Support NeoGAF

[Oogami]

If you want an argument there you go:

I'm happy enough to play both types of game, but they both have their downsides and can both be done badly - FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just too likely and too irritating.

One thing: you don't know how to play a strategy game. What one hit kill in FE? Assuming FE7 is what you're talking about. There is never a point that the random soldier can do a one hit kill to your character. They just never had that high of hit ratio % and luck to do that.

Then only, only bosses have a 10% chances of doing the critical one hit kill. But then you must be pretty dumb to put a low defense and low HP character to fight against a boss character. Otherwise you would never have a problem with one hit kill in FE7. I see you complain about this times after times and it seems afterall you just have to learn how to play a SRPG properly. Well that's all. Nice talking to a SRPG n00b.

 

[Ironclad]

If you want an argument there you go:



One thing: you don't know how to play a strategy game. What one hit kill in FE? Assuming FE7 is what you're talking about. There is never a point that the random soldier can do a one hit kill to your character. They just never had that high of hit ratio % and luck to do that.

Then only, only bosses have a 10% chances of doing the critical one hit kill. But then you must be pretty dumb to put a low defense and low HP character to fight against a boss character. Otherwise you would never have a problem with one hit kill in FE7. I see you complain about this times after times and it seems afterall you just have to learn how to play a SRPG properly. Well that's all. Nice talking to a SRPG n00b.

Good job going and calling him an SRPG noob when you have no idea what you're talking about. Normal troops in FE can perform critical hits on your characters. If you use the arena often, you will see that the enemy soldiers can get critical hits some of the times. There are enemies that carry Killing Edges in FE 7 and they have pretty high critical hit rates. Bosses tend to have higher base critical hit ratios. The soldiers carry weapons with low critical rates so that is why you rarely see it but they can perform critical hits.

 

[Oogami]

Good job going and calling him an SRPG noob when you have no idea what you're talking about. Normal troops in FE can perform critical hits on your characters. If you use the arena often, you will see that the enemy soldiers can get critical hits some of the times. There are enemies that carry Killing Edges in FE 7 and they have pretty high critical hit rates. Bosses tend to have higher base critical hit ratios. The soldiers carry weapons with low critical rates so that is why you rarely see it but they can perform critical hits.

Umm what random soldier can do a one hit kill on your character? Who is that? And in what chapter?

And you said it, you can rarely see it except for boss characters. But that n00b was saying as if it's a common problem and that you see it all the times. Read what he posted.

 

[iapetus]

Good job going and calling him an SRPG noob when you have no idea what you're talking about. Normal troops in FE can perform critical hits on your characters. If you use the arena often, you will see that the enemy soldiers can get critical hits some of the times. There are enemies that carry Killing Edges in FE 7 and they have pretty high critical hit rates. Bosses tend to have higher base critical hit ratios. The soldiers carry weapons with low critical rates so that is why you rarely see it but they can perform critical hits.

Thanks - you've saved me some typing there. I'll just add that in the fog-of-war type levels there's always the chance of an enemy with the wrong weapon type coming at one of your units from out of range of vision. You can minimise this with good use of torches and thieves, but you can't do away with it completely. And don't get me started on magic users with long range spells where you can't even see them before your magic-weak units get into range, let alone do anything about it. In these cases you have to know about it in advance.

And Oogami, check out my response to your 'grown up arguing' question on the previous page - it'll probably help you in cases like this.

 

[Ironclad]

Umm what random soldier can do a one hit kill on your character? Who is that? And in what chapter?

And you said it, you can rarely see it except for boss characters. But that n00b was saying as if it's a common problem and that you see it all the times. Read what he posted.

Any of the enemy myrmidons or swordmasters that carry killing edges can perform criticals on your characters. Also, I have had characters die in the arena because the enemy pulled off a critical on its first hit. The reason why you see bosses performing criticals more than the foot soldiers is because they have higher base criticals. If they were to wield the same weapons as the foot soldiers, the bosses would still have a higher chance to perform criticals and kill your characters in one hit. Granted, it is rare for a foot soldier to kill your characters in a single hit, it does happen.

 

[iapetus]

If they were to wield the same weapons as the foot soldiers, the bosses would still have a higher chance to perform criticals and kill your characters in one hit.

Actually I find the bosses less of a concern in that respect, because they're so frequently fixed in one location, with the result that you can bombard them from a distance and only move units into contact with them if they're absolute tanks that you can guarantee can survive a critical hit, or if you have another unit that can rescue them and move them out of range before the enemy gets an attack. You don't get that with standard units. You generally have to make more of an active mistake to let the boss get a one-hit kill in on you.

 

[Ironclad]

Thanks - you've saved me some typing there. I'll just add that in the fog-of-war type levels there's always the chance of an enemy with the wrong weapon type coming at one of your units from out of range of vision. You can minimise this with good use of torches and thieves, but you can't do away with it completely. And don't get me started on magic users with long range spells where you can't even see them before your magic-weak units get into range, let alone do anything about it. In these cases you have to know about it in advance.

And Oogami, check out my response to your 'grown up arguing' question on the previous page - it'll probably help you in cases like this.

Always glad to help.

