing them, and there truly isn't a game like FE3. I'm also the type that enjoys stuff like starshards because it allows me to use units I like either because of their character design (since there's not much writing and the FE3 translation out there is awful) or because I like their class (I like magic users as a whole). In general, I will abuse certain mechanics of a game in the name of making my favorites be the strongest units in my army. I also appreciate Thracia, a game I will probably never complete, because it's very obvious if you look at FE3 and FE5 side by side that these two games have a lot in common and Thracia uses Mystery of the Emblem as a base to build the rest of the game out of.
Binding Blade and Sacred Stones are two of my favorites for different reasons. I will admit that a lot of my love for Sacred Stones has to do with nostalgia, but as I am playing through it currently, I can definitely say that my favorite aspect of this game are the characters. They're really charming and well-written, even if the some of the villains are comically evil, but to me it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the story. I will absolutely train Amelia every time I play this game because I just like her a lot as a character, even if she isn't optimal, but I'm not an optimal player. I don't like to break games too hard cuz I still enjoy a challenge, even in arguably the easiest FE game.
Binding Blade, on the other hand, is a game I like because you gotta work to get the true ending. It's definitely the most love it or hate it game in the series. I personally love it. Probably the game I beat the fastest because I just enjoyed it that much that I felt like beating multiple chapters in a day, even in the lategame, which I normally don't do. I can't really explain what it is about FE6 that appeals to me. It's just satisfying.
I don't personally mind DS Emblem's aesthetic, but I do take issue with FE12 making way too many changes to FE3, particularly with how bloated the cast is. A lot of people rag on Revelation for this same aspect, but FE12 gets away with it scot free and that bothers me. I also feel it's the first modern Fire Emblem rather than the last classic one because it introduces a lot of core aspects that stuff like Fates and Awakening are known for.
I love Awakening's characters and I enjoy the story, plot holes and all. Like with Sacred Stones, I feel like nostalgia plays a big role in why I enjoy it so much, but at the same time, there's lots of things I like about it. I like the skill system and like the class system, and I think Fates as a whole does a good job at expanding upon these two aspects of Awakening that I really enjoy. It added a lot of unique classes while also trying to fix a lot of stuff that old Fire Emblem games ignored (making Luck more present and making bows a viable weapon type being two standouts) and also made classes unisex, something Fire Emblem never did before or since. That said, the writing suffered a lot and I can't say I feel strongly about the characters, though I do like them from an aesthetic point of view.
Shadows of Valentia is a mixed bag to me. It's the only FE game that I soured on the more I played it, and by the end of it, I definitely felt relieved that I wasn't playing it anymore. I don't like SoV's dungeons. They should never return. That being said, I do like the presentation. Definitely the best in the series in that respect. I don't like how a lot of Gaiden's gameplay staples got nerfed into the ground as you mentioned. I feel like they gave Gaiden a lot of its appeal. I also have mixed feelings about the music. The music that was originally composed for SoV is all great, but some of the new arrangements of Gaiden's songs feel lackluster, especially the enemy phase battle theme (too slow).
My opinion on Three Houses only really applies to Crimson Flower since it's the only route I've played. I don't like Edelgard both for her actions in the story or how the endings make her look like she didn't change anything besides who's top dog in Fodlan. I like almost everyone else though. The characters are pretty great and I enjoyed a lot of them, though I find that Golden Deer has my favorite parts of the cast with Marianne and Lysithea particularly standing out (Again, I like magic units). As for gameplay, the monastery is a chore and is also too big, but I did appreciate some areas of it. I'd find myself being in the cathedral a lot. I feel like there's some serious gameplay/story dissonance with it still being standing post-time skip, though I do like that even with all the characters I recruited, I found that they did a good job of making the characters have some justification for rebelling against the Church of Seiros, even someone as pious as Marianne.
Engage is weird. Leading up to and immediately after its release, I saw it as a return to form in terms of core FE design and gameplay due to how much of a departure Three Houses was. But looking back on my incomplete playthrough, I find that just about every aspect of the game felt empty. Even in games that lack a lot of modern mechanics or even in FE1 I have never felt this about an FE game. Also, I thought I hated Garreg Mach because of how it unnecessary complicates things that were done in a simple menu in the past (MyCastle from Fates, in my opinion, is the best way they've done something like this because it's still compact) but even Garreg Mach at least had stuff going on it in and the layout, despite being massive, felt thought out. As someone eho doesn't mind grinding in FE games, I don't like how they made it tedious and unnecessarily difficult to do, especially when I'm the kind of guy who likes to grind for supports. Support convos are one of my favorite aspects of Fire Emblem and I will go for them any chance I can (hence why I don't mind access to grinding in the 3DS games and such, and I think 3H did good there as well), but Engage made that needlessly hard. It doesn't help that it's one of those games where they give you all these neat units but not enough deployment slots.
Overall, I don't know where I lie in the mix of these player archetypes. Obviously, it would be stupid to claim to be rigidly an exclusive blend of two of them, but I'm too much of a fish brain to really figure it out myself. I do see aspects of each aside from Spike. I'm not an optimal player and I don't enjoy playing games this way.
If anyone feels like analyzing me based on all of this, first, I appreciate that you took the time to read all of this, but also I appreciate that you've taken the time to respond.
Oh, I'd like to make an addendum to the SoV section of this comment, cuz I somehow didn't mention it, but I don't like how SoV undid 20+ years of evolution in Fire Emblem in order to make the game run as closely as Gaiden did rather than do what the DS games did and remake the game while using the frame of modern (at the time) FE titles.
