Fire Emblem Souen no Kiseki

Screenshots of this game have been around for a while, but I must say, this game looks like it’s going to be simply amazing. This is exactly what Shining Force Neo should have been like. And it’s being translated into English :anjou_happy:

Is anyone here planning on getting the game when comes out outside of Japan? Also, does anyone know if Nintendo have confirmed an American or European release date yet?

Have you played Fire Emblem on the GBA? It’s simply the most stunning little SRPG you’ll ever play.

I like it better than Shining Force.

I don’t own a Cube but the game looks cool.Doesn’t Fire Emblem share SF’s gameplay?

If so (and this is what ive been dying to ask) what makes you self proclaimed SF fans prefer SF? :anjou_happy:

Fire Emblem’s gameplay is very similar to SF’s, however there are differences. Rather than characters moving in turns based on their speed, for example, in Fire Emblem it goes Players Turn (In which you get to move all you characters) and then Enemies Turn (In which the enemies move all their characters), also, selecting to attack an opponent is more like “challenging” them than attacking, as both you an your enemy get an attack on each other. There is more focus on where you are attacking from in Fire Emblem, too, for example, one of the main characters, Lyn, doesn’t seem very strong if you try to send her out to attack enemies head on, however, I once had her kill about 15 axe fighters by herself (one of which was a boss) by luring them into a forest, where they had about 3% chance of hitting her, and she had a 60% chance of doing a special move, and was attack twice because her speed was so much higher than the enemies.

One of the biggest differences, though, is that if a character dies they don’t come back, this can occasionally be very annoying, such as if you have a very weak character who you want to survive, but keep getting themselves killed, or if you are about to win, and due to some oversight one of your favorite characters dies just before the fight ends, however, for the most part this didn’t bother me.

When I first got this game, I thought the fact that death was perminent would mean that most of the characters that you get would be pretty generic, without much story, however, this is not the case, most of the characters have very interesting back-stories that you actually find out by having them talk to each other (which they can do if they have been standing near enough of each other for several turns - this also gives the characters who talk to each other bonuses when the are fighting near each other, similar to the support system in shining force) during the fights rather than in between-fight cutscenes, which also add quite a bit of replayability if you want to find out all of the back-stories. It’s also worth going back to let some characters die, just to see what they happens when they do remembers Pent’s slightly OTT death sequence where he dies in his wifes arms

The only release date i’ve seen for Fire Emblem for GC was a Q3 2005. This has to be one of the only games i’m glad they used cel type shading for other than JSRF. I’ll keep my eye out for it and it may very well be the reason I might have to re-invest in a Gamecube.

My sentiments exactly!

I am seriously tempted to buy a GameCube just to play the new Fire Emblem… on top of Resident Evil 4 of course. Ever since I played the original Shining Force in 1992, I’ve always had a fondness for Strategy/RPGs.

It’s just a shame that Sega is too blinded by its own greed to see the potential for greatness a true 3D Shining Force game has.

Let’s remind ourselves of what Tadashi Takezaki said in a recent RPGfan interview:

“When asked about the decision to turn Shining Force Neo into an action RPG, Takezaki explained that to play the remake of the original Shining Force, Shining Force: Resurrection of the Dark Dragon on the current generation of hardware, the Game Boy Advance capabilities were sufficient. However, if one wants to create a PlayStation 2 game, one has to make use of that console’s capabilities”.

And I suppose that Fire Emblem doesn’t take full advantage of the GameCube’s graphical “capabilities”, which btw, happen to outstrip the PS2 in almost every category? What a joke. I hope no one here objects to me calling Mr Takezaki an idiot. >:)

What are you talking about Geoffrey? Shining Force Neo is the way Shining Force was always meant to be played. You should respect Amusement Vision’s decisions to turn such a dated battle system into the awesomeness of a hack and slash. After all, why play turn based games, moving little icons in such complicated formations when you can control just one character and button bash your way through the entire battle as a one man army while listening to some cute anime girl whinging in the background? It’s such a better decision to make an action game where you don’t have to bother thinking more than ten seconds ahead because now we can all enjoy Shining Force after coming home half drunk from the pub! And less thinking means a much more enjoyable experience, obviously!

[quote=“U K Narayan”]Have you played Fire Emblem on the GBA? It’s simply the most stunning little SRPG you’ll ever play.

I like it better than Shining Force.[/quote]

Yeah, I have Fire Emblem: Rekka no Ken (just “Fire Emblem” for the NTSC-U and PAL releases) for my GBA and love it. I haven’t actually finished the game yet as I’m playing through it slowly and carefully (trying to keep everyone alive) but from what I’ve played of it, it’s awesome.