I agree with this completely. Certain units have inherent weaknesses to certain weapons. Put a pegasus knight near an archer and you're sure to see a critical take it down. Also, those damn valkyrie's or sages that carry bolting and attack your characters from across the map can kill them instantly as well. FE does take a bit of trial and error, especially since your characters cannot be revived.

 

[Ironclad]

Actually I find the bosses less of a concern in that respect, because they're so frequently fixed in one location, with the result that you can bombard them from a distance and only move units into contact with them if they're absolute tanks that you can guarantee can survive a critical hit, or if you have another unit that can rescue them and move them out of range before the enemy gets an attack. You don't get that with standard units. You generally have to make more of an active mistake to let the boss get a one-hit kill in on you.

Yeah, definitely. The foot soldiers can weed out your weaker characters, but you could always shove Oswin in front of a boss and have him take the brunt of the attacks with no worries of the boss going around him. There were only about three or four bosses in FE 7 that actually moved around the map. Those were a much larger threat and actually managed to kill off one of my characters because I didn't expect them to move.

 

[jarrod]

I was going to disagree with that, but a quick bit of thought leaves me saying it doesn't really matter what order you put those four in - they're all damn fine Zelda games and arguably the best on any platform.

I'd agree... so long as ALTTP is definitely last.

Majora's Mask could give any of them a run for their money though... except maybe Link's Awakening. It's possibly the perfect videogame.

The GBA versions are frequently discounted in my experience - possibly worth picking up at a bargain price.

Oh I'd agree, I still adore Zelda 1 above all else. These two are just pretty different in design, focus and tone from modern Zeldae though, they might rub newer gamers the wrong way.

Depending on what it is exactly that you like about SRPG titles, I'd throw in the Advance Wars games (and that's a whole argument in its own right) - they're not really SRPG in the strict sense, thanks to the lack of RPG features, but they're damn fine S games.

Agreed. Really, FE/SF share more in common with AW than the isometric tactics subgenre.

no.

Yes. With KOL, Quest forgot the ai completely. None of them can compare to the original TO or FFT, but really what SRPGs can? It's sad that a 16bit game from 1995 has yet to be outdone.

 

[Oogami]

Well, not using the phrase 'sux asses' as a fundamental part of my argument has a lot to do with it, now you come to mention it.

Okay so you called me an idiot, and said to fuck someone, and implied I'm a kid so too young for your 'debate' without even knowing my ages(I know you're 35+ btw), these were all good arguments. But when I said something 'sux asses', that's a poor argument. Ok gotcha. :rolleyes

Let's see, now. The reasons I'd class the discussion I've just been having with Amir0x as 'grown up' debating

If you think you were really having 'grown up' debate, then :lol

Other than on purely subjective judgements you'll notice that neither of us has simply resorted to dogmatic assertion (except in jest) - that's one of the sure signs of a bad argument. Grown up debate is all about the back and forth.

Umm when I said SuperMan 64 was a better game, that was clearly in jest. Of course you couldn't see that and started calling me an idiot.

You then continued to personal attack people, but ohhhhh it's all in jest so you can get away with it? Nice double standard you're having there.

Just want to teach you something about a grown-up debate. A real debate is to discuss the matter on hands and focus on that, not all of a sudden jumping on people and personal insult other people. You did just that and insecurely keep calling yourself a grown up. Only insecure kiddies do that. Not someone who is 35+ years old like you.

 

[Oogami]

Any of the enemy myrmidons or swordmasters that carry killing edges can perform criticals on your characters. Also, I have had characters die in the arena because the enemy pulled off a critical on its first hit. The reason why you see bosses performing criticals more than the foot soldiers is because they have higher base criticals. If they were to wield the same weapons as the foot soldiers, the bosses would still have a higher chance to perform criticals and kill your characters in one hit. Granted, it is rare for a foot soldier to kill your characters in a single hit, it does happen.

Dude do I need to spell EVERYTHING out for you?

I'm happy enough to play both types of game, but they both have their downsides and can both be done badly - FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just too likely and too irritating.

What he's saying is it's "too likely" to having a one hit kill on your character. He clearly is making shit up. This is the thing I was calling him out on. Did you even read the first page? Jesus Christ. You actually agree with me saying it's rarely to see one too.

Plus he's a such a grown up as he says he is, he can help himself in the 'debate'. So maybe you should go somewhere else huh?

 

[Oogami]

Thanks - you've saved me some typing there. I'll just add that in the fog-of-war type levels there's always the chance of an enemy with the wrong weapon type coming at one of your units from out of range of vision. You can minimise this with good use of torches and thieves, but you can't do away with it completely. And don't get me started on magic users with long range spells where you can't even see them before your magic-weak units get into range, let alone do anything about it. In these cases you have to know about it in advance.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Do you even know what 'fog of war' is? You can't see anything that's in long range!!!! That's the fucking point!!!!! That's the fun part!!!!! But noooooooo somehow this is a problem of the game huh? A game that doesn't let you win by pressing 'A' aimlessly? Or a game that doesn't tell you every damn postion of the enemies? Is that the 'flaws' of the game??????

What do you mean they're carring the 'wrong' weapon coming at your units? :lol So you're expecting all of them stupidly carrying the disadvantageous weapon coming at you and let you finish them off nicely and easily? :lol Is that what makes a good game? No wonder you like FFTA LOL. Clearly you don't know what makes a good SRPG. And that's why you kept personally attacked me, and need someone else to help you(as a grownup too) in the 'debate'. Jesus why do I even bother with you?