I'm not sure if this really makes sense, but I think that I have a bit of Timmy, Vorthos, and Mel, and whichever one I end up leaning into most depends on what number replay of a FE game I'm on.
Generally, I'm about the fun first, but I'm especially about it when going into a game blind for a first playthrough. Then, on second playthrough, I lean more into Mel, looking at how the gameplay actually works and what's effective about the mechanics and what isn't. Meanwhile, Vorthos is what dictates my choices in some games with reclassing options or multiple class lines--I love using General in GBA games (especially Amelia in Sacred Stones) for their amazing animations, and generally hate the look of horse mounted units, so I end up playing "off meta" because of that (especially in repeat playthroughs). I also find that playing for aesthetics can lean into Mel as well, as using "unoptimized" units can sometimes point out where a FE game's weaknesses and strengths lie in terms of mechanics as well as outline why some units perform better or worse.
>always identified as a Jhonny
>consider GBA the worst generation of FE
Yeah, it check out.
A brother?
This is such an interesting way of looking at games! I might just be weird, but I have two completely different playstyles for casual gaming and challenges. I definitely consider myself a Timmy with just a tiny bit of Mel for casual gaming. If I'm just playing through the game, I want to enjoy it, and I favor variety over any complex mechanics. I'm still interested in learning mechanics if it makes the game easier or more fun, but bottom line is I don't want to think too hard to get through a game.
If I'm doing some sort of challenge (whether I like the game or not), I go full Johnny/Mel. The complex interactions and hidden mechanics are all the fun, it's like turning any game into a puzzle game. The more I have to think, the better. Plus, some trash games have such fun interactions if you're willing to take the time to learn them (and conversely, some fun games are just terrible for challenges).
The Spike and Vorthos mentalities are the ones I don't vibe with at all. I still don't get why people optimize the fun out of a game, nor do I get people's obsession with immersion.
I mostly agree with your ratings for the games I've played, but FE is strangely the most consistent series for me. Tellius, Awakening, Fates, 3H, Binding Blade, all of them are a B in my mind for various reasons. None of them made me think "wow, this is one of the best games I've ever played!" nor have any of them been unfun. It's the only series where each game has been consistently fun for me.
I love fe6 so much
I'm probably a Spike
actually I'm probably embodied by Spike/Mel
Same. I get its critiques, but honestly it’s just so fun.
@@poss420 I appreciate how straight forward it is both mechanically and narratively. Not exceptional but never really that bad even with a few questionable design choices (bad unit balance, samey map objectives, reinforcements). It probably helps that I just really enjoyed the cast. It might be my overall favorite FE roster considering both the playable and antagonistic side of things.
fe6 is my favorite, im pretty mel but i get very vorthos about elibe in particular, so fe6 scratches a that particular itch for me
I think I'm pinning myself as a Mel, with some Johnny and with a smidge of Vorthos. Although I do have blatant favourites, I kinda dislike totally cheesing a game with my favourite units unless it's clearly intended (much like a standard Vorthos/ala Jugdral Holy Weapons), and I also find it very boring to stick to metas, as armored knights and archers are often a meme of mine in my playthroughs, specially when the games allow you to offset their weaknesses (rescue dropping, maps where they're good, enemies that compliment their use like wyverns or nomads, etc), unless my favourite unit HAPPENS to be a pegasus knight, cavalier or other meta class.
It kind of makes sense that despite FE6 being my first game I'd end up kind of finding it middling and then running off to absorb other games like the FE3+Jugdral trio, 3 Houses and Shadows of Valentia (though it still ranks near the top above a lot of the series simply for how solid it is mechanically and how fun it is when you ignore the big three, haha).
However, this video did explain to me why I'm so enraptured with Shadow Dragon and New Mystery, despite them being generally painted to me as "super impossibly hard and terrifyingly ugly". Shadow Dragon and New Mystery can sometimes really capture what I feel FE3 was trying to go for, even if it's story and cohesion suffer a little due to the reclassing system, the harshness of harder difficulties and the changes to the script, and the retooling of FE3 mechanics and the sheer width of characters means that you can do literally so many crazy different things while remaining in the frame of the game and still being able to do something?? It's kind of awe-inspiring, specially since you'd think a free reclassing system with no love given to uniqueness would ruin things for me, but it kind of just evens itself out!
I do truly love it for all the things you mention in it's section and it being a really good game for Mels, but I do feel the art direction, feel, tools and flexibility the game gives you to aim for something as stupid as Sage!Matthis or Swordmaster!/Berserker!Wrys or using literal-whos like Etzel, Dolph, Macellan, Tomas, Dice, Malice, Horace, Beck or Frost or just replacement units is just... kind of fun! It really is the ultimate test of your abilities to play Fire Emblem... and within that framework, you can do so many fun, unorthodox yet functional things that you'll make your head explode.
Thanks for allowing me to figure out why I love these two little DS gems so much! Great video that really helped me figure out why I adore so many different FE games!
A little addendum: I suppose this is also why I find the Fates games, Three Houses and Engage to be so mindboggling, since despite the sheer width of sandboxing allowed to me I really don't find too much appealing outside my favourite blorbos due to how lacking in cohesion stuff like the Battalions or Engage's Emblem Ring and Somniel mechanics can be, haha
From the way they were described i thought i was a timmy/vorthos, then when they were simplified I thought maybe a Johnny cuz I do like theory crafting when things like a 2nd gen exists. But none really overlap in a good way for my top 3 games of thracia, sacred stones, and binding blade.