 

[iapetus]

Okay so you called me an idiot, and said to fuck someone, and implied I'm a kid so too young for your 'debate' without even knowing my ages(I know you're 35+ btw), these were all good arguments. But when I said something 'sux asses', that's a poor argument. Ok gotcha. :rolleyes

No, you're missing the point (and I can only hope you're doing it deliberately) - I don't care what age you are. At the point where you come into this, you've made one isolated statement that is clearly dogmatic assertion, and comes across as purely trollish - there's no context to mark it out as non-serious. I'll happily debate with a three-year-old if they can hold up their end (though it would probably freak me out a little, if I have to be honest about it...) The moment you start engaging in grown up debate, you show yourself worthy of being taken seriously. The better you can argue your case, the more respect you get from me.

Saying something 'sux asses' is a poor argument. Saying that it 'sux asses' because twenty people think it does is a poor argument as well - you could cite those 20 people if you were arguing against someone claiming that FFTA is an ideal game for everyone, but you weren't.

Saying something 'sux asses' because of a particular problem with it is fine. It's not your asses that are the problem - it's your lack of anything other than asses. "This game sux asses because the number of actions you get in a turn is entirely randomly generated and you frequently lose all your actions, or your opponent gets double actions for no apparent reason" is fine. "This game sux asses because the AI always moves for the square behind you and it's too easy to pick up on that and move to the square behind that at the same time" is fine. "This game sux asses because I disagree with you and so do my friends" is not. Can't you see the difference there?

Umm when I said SuperMan 64 was a better game, that was clearly in jest. Of course you couldn't see that and started calling me an idiot.

Clearly an exaggeration? Maybe. I took it to mean that you count FFTA as being in the inherently bad category of games rather than the category of games that some people like and others don't, and I don't think that's an unreasonable interpretation to take. I do think it's a plain wrong view on your part if that's a correct reading of your statement, and I've responded accordingly. You've said nothing to correct my perception of what you wanted to say if it was wrong. If you want to retract that and say what you really meant about FFTA then you get an apology, because due to the nature of the medium sometimes people do misunderstand what's being said.

Just want to teach you something about a grown-up debate. A real debate is to discuss the matter on hands and focus on that, not all of a sudden jumping on people and personal insult other people. You did just that and insecurely keep calling yourself a grown up. Only insecure kiddies do that. Not someone who is 35+ years old like you.

Sorry, can you actually read? Look back at the actual SRPG discussion that has gone on in the thread. Look at how much various people have contributed to it, and how much most of them have met the criteria I suggest for being counted as 'grown up' debate - and compare that with your own contribution. Come back when you can actually make a good case for being included in that number and you'll get less contempt from me.

And jeez, I know I'm out of shape, but don't go hitting me with an extra 5 years like that.

 

[Oogami]

Wow you sure are long-winded.

But really I'm not here to prove anything to you.

Sorry, can you actually read? Look back at the actual SRPG discussion that has gone on in the thread. Look at how much various people have contributed to it, and how much most of them have met the criteria I suggest for being counted as 'grown up' debate - and compare that with your own contribution. Come back when you can actually make a good case for being included in that number and you'll get less contempt from me.

Again, I'm not in this forum to meet your criteria. Get real. :lol I don't care what you and the other buddies whom I don't even know have to say about me in a gaming forum. :lol

But I'm here to argue with the wrong points you made about FE. Read my several previous posts and explain how those are flaws.

 

[iapetus]

Plus he's a such a grown up as he says he is, he can help himself in the 'debate'. So maybe you should go somewhere else huh?

And you have the nerve to accuse me of double standards? 20 guys here pointing out that there are cases where unexpected criticals can score one-hit kills and permanently kill a character, and yet you're the only one who bothers to claim it's not true and then start telling everyone to shut up.

Sound familiar?

What he's saying is it's "too likely" to having a one hit kill on your character. He clearly is making shit up.

Good of you to say so without having a clue what you're talking about. The problem is that critical hits are overpowered. 3x damage is often enough to take out a damaged character and pretty much always enough to take out a character in worst-case scenarios (weak character attacked by a stronger weapon). It's not entirely uncommon to come across enemies using killer weapons with ~3% critical. Sure, it's a small chance for a single attack, but over a longer period it becomes more likely than not that it will happen. For me, even once is more than enough, because it's something that can be fixed by an extremely simple tweak in game mechanics (dropping criticals to 2x damage, perhaps).

Do you even know what 'fog of war' is? You can't see anything that's in long range!!!! That's the fucking point!!!!! That's the fun part!!!!! But noooooooo somehow this is a problem of the game huh? A game that doesn't let you win by pressing 'A' aimlessly? Or a game that doesn't tell you every damn postion of the enemies? Is that the 'flaws' of the game??????

Seriously, go read a good article on arguments and logical fallacies before you embarrass yourself further. You might want to start with 'straw man' arguments.

The problem is a combination of things. In cases where it can be avoided with the knowledge you have, the chance of a one-hit kill isn't necessarily that bad, because you can just keep characters away from people with weapons that would beat them out most of the time. So irritating as it is in the way that it limits your options and tends to slow down gameplay, it's not all that bad on its own.

Fog of war isn't a bad thing in and of itself either. There are plenty of good implementations of it. One area where Fire Emblem falls short is in that it isn't applied to the enemy as far as I can tell - it's pretty easy to see this with the use of long-range magic: magic using characters can attack you from a distance even when there's no enemy unit in sight range.

Permanent character death isn't a bad thing in and of itself either. I like seeing it in some SRPGs because it changes the dynamic of the game, which can only be a good thing for variety.

The problem is the combination of the three. An enemy that you can not see and whose range you can not know until after they have attacked can kill one of your characters with a critical hit and make it pointless to continue playing the level because of permanent death. And anything greater than 0% for that is bad game design in my book - and you'll find it listed as a rule in Gamers' Manifestos going a long way further back than last week. Does it happen every time you play? No, of course not. Don't be stupid. Has it ever happened to me? Yes. Is it a bad thing? Hell, yes.

 

[Oogami]

And you have the nerve to accuse me of double standards? 20 guys here pointing out that there are cases where unexpected criticals can score one-hit kills and permanently kill a character, and yet you're the only one who bothers to claim it's not true and then start telling everyone to shut up.

I wasn't telling everyone to shut up though. Just you.

And 20 guys here pointing out there are cases where unexpected critical can be scored???? Woah where's that 20 guys coming from. You don't equal to 20 guys btw.

Good of you to say so without having a clue what you're talking about. The problem is that critical hits are overpowered. 3x damage is often enough to take out a damaged character and pretty much always enough to take out a character in worst-case scenarios (weak character attacked by a stronger weapon). It's not entirely uncommon to come across enemies using killer weapons with ~3% critical. Sure, it's a small chance for a single attack, but over a longer period it becomes more likely than not that it will happen. For me, even once is more than enough, because it's something that can be fixed by an extremely simple tweak in game mechanics (dropping criticals to 2x damage, perhaps).

Dropping it to only 2x as the critical eh? Then the critical hit is pretty much worthless then. What's the point of a critical hit if it's pretty much the same as a normal hit?

And ooooh, so when you said it's 'VERY LIKELY' to be critical hitted meant just 'ONCE' now? :lol :lol Well you can't blame people for misunderstanding you then. Try to express your views more clearly next time.

Seriously, go read a good article on arguments and logical fallacies before you embarrass yourself further. You might want to start with 'straw man' arguments.

:\

The problem is a combination of things. In cases where it can be avoided with the knowledge you have, the chance of a one-hit kill isn't necessarily that bad, because you can just keep characters away from people with weapons that would beat them out most of the time. So irritating as it is in the way that it limits your options and tends to slow down gameplay, it's not all that bad on its own.

Umm isn't that what we called 'strategy'? How is that slowing down gameplay? Taking the time to position the man just right for the advantage against the opponent is slowing down the game? I'm getting an impression that you just want to breeze thru a strategy game. Like FFTA.

Fog of war isn't a bad thing in and of itself either. There are plenty of good implementations of it. One area where Fire Emblem falls short is in that it isn't applied to the enemy as far as I can tell - it's pretty easy to see this with the use of long-range magic: magic using characters can attack you from a distance even when there's no enemy unit in sight range.

So? Isn't that the point of 'fog of war'? Is that a flaw when enemies can hit you where you can't see them? So you mean, you want to see them? But then it wouldn't be 'fog of war', would it?

Permanent character death isn't a bad thing in and of itself either. I like seeing it in some SRPGs because it changes the dynamic of the game, which can only be a good thing for variety.

The problem is the combination of the three. An enemy that you can not see and whose range you can not know until after they have attacked can kill one of your characters with a critical hit and make it pointless to continue playing the level because of permanent death. And anything greater than 0% for that is bad game design in my book - and you'll find it listed as a rule in Gamers' Manifestos going a long way further back than last week. Does it happen every time you play? No, of course not. Don't be stupid. Has it ever happened to me? Yes. Is it a bad thing? Hell, yes.

Woah so all the three combination happened to you? :lol You must be very unlucky. Or just poorly skilled. You should know who in your army has good magic defense and high HP. Move those forward first to test the water. Isn't that what a perfect strategy game should be like? And also FE gives you hint on where the enemies are. Every of the enemies turn you can see the square over them even in fog of war, telling you every of their position. And I know the fog of war chapter in FE which are in early chapters so only with one or two magicians with mid range ability, not loooong range ability that you're speaking of. :\

But how many times exactly has that three combination thingy happened to you anyway?

 

[demi]

sly: Happy gaming!

there should be a demi review site. calm, collected...no spin haha.

 

[Timo]

GUNSTAR SUPER HEROES

 

[Teddman]

NO.

Metroid Zero Mission.

 

[iapetus]

And 20 guys here pointing out there are cases where unexpected critical can be scored???? Woah where's that 20 guys coming from. You don't equal to 20 guys btw.

Duh. Welcome to having your point thrown back in your face. Congratulations on spotting it's worthless.

Dropping it to only 2x as the critical eh? Then the critical hit is pretty much worthless then. What's the point of a critical hit if it's pretty much the same as a normal hit?