While I don't think it would change the ratings you gave (maybe Spike gets to a B+?), the data transfer function from PoR to Radiant Dawn help improve strategic planning and optimization over 2 games instead of one, not to mention a few extra conversations or story beats that come with it (looking at you Soren).
I think I'm a Vorthos dominant with some Timmy, and that's why I'm such a big fan of Path of Radiance / Radiant Dawn.
I'm very much NOT a Johnny or Spike.
I would've gotten Echoes, but Gaiden isn't a good gameplay base to build a game off of.
Thank you for the video.
Mel Player here! Do you also think Kaga is a Mel?
Wouldn't surprise me
Kaga is 100% a Vorthoa/Mel. 90% of his idiosincrasies come from trying to integrate lore and gameplay even to the detriment of anything else.
Kaga is definitely a Mel/Vorthoa. If we look at the FE game all but in name TearRing Saga, it has all the jank/charm you would expect from Kaga. Up to 11. Lots of gameplay/story integration.
* Exposition, backstory, and lore dumps are really long, usually taking up 10 + minutes. I'm not kidding they take up alot of time and they can break the pacing. There is a reason optional support conversations and lore texts are better for this type of stuff. The world does feel fleshed out though and some side characters develop more as the plot moves forward.
* Large cast of characters that are for the most part, unique in how they play. Some have personal weapons that are really powerful, and some learn good skills. Units are not balanced at all though. Compare powerhouse units like Narron, Raffin, and Zeke to units like Luca and Krishna.
* The game is itself isn't that hard if you know what is coming but there are alot of obscure events. The infamous Leteena event is really convoluted. Lateena is actually kinda worse than the replacement cleric you get if the event is skipped. People tend to just do it for the story beats. Some of maps aren't hard, just kind of tedious and poorly designed like the one filled with moguls.
As a Vorthos, while I agree that Shadow Dragon is a D, New Mystery is most certainly not. It puts much more effort in characterizing its cast, the main story involves more than 3 characters, it adds plenty of extra story content with prologue and gaiden chapters, it adds extra characters that were never playable in the original, and it doesn't make any dumbass narrative decisions, which is rare in FE. It has its issues of course, but it is way better than Shadow Dragon or any gba games in that aspect. A solid B in my eyes.
I would rate BIrthright as D. It is better than Conquest and Revelation, but it's a Fates game at the end of the day and even if I like it more than the other two in that aspect, it's plagued by the same issues as them, just to a lesser degree. In Rev of the three unavailable units, one is temporary, not two.
SoV is a treat for the first 3 acts, but act 4 starts showing cracks in the narrative before falling off a cliff by the end of it. Kinda like Radiant Dawn, except it gets sour 3/4 through the game instead of halfway through. It is still overall pretty good, but I wouldn't be able in good conscience rate it S, especially when those narrative blunders made me disinterested in playing post game.
The way you describe Engage sounds like it should have Vorthos F. I know I don't like it one bit in that aspect and would personally give it F-. The narrative, the world building, the character design, all of it is put together without any thought. Just like Fates, it's not ALL bad, but its good aspects crumble underneath a myriad of issues, and it is by far the worst in the series for Vorthos.
I really like the video, and I hope some of the concepts get discussed in a wider audience. I feel like I gear Mel the strongest, also Varthos, fairly high on the Timmy, depending on the mood Johnny, and some moderate Spike(should not drop too low, but also don't want overly punishing).
I don't entirely agree on Fates getting such incredibly harsh Vorthos ratings. I do think it's very unique faction aesthetics(more then any other fire emblem game), a great soundtrack, a lot of unique locations in gameplay, and the basic story premise of the two opposing families are strong. It's just the execution got very badly botched. Still it doesn't entirely destroy the vibes while playing. Would put it at D at the lowest, perhaps higher if you are content with just the visuals.
Engage's lol Mel rathing also puzzles me. To me the emblem skills and the regular units do work together fairly well, and even if it's a little much at times at the very least there's a fair bit to unpack mechanically. There's more going on with it then with some older games in the series that struck to a more basic framework. Regarding it's lore, it helps a tad the overall design is fairly consistent with being bold, and it kind of wears it on it's sleeve down to the somewhat cheesy opening lyrics. It takes an direction and sticks with it.
To be that's worth a fair bit, I can contrast it a bit with DS Shadow Dragon having a very rough visual design and not much added plot, with an DS era game being capable of much more, I personally take more issue with that.
Thinking of it more Vorthos in general can be split a bit between strong the visual aesthetic fan and the deep lore enjoyer. It's quite relevant with FE fans now, look at the ongoing Houses VS Engage discussion, with Houses having stronger plot but being a bit rougher with the visuals.
But those things are indeed subjective, things like aesthetics/lore and gameplay mechanics are very broad concepts, and I enjoy seeing those ratings and getting to think about stuff more myself.
I think Im a Mel and found myself I sympathizing a bit with your Engage score gradually lowering.
My 1k+ hours poured into it should mean Im a huge fan but looking back, the reason I was able to play it for so long is due to mods removing tedious gameplay components like sominel and altering questionably balanced systems like DLC, SP, forging, and skill inheritance to more fit my liking.
I would still rank it higher than you, maybe even as high as B. Those 1k+ hours speak to how good the core gameplay and map designs are. The balancing on maddening is almost perfect the whole way through and majority of the levels feel unique and fun to play even after many runs.
Thinking about this, I think I’m a Timmy/Mel with a bit of Johnny. I’m literally working on an app to track your units’ levels over a playthrough and graph how much each stat varies from average
After watching, i think I'm Spike and Mel.
I'm Johnny only when i play Fates.