2x is 'pretty much the same as a normal hit'? We can add maths to the list of basic skills you have a problem with, I guess, along with reading and basic logic. Plenty of systems use even lower values - 1.5x isn't at all uncommon. 3x is definitely out of the ordinary. Fire Emblem criticals are unusually powerful. And with the comparatively low levels of HP in the game relative to the damage being done it's even more significant.

And ooooh, so when you said it's 'VERY LIKELY' to be critical hitted meant just 'ONCE' now? :lol :lol Well you can't blame people for misunderstanding you then. Try to express your views more clearly next time.

You see that little ' symbol? That's called a 'quotation mark'. Used - among other things - for indicating direct quotations. I'll accept either a pointer to the location where I said it's 'VERY LIKELY' that a critical hit will take place, or an apology for making a weak-ass attempt to misquote me. For someone who's been throwing around accusations of 'making shit up' (see, you did actually say that, which is why it's a good use of quotation marks) you seem to have a 'nice double standard' (yup, that was yours as well) on this front.

So? Isn't that the point of 'fog of war'? Is that a flaw when enemies can hit you where you can't see them? So you mean, you want to see them? But then it wouldn't be 'fog of war', would it?

How many times do I need to spell things out for you? Enemies should be under the same constraints that players are. If I have limited range of sight, they should have limited range of sight. They don't have to be the same range - it doesn't have to be the case that if they can see me, I can see them. But if I can only see four units with a mage, in a well-designed game they should only be able to see four units with a mage. Advance Wars is a perfect example of a game that gets it right, where in the fog of war levels the strategy of the game is entirely different because you have to edge forward making use of cover and avoiding dangerous killing zones that the enemy could have surrounded with concealed units, but you can use the same tricks against them.

Woah so all the three combination happened to you? :lol You must be very unlucky. Or just poorly skilled. You should know who in your army has good magic defense and high HP. Move those forward first to test the water.

Great plan - unless the front line that you're going to run into contains units that are strong against your high magic defence units. Again, you have to know this in advance which I see as a flaw in a game. I don't mind games where I have to probe like that except in this case, where probing can easily lead to what is effectively game over, because the loss of any character is permanent.

Isn't that what a perfect strategy game should be like? And also FE gives you hint on where the enemies are. Every of the enemies turn you can see the square over them even in fog of war, telling you every of their position. And I know the fog of war chapter in FE which are in early chapters so only with one or two magicians with mid range ability, not loooong range ability that you're speaking of. :\

Yup, chapter 26 (of 31) - a fog of war map with a boss character equipped with Bolting - is right at the beginning. Or is that just the same problem with simple calculations that leads you to believe that 1 is pretty much the same as 2 when it comes to multipliers?

Or maybe you just don't know the game as well as you thought you did.

But how many times exactly has that three combination thingy happened to you anyway?

You don't listen well, do you? I find the fact that it can happen at all to be bad game design. It hit me a couple of times in my first run through, and a handful since then.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I just bought the minish cap 2 days ago and it's a ton of fun.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Just to jump in and defend FFT, it's pretty balanced if you don't feed your chars from random battles or cheese xp moves. Calcs would be near impossible to get by the end of the game and even if you do manage one, it'd be horribly underpowered. I don't remember the story exactly, but isn't Cid the only knight you are gauranteed to get without any extra effort? He's almost balanced in that regard. But not really.

But really, to get back to FFTA. Playing a random battle for half an hour because of whichever lame set of laws you drew made the fight last stupidly long and getting back to the map and seeing 3 randoms pop up is fucking death. I mean, I liked the law system at first. Then I realized that every non boss and most bosses for that matter was extremely trivial regardless of the laws and they only serve to hinder taking out the trash. It such a waste of time.

 

[Oogami]

Duh. Welcome to having your point thrown back in your face. Congratulations on spotting it's worthless.

You call that a thrown back? When I said there were 20 people saying FFTA sux, at least I've something to back it up. The following people:

Oogami
Amirox
rod
ourumov
toxicadam
prospero
son of godzilla
musashi wins

all said FFTA sux. If not your ruining the thread here there would be more people agree with that I assure you. But anyway when you said you have 20 people agreeing with you that criticals one hit kill in FE7 is "VERY LIKELY!" to happen, then the following people:

iapetus

agree, which is yourself. That's pretty sad. :lol :lol At least I've a point, but yours are just........:\ Nice try though.

2x is 'pretty much the same as a normal hit'? We can add maths to the list of basic skills you have a problem with, I guess, along with reading and basic logic. Plenty of systems use even lower values - 1.5x isn't at all uncommon. 3x is definitely out of the ordinary. Fire Emblem criticals are unusually powerful. And with the comparatively low levels of HP in the game relative to the damage being done it's even more significant.

What low HP? If you have a teeny bit of strategy you would position a character with an advantageous weapon against the enemy, which would render even the enemy's critical hit useless. Actually the enemy won't be able to even hit you at all, cuz of their low hit ratio% against your advantageous weapon type. but is it the game's fault now that you don't use any strategy?

Likewise, if you face someone with high critical like the swordmaster, would you place someone with low HP against him? Of course not, with some strategy you would use a spear character or a tank with high defense to go against him. Believe me, he won't be able to critical you.