I'm not Jimmy because my ideal of using a unit is not seeing them growing, but thinking of what I can do with the resources I have to work with the.
I don't use Nino to see the stats growing and get a decent sage because it's just feed kills
But I use DS Est as a healer because is a fast way to promote her and she doesn't lose many stats by leveling up as cleric. Or I use Wolt as a double ice ice support with Marcus to have the juicy defense bonus until i bench both or use both until the end
im a jagen 👍
As a Johnny/Mel with some Vorthos appreciation, sounds like its time for me to finish Sacred Stones and give the Tellius games a try. Great video, thank you for sharing!
I will admit, this video really got me thinking about what FE games I like and why. For example, Radiant Dawn is a game that I really don't like, and I can point to one core reason why (and a few more, but for simplicitys sake): the split act structure. I cannot stand FE games with a split-act structure. I want to play as Micaiah damnit, who even are these other characters? Now I have to start over getting emotionally invested in this crew I just met that's gonna get sidelined in a few chapters for the Greil Mercenaries. That's how I feel about Radiant Dawn. But at the same time, one of my favorite FE games is FE6. I cannot get enough of that game. The atmosphere, the mechanics, it just has that magical feeling for me. So, what kind of player does that make me? I do think my enjoyment of FE6 makes me a Mel more than anything else, but then shouldn't I be enjoying RD?
Obviously that's a ridiculous question. There are many reasons for why someone can like or dislike a game. It doesn't all come down to player taxonomy. That's why a game like RD can be rated so highly in this video and I still dislike it for a variety of reasons. Still, this video really has me wondering what about other FE games made me drop them, while with others I persevered. For example, Geneology. I was skeptical about this game, but decided to give it a try one day to see how I felt about it. I made it to chapter 2 where it was then I realized that, past the prologue, at no point did I have a single ounce of fun, and I saw no light at the end of the tunnel. Optimizing love pairings and child units was absolutely not my thing. After that experiment, I went to try out Thracia 776, and I enjoyed that game a lot more. I enjoyed all* the new mechanics, training my units was straightforward, and differing map objectives spiced things up. I never actually got around to beating the game (not an uncommon occurrence for me), but I thoroughly enjoyed my time in Thracia.
With all this experience, it's given me a good idea of what FEhacks to look for and which ones to avoid. Engage really called out to my inner Timmy, so I knew going into Cerulean Coast that I was going to have a blast. At the same time, I realized about 10 minutes into playing Tales of Kotor that this wasn't going to be enjoyable to me based on my experience with other games using a split act structure, so I went to play Bells of Byelen instead, which was a good choice as someone who enjoyed Thracia 776 so much. Player taxonomy has been very helpful to me, but it also leaves me confused at the same time. It's so much more than 5 concrete boxes that players get assigned to. Quite a fascinating video I will say. Good job.
I think I am some combination of Timmy, Vorthos, and a little bit of Mel. I like using my favorite characters and using them in lore friendly ways and such towards their character. Like using a specific unit to beat a boss that they have history with. I really dislike games like Awakening, Fates, and Engage even though I started with Awakening because the characters feel really malleable and the best way to use them is to make them something that does not fit them. My favorite games are FE8, FE4, SoV, and Tear Ring Saga which is not technically a Fire Emblem game I guess but it is close enough. These games are among the easiest in the series and also are the most character or story focused I think. Having smaller casts than usual other than TRS. I really like Project Ember too but not FE6 as much.
It's interesting seeing these different player archetypes and how they engage with Fire Emblem. I'm definitely more of a Timmy at first with games, but depending on the games, I'm willing to go deeper with games in which case I'd be a Spike. I have a Vorthos to some degree in that I like digging deeper into the lore of the games I get into, and your example about Edelgard fits me. When I played through Three Houses on her route, I used her as an Emperor because that fit her, even if it might not be the most optimal. I'm also a Mel because I like watching these types of videos.
The part at the end really makes me curious how I'll feel about Engage since I haven't played it yet. It seems like I should enjoy a first playthrough, but with Fire Emblem, I tend to want to go deeper, like a Vorthos or Mel, so I may be disappointed there.
Hmm, even with all the categories, I'm not sure which camp i fit into. It's probably a mix of Vorthos and Mel?
Being a big Radiant Dawn fan, the Vorthos of it all set a high standard I expect from games honestly.
Cinematographer of Three Houses, I'm looking at you buddy...
For music alone I want to give passing grades to Fates. The concepts for good Vorhtos are there I think. Shame about that blemish on Conquest.
Three Houses is a very Graphic Design is my Passion aesthetic, so I have to disagree on Vorthos A. Fun still
Thought I was gonna be a Johnny when I saw the descriptions but then I realized I was a mel when the GBA games showed up since I love them (especially fe6) so much
I think I’m mostly a Spike/Mel but love it if there is a decent amount of Vorthos. I do think your taxonomy is useful. Although, as you said, it doesn’t always showcase itself in the same way. I love FE6, it’s not my favorite game but certainly one of them. However, I didn’t enjoy Awakening that much because I didn’t enjoy its changes in gameplay (maps and how it did pair-up). I understand that it has options for challenging gameplay but since I don’t like it’s core gameplay, I don’t care if it has harder options.
Luv me Jugdral
Luv me Tellius
Luv me Fódlan
Simple as
I feel like I fall under spike/vorthos I love fire emblem games with ranked run options and games that have a cohesive theme and story structure
So needless to say conquest sucks
I've personally found myself in an identity crisis. My personal top 3 for the series would be Thracia, FE3 and Genealogy, but at the same time I despise FE12 and think that FE10 is a mess.
I like to think of FE as a game where you're handed a set of tools designed to overcome a challenge. Preferably, each one of those tools should provide at least some unique value, even if said value is small compared to the other, better options out there. For example, Matthis in FE3B1 holds the niche of being able to use the Silver Lance at base, a boon that was completely stripped away in Shadow Dragon. FE12 in particular is a game where in my opinion, unit choice boils down solely to whoever has the highest stats and weapon rank. To me, there's no payoff in investing in someone like Radd when a unit like Palla performs universally better with a simple reclass.
Timmy/Johnny with a bit of Mel for sure! I appreciate harder difficulties, but I absolutely love unique skills, skill swapping, branching promotions, and supports 🙌
Great video! I was through 4 of the character archetypes when I was thinking to myself that none of them quite fit myself and then you got to Mel and it was a slap in the face how similar it was to me. And then came the Timmy/Mel combo similarities and I realized how unoriginal I am and that I actually can be categorized like a book in the Dewey Decimal System.
So I think I'm a Mel main with a Timmy and Johnny sub. The Mel in me will affect every game I play but whether I then use Timmy or Johnny to also evaluate a game will depend on what I'm playing. And even then I know there are certain games where I've very much been a Spike or Vorthos main. So I think that most players probably do have a tendency and lean towards certain archetypes, it really just depends on what game they're playing.
Yeah! I actually came across Mel when doing research for this video idea. As someone who always categorized myself as a "Johnny" but knew I wasn't REALLY a Johnny because I don't like deliberate complexity it was really refreshing to find a secondary archetype that fit so much better.
I'm probably a TImmy/Vorthos. I did adore 3H. I tried Geneology but it is a bit tough to get through. And yeah, those "if this one character stands on this one unremarked, out of the way tile, you get a super useful item" systems can piss right off.
According to this based on the games i like, I'm not a spike. Everything else averaged out to an A to B+.
Good video, but i feel like you are severely writing off the Vorthos appeal for shadow dragon. Once you look past the aesthetic, Marth, Caeda, and most of the main cast are extremely character-rich and the world is built quite well (and it made me realize just how flanderized Marth is in his later appearances :( ). Your rating for New Mystery was fine, but it just felt weird to acknowledge the aesthetics and nothing else!
I personally absolutely adore FEs 8-10
They're easily my favourite games ever and I go back to them constantly (especially FE9)
I also quite like FE15, but Duma's Tower always makes me hesitant to play
As a Johnny/Vorthos, an aspect of Conquest that appeals to my Vorthos tastes is storytelling through map design. While the characters, woldbuilding and overall plot are all bad, the individual situations that are told by the gameplay and the story that the game allows you to create yourself through the unit customization and high density of situations where certain units will become the current run's "protagonist" by carrying. Thats also the reason why I love Engage.
Conversely, Three Houses, which should heavily appeal to my Johnny side, puts me off in its gameplay due to the low amount of feedback that the game provides to the player for engaging with its customization tools, since it always feels like there are few unique things you can do with it, and it instead kust affects a "slider" that goes from "unoptimal" to "optimal".
I would be a Mel/Vorthos with side of Johnny, I love customization and optimization but within the bounds of fitting aesthetics and not making the game too easy from over optimizing
I would argue Conquest is atleast mid rank for vorthos because while the story is total garbage it has some of the most interesting aesthetics too
Three Houses while I can overlook the gameplay issues due to the fun of customization I can't get past how messy the story is, how lackluster aesthetics are, and the lack of story integration
Engage I would consider atleast a rank higher for both vorthos and Mel since it has so many mechanics and playstyles to work with, one of the most fun casts in the series and the best aesthetics
Definitely Timmy/Vorthos
Since we were encouraged to talk about stuff in the comments, and all that, here are my feelings on some of the rankings for this video:
Genealogy of the Holy War - I feel like the Timmy and Johnny rankings should probably be decreased by at least 1 level each.
My argument for Timmy is that while the Holy Weapons can be a lot of fun to use and figuring out ways to make your units into murder machines isn't too tough, unless a Timmy opens a guide, there's a lot of stuff that can really frustrate them, mostly just with regards to how sub-optimal pairings and such they may not realize on a first playthrough (such as pairing Tailtiu/Claud or Azel/Edain - both have dialogue where one is crushing on the other, but actually pairing them will mess up the kids' inheritances) - Genealogy fans may not think on it too much, but I think we should sometimes remember that not everyone playing Genealogy is gonna have an open guide at all times (and while you mentioned getting stuck in a game might prompt one to pull out a guide, Genealogy isn't really so tough to necessitate that often).
And as for Johnny, I feel like a hit is applicable because, enjoyable as figuring out pairing combos and the like can be fun, pairing combos and the like can really only be experimented with so much - like, for instance, you can *look* at how many prospective parents you could give Ced for funsies, but in actuality, there's really only 4 options: Lewyn for Forseti, Claud for Bragi, Azel to be a decent magic unit, or any other father that won't really do anything for Ced's magic or weapons (a few skills can be considered for making some dads better than others, but that's mostly splitting hairs imo). The freedom of choice may be fun to think on, but how much does it really matter is worth considering - and I think that's why I'd say it shouldn't be an A.