You see that little ' symbol? That's called a 'quotation mark'. Used - among other things - for indicating direct quotations. I'll accept either a pointer to the location where I said it's 'VERY LIKELY' that a critical hit will take place, or an apology for making a weak-ass attempt to misquote me. For someone who's been throwing around accusations of 'making shit up' (see, you did actually say that, which is why it's a good use of quotation marks) you seem to have a 'nice double standard' (yup, that was yours as well) on this front.

Why are you wasting my time? Do I look like someone who would make shit up? Can't you just search for yourself jeez? Fine here it is:

Glad you agree it's a preferential thing, and therefore not a slight against FFTA in anything other than a straight-out 'does Amir0x like it' battle. I'm happy enough to play both types of game, but they both have their downsides and can both be done badly - FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just too likely and too irritating.

There. With this I'm thinking you're just trying to waste my time. Just admit you're wrong and we can move on. No?

How many times do I need to spell things out for you? Enemies should be under the same constraints that players are. If I have limited range of sight, they should have limited range of sight. They don't have to be the same range - it doesn't have to be the case that if they can see me, I can see them. But if I can only see four units with a mage, in a well-designed game they should only be able to see four units with a mage. Advance Wars is a perfect example of a game that gets it right, where in the fog of war levels the strategy of the game is entirely different because you have to edge forward making use of cover and avoiding dangerous killing zones that the enemy could have surrounded with concealed units, but you can use the same tricks against them.

Where's the rulebook that states computer must be under the same constraints as you do? Enemies having an advantage over you is too hard? Jeez FE7 is the easiest FE in the series. I just breezed thru it, when I'm not even that good in SRPG. You should have no problem with it.

What you do in fog of war is to center your group in one tight place, then wait for all the stupid computers to come forward you and you will destroy them one by one easily. I really don't know what's your problem is.

Great plan - unless the front line that you're going to run into contains units that are strong against your high magic defence units. Again, you have to know this in advance which I see as a flaw in a game. I don't mind games where I have to probe like that except in this case, where probing can easily lead to what is effectively game over, because the loss of any character is permanent.

See what I just said above. It's all too simple.

Yup, chapter 26 (of 31) - a fog of war map with a boss character equipped with Bolting - is right at the beginning. Or is that just the same problem with simple calculations that leads you to believe that 1 is pretty much the same as 2 when it comes to multipliers?

Or maybe you just don't know the game as well as you thought you did.

Wow that chapter was easy. Jaffar basically owned all the guys for you, what's the problem again? Someone with bolting? Umm let someone with high magic defense against that? And someone have quick speed to get to the boss? Fiora/Florina can beat Ursula(the boss w/ bolting) easily without Ursula doing any counter attacking. Besides, that chapter is to protect someone in 15 turns, how hard is that? I remember I breezed thru it (again). So should you. You shouldn't be doing any complaining. Only the last chapter in the game gave me problems. And besides, it's okay to let a weak character to die off in the game, it's not game over unless it's the main character, you know. And the main characters are all so freaking strong that's no way you could be killed in one hit. You should complain about FE being a bit on the easy side, not complaining how it's not fair, especially it seems that you've played many SRPGs before, yes?

You don't listen well, do you? I find the fact that it can happen at all to be bad game design. It hit me a couple of times in my first run through, and a handful since then.

That's too bad. See what I said above.

 

[iapetus]

Why are you wasting my time? Do I look like someone who would make shit up? Can't you just search for yourself jeez? Fine here it is:

No. No it isn't. I'm not finding those words 'very likely' anywhere in anything I've written. Your quote doesn't contain those words. Show me the words, show me an apology, or backpedal furiously and claim you never meant I said them.

Just admit you're wrong and we can move on.

Where's the rulebook that states computer must be under the same constraints as you do? Enemies having an advantage over you is too hard? Jeez FE7 is the easiest FE in the series. I just breezed thru it, when I'm not even that good in SRPG. You should have no problem with it.

Last attempt to get this through your thick skull. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE COMPUTER HAVING AN ADVANTAGE. THE PROBLEM IS THE COMPUTER PLAYING BY AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF RULES.

Wow that chapter was easy. Jaffar basically owned all the guys for you, what's the problem again? Someone with bolting? Umm let someone with high magic defense against that?

How do you find out there's someone with bolting? By knowing in advance, or being hit with bolting. Hey presto! Oogami misses the point again!

Still, I'm done. You're clearly incapable of listening, you've proven again and again that you're incapable of even high-school debate. I'll take the quote where I said it was "very likely" a one-hit critical could kill a character or the apology, and then you can jump about and claim you've won the argument as much as you like.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

how long is the minish cap?

I'm past the first dungeon and got

Spoiler

that first of 4 elements thing, please tell me there is more to the game than just those 4?

that game length concern aside, the game is really awesome and i love the small/big aspect.

 

[Oogami]

No. No it isn't. I'm not finding those words 'very likely' anywhere in anything I've written. Your quote doesn't contain those words. Show me the words, show me an apology, or backpedal furiously and claim you never meant I said them.

Just admit you're wrong and we can move on.

Wow WTF is with your problem?

http://www.ga-forum.com/showpost.php?p=1422051&postcount=41

Glad you agree it's a preferential thing, and therefore not a slight against FFTA in anything other than a straight-out 'does Amir0x like it' battle. I'm happy enough to play both types of game, but they both have their downsides and can both be done badly - FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just too likely and too irritating.

Glad you agree it's a preferential thing, and therefore not a slight against FFTA in anything other than a straight-out 'does Amir0x like it' battle. I'm happy enough to play both types of game, but they both have their downsides and can both be done badly - FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just too likely and too irritating.

Glad you agree it's a preferential thing, and therefore not a slight against FFTA in anything other than a straight-out 'does Amir0x like it' battle. I'm happy enough to play both types of game, but they both have their downsides and can both be done badly - FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just too likely and too irritating.

Umm can you see that now?

Glad you agree it's a preferential thing, and therefore not a slight against FFTA in anything other than a straight-out 'does Amir0x like it' battle. I'm happy enough to play both types of game, but they both have their downsides and can both be done badly - FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just ---------->too likely<----------- and too irritating.

Glad you agree it's a preferential thing, and therefore not a slight against FFTA in anything other than a straight-out 'does Amir0x like it' battle. I'm happy enough to play both types of game, but they both have their downsides and can both be done badly - FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just
----------->too likely<----------
and too irritating.

Last attempt to get this through your thick skull. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE COMPUTER HAVING AN ADVANTAGE. THE PROBLEM IS THE COMPUTER PLAYING BY AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF RULES.

Umm duh.....If you want human rules, play against a human.

How do you find out there's someone with bolting? By knowing in advance, or being hit with bolting. Hey presto! Oogami misses the point again!

That's called paying attention to the game. You see the little cutscenes before the chapter started? You could see Ursula being a valkyrie and uses magic! Hell you even know her position, so of course you should bring some high defense magic characters, duh........

You can blame only yourself, not the game.

Still, I'm done. You're clearly incapable of listening, you've proven again and again that you're incapable of even high-school debate. I'll take the quote where I said it was "very likely" a one-hit critical could kill a character or the apology, and then you can jump about and claim you've won the argument as much as you like.

Umm I hope you see where you said that by now. I've quoted that 5 times, jesus. You're a scary dude indeed. And if anything, you are the one who owe me apologys, for personally attacking me, and for the contempt of me. And of course for wasting my time too.

 

[iapetus]

Last attempt. I'm not seeing the rather significant word 'very' in any of those quotes, I'm afraid. Give me the quote, give me the apology.

 

[Oogami]

Last attempt. I'm not seeing the word 'very' in any of those quotes, I'm afraid. Give me the quote, give me the apology.

:lol

Damn, I knew you are going to stoop so low.

Now you're arguing between the differences of "very likely" and "too likely" now? :lol

FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just too likely and too irritating.

and

FE does it pretty well, but those one-hit kills are still just very likely and too irritating.

OH YEAH BIG DIFFERENCES! :rolleyes :rolleyes

You know damn well what I meant, why're you acting stupid now? The argument started when you said the one hit kill of FE is "too likely" or "very likely" to happen. Both means the same freaking thing. Same thing both that you're wrong. The one hit kill rarely ever happened, backed up from other poster in this thread, mind you. you should just admit that you're wrong and apologize to me.

Oh wait, actually "too" is even more extreme than "very". "too" = something over the top, like 110%. "very" = a lot, like 90%. And your original quote is "too likely" btw.

That means you're more wrong than if you said "very" likely. :lol

 

[iapetus]

Oh wait, actually "too" is even more extreme than "very". "too" = something over the top, like 110%. "very" = a lot, like 90%. And your original quote is "too likely" btw.

You see, this is why the distinction is important. You define 'very' likely as 90%. I'd have gone with 78% myself, but whatever. But I define 5% as too likely, and I've explained why already. Your illiteracy isn't my problem.

So, one last chance to backpedal.

 

[Dilbert]

Oogami, I've been watching this thread, and as someone who has a healthy respect for the English language, I feel obligated to step in and clear something up:

You're WRONG.

"Too," when applied as an adjective, means "more than it should be." Although that might mean the same thing as "a lot" or "often" in certain contexts, they are not always synonymous.

As a non-gaming example, if I say that "too many astronauts have died," that doesn't mean that a large number of astronauts on some absolute scale have died, or that a large percentage of astronauts have died. It simply means that, in my opinion, more astronauts have died than should have under better circumstances.

In this particular case, iapetus is expressing that, in his opinion, a frustrating event in the game happens far more than he would prefer -- from context, it's probably 0%, but since I don't know the game personally, I can't hazard any more of a guess. He's not making any kind of statement about its frequency with respect to other game events.

If you want to go on misusing the word in your private life, that's your own business. But the fact remains that iapetus is right, and you've been INCREDIBLY obtuse in this thread. I strongly encourage you to back down from this discussion ASAP. He's normally a patient guy, but you've gotten him into quite a state. Proceed at your own risk.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

now that Oogami has been slapped down, can someone answer my question on the length of minish cap? could be relevant to the original poster if game length is a concern.

 

[Oogami]

Oogami, I've been watching this thread, and as someone who has a healthy respect for the English language, I feel obligated to step in and clear something up:

You're WRONG.

"Too," when applied as an adjective, means "more than it should be." Although that might mean the same thing as "a lot" or "often" in certain contexts, they are not always synonymous.