Path of Radiance: I feel like S for Vorthos is probably a bit too high imo, if only because of some criticisms I've heard with regards to Ike and his handling within the story. Ike may be an enjoyable character and I don't dislike him, but I feel like there is something to be said about how he's handled - I've seen criticisms about how Ike is just in this odd zone of being ignorant of the world despite (i.e. he doesn't really know about Laguz despite Soren and Shinon being rather outspoken in their dislike of them, and especially since they rule entire countries in the land), and also how he's allowed to get away with things that would be rather harshly criticized of anyone of his status normally (for instance, some of his interactions with Sanaki). I also feel like some characters slip through the cracks, to an extent - Danved/Devdan, Janaff/Ulki, I'm sure you could argue some others too just don't really stand out as much as earlier ones who get to be involved in the plot more.
I also feel like Mel could be argued to take a hit, as while PoR is one of the more mechanically complex FEs, I feel like a number of a systems are rather unrefined because of their new introduction, or a bit messily implemented. For example, Biorhythm is certainly one of those things you don't hear too many fans talk about with much fondness. While Laguz are also fun, the mechanics with them can be pretty iffy and they can feel pretty hit or miss on occasion due to the finicky nature of their gauges. The strength-to-offset-weight system is also probably at its weakest because it makes Mages really underwhelming, in a game that actually improved a number of spells by making them effective against Laguz. Finally, I feel like the S-Rank weapons are probably at their most weird state, and thus can be pretty underwhelming for anyone who may want to get their hands on them (also, related to that - the final boss being immune to all but Ragnell and a handful of laguz really hurts the S-Ranks - since they come so late you'll have next to no reason to ever use them on anything, it would've been nice for them to at least have a use there to hurt the final boss, but no, any beorc not named Ike is useless).
Radiant Dawn: I feel like Johnny deserves a lower rank, because of the number of forced promotions this game can give you, as well as a number of stages really hampering units. For example, you can be as much of a Fiona fan as you want, but a few stages have barriers that she can't pass, meaning you can't justify using her to yourself. Likewise, that RD force-deploys a number of units beyond just your lord can limit how much you can really do with RD. Add onto the fact that RD can jump from group to group and has a number of units with spotty presence in their games, and RD can really stink for a Johnny. Would suggest a B for that.
The Fates Vorthos: I'm probably one of the few who will be adamant about defending Fates from the overly-harsh criticism launched its way these days, and so I shall do so for the arguments for story/lore and aesthetic. Now, to be fair, Fates' lore can be fairly iffy at times (which is in large part due to the official translation excising or changing a number of things), but there's a lot of things that indicate a good amount of thought - the choices of differentiating the consumables you can find in the My Castle being appropriate for the lands you'd grow them in, for instance. The motif of water is also a very omnipresent thing throughout the game, and used very consistently - one thing that's noted in the original Japanese (excised from the official English translation, in other words) is how the Vallite invisible soldiers can only emerge in Hoshido/Nohr from water, and thus the maps where they appear outside of Valla have bodies of water nearby (for instance, their first appearance in Hoshido's capital having water they could emerge from). A number of character dynamics and interactions were also very well thought out, and when viewed through the proper lens (and not hurt by the official translation changing stuff around) makes them pretty well understood - things like how all the Nohr siblings are dealing with varying degrees of PTSD and unable to assert themselves against Garon (more so in the original text) because of their complications with an abusive father, or how the Hoshido siblings are rather divided along generational lines because of Corrin's kidnapping driving the older siblings to become distant from their younger ones. I mean, I wouldn't argue its an apex of storytelling, but I do genuinely think they deserve better than Fs because of it.
And also, I feel like at least on an aesthetic front, Fates has a real good handle on things. I can understand why someone might prefer a general "medieval European" aesthetic, but there's been a number of games where there are various nations with other aesthetics that can clash with the strict "medieval Europe" look - from FE 6 and 7s Mongolian-esque horse archers to FE 10's Hatari having some rather exotic designs, it's not really new to the series. And I also feel like people can tend to over-mythologize when it comes to what's medieval - a lot of what we know of as classical "Medieval Europe," like the crusades, took place in the early to mid 1000s, is not too far off from the time periods in Japan where the aesthetics we see in Birthright were likely inspired by. I mean, opinions can be opinions, but at least from an objective standpoint, I don't think there's anything necessarily "wrong" with them any more so than there is in other FEs.
(Part 2)
Shadows of Valentia - I feel like Johnny could use a bump up from a B to an A. Mostly just cuz of the customizability of villagers and things like the pitchfork and Mercenary looping can give the game that extra bit of interest to them. I feel like Gaiden could also use that bump, but the general buffing of units did more to it to make it work better here, hence why I bring it up here.
3H - this is a personal opinion, but because of some degree of reassessment souring my stances on how 3H handled their worldbuilding (and while not the fault of the game itself, the fandom also becoming... quite something about it) makes me feel like A for Vorthos is a bit too high. For as much as 3H's worldbuilding is put on a pedestal, there's a lot of things 3H really likes to dance around or leave unaddressed (a lot of stuff about Sothis, how exactly the Children of the Goddess are related/came about, etc) and things that feel rather underdeveloped to the point that the necessity of their inclusion is somewhat questionable imo (the existence of Morfis, for instance, given they're almost never a factor, or Fhirdiad having a school of magic despite it mostly being backstory natter for 3 characters at best). Mind you, none of that is per se bad to have for some worldbuilding, but it can make the lore feel a bit overly bloated and focused more on *seeming* developed rather than actually *being* developed.
Engage - now, as you admitted, this is a game you've got a lot of bias towards, so here's what I feel about some scores in Engage that were probably impacted by that bias:
Timmy - I feel like it probably could stand to be an S, though I don't think A is unfair. With how many big attacks and moments Engage has and cool stuff you can do with Emblem rings, there's a lot for a Timmy to enjoy getting to see in action. As someone who has had a lot of fun with dumb stuff like Ike!Framme or Marth!Citrinne, I would speak to how much fun the spectacle can be.
Johnny - should've at least been an A, given how much customization the game has and how you can really raise up units you favor into being able to do some crazy stuff. The annoyance with the SP system can certainly turn some folks stuff, but I would still argue that Engage has a lot for customization-minded players to enjoy.
Vorthos - I feel like it could stand to be a C. While not the most standout stuff in the world, Engage has a pretty decently solid cast. and the plot and lore are at least tied together well enough that there really aren't any problems with them, like glaring plot holes or inconsistencies. I also feel like, when it comes to their designs, Engage does a good job making their characters feel distinct relative to their associated nation or where they comes from, and are explained well enough in their backstories or if you know their inspirations (for instance, Mika Pikazo borrowing a lot from Latin American cultures for the design choices of Solm). It can still feel rather disorganized, to be sure, but I feel like Vorthos at least deserves a bit more consideration for a game that wants to feel rather expansive.
Mel - I feel like others in the comments have expressed this, but yeah, I feel like Engage deserves a better Mel score. There's a lot of really good mechanics in place for Engage that are really fun to figure out and make work, and it does feel very well thought out and fits well together. I could agree that the unbalanced nature of the DLC stuff is still worth being critical of, but at least for the base game, a B would be fair.
I love ALL MythrilZenith videos!!!! ❤
Being a Johnny/Vorthos might be why I haven't gotten as much fun from newer games as much recently, too often it's just better to take characters into better stuff, in that case why even bother making it their default if it's weak? With that said I did enjoy 3H more than Engage so the rankings there work I suppose.
I have a soft spot for FE10's Dawn Brigade due to how unusual characters in it are for their classes, and if they could just reclass into whatever the fuck they wanted, they'd might be better, but they'd lose what little identity they have. I don't mind some customization like in Fates or Sacred Stones, but 3H and Engage is overboard for me.
Vorthos/Mel is something I used to be right until Engage when I realized that It doesn't matter if every mechanic works well with the narrative, if the narrative fucking sucks anyways.
My favorite is RD by a mile. Definitely not much of a Johnny because optimization plus options gives way too much room to suck all the fun out of the game. I like having a more specialized set of tools. Probably also why my next most favorite is SoV.
Where the Timmy/Johnnys at? I like the feeling of beating the game my own way while having a fun experience. Even in games with lower Timmy scores like FE12, I can pick at least one oddball unit to add to the team in a new playthrough and train them into a badass, creating epic moments.
As far as the other archetypes are concerned, I can gel with most aesthetics as long as they aren't so unappealing/ugly that they actively harm the look of the game (DS Fire Emblems I'm looking at you). Lore is nice but not my focus.
I should mention that an FE game's map design and enemy placement can affect my enjoyment of the game regardless of how I would rate the game in terms of player taxonomy. For example: Awakening has a lot of potential with class options, child inheritance, and mostly memorable characters. However, the overall poor map design coupled with ambush spawning enemies with inflated stats really hurts the experience for me, forcing the reliance on broken mechanics like pair up and cheesing the maps with Robin/Nosferatu tanking sorcerers. The issues are worst on Lunatic.
Guys, I think he doesn't like Fates or Engage.
For the record, this is a joke. Loved the video, def a harcore Mel.
Fates I can appreciate what it IS, even if I agree that it's not for me.
Engage I WANTED to enjoy, but the more I talk about the game the less I want to play it.
I feel that I'm primarily a Vorthos and I love Engage's aesthetic and story. Though I'd also say I'm a Timmy and a Mel to some extent (and even somewhat a Johnny, Spike is the only one I dont really find myself identifying with)
Vorthos knows what's up
I suppose of these clasifications I would be 40% Vorthos, 40% Spike and 20% Mel. Games that appeal "more" to Timmy and Jhonny archetypes tend to not appeal to me.
I want to be very challenged but only while generally using cannon classes and my own exclusive tactics. The "Meta" is irrelevant to me as it impedes figuring stuff out myself.
What about Heroes? My rating would be:
Timmy: C
Johnny: B
Spike: F
Vorthos: F
Mel: F
I never thought I cared too deeply about FE’s story and lore but Conquest was the first and only FE game I ragequit because of story and the aesthetics of Engage have stopped me from even trying it. TH, PoR/RD and SS are my favorites. I don’t know what categories that puts me in lol. Really interesting in trying SoV from what I’ve seen too.
I have to strongly disagree with the high Vorthos score for Shadows of Valentia. SoV has excellent _storytelling,_ yes, but the story that's being told is, I'd argue, under all the flashiness, a pile of garbage, notably inferior to the original Gaiden. The more you dig into it, the weaker it gets, thanks specifically to the additions to the story for the remake. Its aesthetic appeal is surface-level only. I'd call it _far_ weaker on Vorthos terms than, say, Binding Blade or Sacred Stones -- which are themselves fairly mid at best from a Vorthos perspective. It's a lot of fun to power-trip in, to the point where the Johnny side of me would rank it at S+ for that stuff alone, but from a Vorthos perspective? F-. All style, no substance. To me, there is no worse condemnation.
I'm a bit of an oddball in terms of archetypes, I think. Very much an anti-Spike, but a pretty even blend of the other four. I think the Vorthos angle is the only one that can cause me to actively dislike aspects of a game, but that's because there's so many angles for me to find the gameplay fun, and only the one for the story. If the gameplay drops the ball in one area, I can enjoy it as something else. FE6 is fun as a tightly-crafted mechanical puzzle, FE8 as an absurd over-the-top power trip. If the storytelling, story, or worldbuilding completely drops the ball, I just have to suffer through the nonsense or else start skipping large portions of what make FE more interesting to me than, say, chess. Something like FE6 or FE8 is still serviceable in terms of its storytelling -- a weak point, but not so weak as to be actively offputting. Not so for SoV. I still _like_ SoV, on the whole, but near-exclusively for gameplay reasons. My opinion of its story isn't far removed from Dani Doyle's.