As a non-gaming example, if I say that "too many astronauts have died," that doesn't mean that a large number of astronauts on some absolute scale have died, or that a large percentage of astronauts have died. It simply means that, in my opinion, more astronauts have died than should have under better circumstances.

In this particular case, iapetus is expressing that, in his opinion, a frustrating event in the game happens far more than he would prefer -- from context, it's probably 0%, but since I don't know the game personally, I can't hazard any more of a guess. He's not making any kind of statement about its frequency with respect to other game events.

If you want to go on misusing the word in your private life, that's your own business. But the fact remains that iapetus is right, and you've been INCREDIBLY obtuse in this thread. I strongly encourage you to back down from this discussion ASAP. He's normally a patient guy, but you've gotten him into quite a state. Proceed at your own risk.

Woah I can finally call this a day. Well since the moderator steps in, then I'll stop. But if iapetus really meant what you think he meant(which I don't know how you know what he meant, though he was a moderator before too iirc, so that must be a mods thing, *I understand*), then I guess that's an *ok* explanation. He should have clarified about this a lot sooner though, a lotttttttt sooner. We both would have a much better time doing something else.

But dictionary.com says this though:

The definition of "too":

adv.

1: to an excessive degree

The definition of "very":

adv.

1. In a high degree

I'll just leave it as that.

And of course never mind the personal attack to me by iapetus, right? *I understand*

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Haha

 

[Oogami]

how long is the minish cap?

I'm past the first dungeon and got

Spoiler

that first of 4 elements thing, please tell me there is more to the game than just those 4?

that game length concern aside, the game is really awesome and i love the small/big aspect.

I'm not supposed to post here anymore so I'll just say while the game is shorter than the oracles and ALttP game, you're still have have a lot of side quests to do. To collect all the kinstone and figurines do take some time. If you don't do that then yeah it's quite short. Took me five days to complete the whole game completely though.

*okay runs away*

 

[Dilbert]

if iapetus really meant what you think he meant(which I don't know how you know what he meant, though he was a moderator before too iirc, so that must be a mods thing, *I understand*), then I guess that's an *ok* explanation.

There is no mind-reading here -- I simply read what he wrote. For the record, iapetus is still an admin -- I wanted to intervene since the "discussion" was just getting stupid.

He should have clarified about this a lot sooner though, a lotttttttt sooner. We both would have a much better time doing something else.

Oh, you mean like 16 posts ago?

Sure, it's a small chance for a single attack, but over a longer period it becomes more likely than not that it will happen. For me, even once is more than enough, because it's something that can be fixed by an extremely simple tweak in game mechanics (dropping criticals to 2x damage, perhaps).

Funny, that seems like exactly the explanation I offered: it's a small chance, but since it CAN and DOES happen and is highly frustrating, that small chance is "too much."

But dictionary.com says this though:
<SNIP>

Words have connotative meanings as well as denotative meanings. Quoting one particular source as "the" definition is (at best) half the story, since you have to look at usage. It is very clear from reading over what iapetus wrong exactly which meaning he had in mind, and he used it correctly.

And of course never mind the personal attack to me by iapetus, right? *I understand*

Oh, come off it. I seem to remember you taking a jab at his age, so it's not like your underwear isn't shitstained. Oh, wait, wrong cliché.

 

[Dilbert]

I'm not supposed to post here anymore

Look, that is NOT what I said. I came in here explicitly because a) your attitude sucks and b) you weren't READING what was actually said. I asked you to back down from your semantic argument with iapetus because it was non-productive, and I've said my peace there.

Feel free to talk about which game the thread starter ought to get. Since I don't have either Z:TMC or FE, I'm curious to hear all perspectives on those games.

 

[Beezy]

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance? Hell no. The best tactics games for GBA are the Fire Emblem games.

 

[Ironclad]

Dude do I need to spell EVERYTHING out for you?



What he's saying is it's "too likely" to having a one hit kill on your character. He clearly is making shit up. This is the thing I was calling him out on. Did you even read the first page? Jesus Christ. You actually agree with me saying it's rarely to see one too.

Plus he's a such a grown up as he says he is, he can help himself in the 'debate'. So maybe you should go somewhere else huh?

For a foot soldier! The bosses get critical hits much more often. You were basically saying that the lesser enemies can never, ever get one-hit kills but that is just plain wrong. Bosses can get one-hit kills very easily, especially the ones that can attack you from a long distance. One-hit kills do occur quite often in the game. I just said that it is rare for a foot soldier's critical to kill your characters in one hit. I've had pegasus knights shot down my archers with a normal attack. You need read more clearly and stop making pathetic jabs.

 

[Amir0x]

God, what has happened to this thread...

 

[demi]

It's your fucking fault, Amir0x. Stop nitpicking about games and this won't happen.

Fuck. Seriously, just play the damn game and shut up! If you hate the game then say "oh I didn't really like it", don't FUCKING GO INTO DETAIL, NOBODY READS IT.

APPARENTLY OOGAMI AND IAEPETTTUS DO BUT HEY THEY'RE LIKE (*DUR*)

I'M A GAMER NOT A FUCKING PROFESSOR

 

[Jonnyram]

God, what has happened to this thread...

You and your short fuse.