I don't want to be all negative, though. This is a fun thing to think about and explore, and at the end of the day, I still very much enjoy basically all Fire Emblem games for what they are in at least some capacity. And I wouldn't put even SoV on the level of the really _awful_ stories I've read. It's not even in the same galaxy as, say, Atlas Shrugged. It just wastes enormous amounts of its potential, to the point of being less than the sum of its parts. That is rather frustrating, doubly so when it's something that is otherwise quite good, which I think SoV is.
I can't personally disagree with that perspective more. While there are definitely some elements of the story that are flawed, they do not completely negate the impact of the story or send it to a degree of waste that would deserve anywhere close to that low of a rating.
Also remember, these categories are wide. Vorthos in my mind was never JUST about quality story. It's about worldbuilding, aesthetic, lore, characters and story as a whole. Anyone can appreciate or judge a story, but caring about the quality of a story doesn't make you a Vorthos. It's the degree of investment, the interlocking of every small detail, the consistent and depth or lack thereof that a Vorthos latches onto or rejects outright.
So maybe I'm wrong, that's entirely possible and you're welcome to have your own opinions, but I cannot objectively give SoV anywhere NEAR that bad of a rating. You can argue it fails to deliver on certain aspects, but there's certainly enough narrative through-put to get it there, not to mention all the actual effort going into character narratives, story alterations for character deaths, etc.
Heck I gave 3 Houses a passing grade and I honestly believe that story misses more than it hits. It's not about whether I think the story fully delivers. It's about the whole, and how much there is to grab onto and run with.
@@MythrilZenith It is exactly that interlocking detail that I have enormous problems with, though. FE7's story has been mocked for being full of holes, but they're easy to paper over. Nergal doing what he does is easily explained by his overreliance on quintessence as a finite external resource, for example. In SoV, the best part of the added "noble/commoner split" storyline is relegated to a DLC-only support conversation, but I'm willing to mostly forgive that, just because it exists at all, at least so far as characters like Clive go. The Berkut/Rinea subplot, though, makes Berkut out to be an irredeemable idiot, and then redeems him anyway, in the cheapest, least acceptable way possible -- "but he's _family,_ you have to forgive family!" Fernand would be mostly okay, if it weren't for the fact that the game treats his deranged hatred of all commoners as something approximating reasonable, when it's a completely insane, over-the-top reaction that could never be justified in the slightest. The game treats Fernand and his family as though they were saints to the peasants on their land, when those peasants allegedly rose up because they were **checks notes** oh yeah, _starving to death._
And then you get the way the game treats its women. You can't tell me the Mathilda prisoner CG's purpose was storytelling. No, its purpose is objectification. I mean, just look at the damn thing. Or how about the rewrites to Celica's story and her motivations at the end specifically? Being pulled down into Duma's pit, where you and everyone else can still fight for your lives, in order to allow someone you care about to not be continually ambushed by necrodragons, is more than a bit rash. Being turned into a mindless, soulless witch under the control of Duma because you simply trusted that Jedah was completely correct and telling the unvarnished truth, despite having a long time to think on it and never once trying to confirm it despite having plenty of opportunity, though? _That_ is what makes people see Celica as stupid. There's a fair amount of implicit sexism in Gaiden, but SoV goes out of its way to make that sexism explicit, and to add more on top of what was already there. Time and again, the game sabotages its own story with bizarre and damaging changes.
All the new stuff is like this -- it sticks out like a sore thumb and fails at doing what it's trying for, in a way that actively detracts from the rest of what's there. That's why I said SoV's story is less than the sum of its parts. From a Vorthos perspective, the only thing that would be a worse condemnation is to call the story irredeemable. F- is probably hyperbolic in general terms, but I wanted to get across just how awful I think its underlying story actually is. Fates Conquest might be worse, and by all indications probably is -- I wouldn't know, I haven't played it yet -- but I could not in good conscience rank SoV above a D in Vorthos terms, just because it commits the cardinal sin of storytelling in my eyes. For a remake of a barebones NES game to have a story worse than what it's remaking, specifically _because_ of what it added, is borderline unforgivable to me.
It's really surprising for me to see the Fates games get a Spike rating less than A (with Birthright's F being completely wild to me) because just existing in the engine with Fates mechanics makes the process of hyper optimizing planned clears the most interesting they've ever been in series history thanks to the pair-up and support systems. If you haven't, I'd highly recommend watching Karma's negative growths run, it's incredible.
The blanket Mel score of B also feels a bit low since it's not hard to argue that Fates is the game that best nails the "every piece working together" aspect of gameplay once you reach a higher level. I am curious how you'd characterize the modern "I only play Fates" sect of the community under this framework.
I am so far divided between myself and the Fates-only crowd purely because I dislike those games myself and good as their mechanical bones are I just don't want to play them enough to really get into them.
That said, I don't really want to characterize or categorize a community that I have very little interaction with. I don't hate people who love Fates. I'm aware they exist and I'm glad they have a game set they can enjoy. I just don't share that enjoyment of the game.
I also did clarify that my ratings of the Fates games specifically would be the easiest to dispute, so thanks for offering some more opinions in support of the game in a reasonable way