[quote=“Gehpnaet”]I don’t own a Cube but the game looks cool.Doesn’t Fire Emblem share SF’s gameplay?

If so (and this is what ive been dying to ask) what makes you self proclaimed SF fans prefer SF? :anjou_happy:[/quote]

It’s not so much that I think Shining Force is “better” than Fire Emblem, it’s just that Shining Force has been available in the west for a whole lot longer than Fire Emblem. In fact, Fire Emblem: Rekka no Ken was the first game in the series to arrive outside of Japan, and at the moment it’s the only game in the series that Nintendo has translated. However things are changing. Nintendo plans to release both Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones and this new Gamecube Fire Emblem in English, this year, which proves that they must see a market for turn based strategy games. I wonder why Sega cannot?

Anyway, both games have disadvantages and advantages. Besides the things that Drenholm mentioned, Fire Emblem doesn’t have any free walking around sections like Shining Force has - everything happens within battle, even shopping for new weapons. In that respect I personally like Shining Force better.

Fire Emblem is also a real warrior’s game. Thinking of reviving that character that died in the previous battle? Tough! If a character dies, they’re gone for the rest of the game.

Fire Emblem has some interesting elements in its battle system such as the weapons triangle, and the fact that every time you attack the enemy attacks back so sometimes it is better not to attack an enemy at all. Shining Force keeps things simpler, both systems have their charms.


I’d love to know what Tadashi Takezaki’s thoughts are on the new Fire Emblem for the GameCube. Would he view it as a waste of the console’s potential?

ActionRPGs are cool Solo.Know that.

Not when they revolve entirely around hack ‘n’ slash gameplay, they aren’t. :anjou_sigh:

Download the 7.89MB “Shining Force Neo Gameplay Demo” and then tell me that there is even a remote chance that this game could be any deeper than Shining Force III.

Believe me when I say that I do like Action games. I downloaded the trailer for the new Legend of Zelda game coming out later this year and it looks like it has a lot of potential. It’s just that nearly everything I?ve seen about Shining Force Neo makes it look like it’s going to suck heavily, Shining Force game or not.


It might not be that they see a market that Sega does not so much as they’re filling in the niches in their game line-up, much as Sega used to do when they were a console manufacturer. Remember how Abadd said it’s different being a first publisher than a third party one?

I seem to remember the Fire Emblem GBA game had pretty good sales in the US though, and that may have contributed to translating the later installments.

Yeah, good point. I wonder why Sega felt the need to use the “Force” title then. Actually, I don’t really need to wonder, but if believed the little “fact” that Tadashi Takezaki stated about the console’s capabilites then I probably would.

I’m glad I bought it then. :anjou_happy:

Brillaint point, escpecially as nintendo was always (and is) seen as the much more conservative company, one wonders what sega are playing at. Mind you ninetndo are loath t0 devalue IP’s they have built up over the years, and that means keeping games within the bounds of certain systems, unlike sega who seem to have done exatly that it the last 3-5 years sigh

Anyway the PS2 has had plenty of Nippon Ichi SRPGs that have been very sucessful (3, with a 4th one planned), and Atlus are also releashing Stella Deus a new SRPG on the PS2 and lets not forget the sucess of FF:TA no matter how crap it was so its not as if there isnt a market.

And as for the idea a SRPG is too basic for the PS2, why then it Japan has sega made very sucessful Saiken Taisen (sp?) games that are for the PS2 an alhtough primairly datng sims use a SRPG system? Plus lets not forget the aformentioned Atlus/Nippon Ichi games.

Its a farce really.

[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]

Not when they revolve entirely around hack ‘n’ slash gameplay, they aren’t. :anjou_sigh:[/quote]

Hack 'n slash is a type of gameplay I personally feel could be much deeper.

I personally think it’s wrong for people to consider action games any less deeper than strategic ones (i mean combat-wise).In theory (and in my own opinion) i think the ultimate fighting gameplay system would be a mix of the two but would be essentially action.

Action games enable the possibility of having the exact same elements of startegy a strategic game would have.You can fake turn-based combat in an action game but you can’t fake action in a turn-based game.

Solo I’ve seen the movie but I can’t really say how fun the combat will be.I’m not defending SFneo here.But I personally don’t high-regard the SRPG genre as much a you guys seem to do simply because I think it dumbs down the gameplay possibilities of a game.

I mean - playing with statistics can be done outside of gaming with pen and paper.I have played SRPG’s and enjoyed some.I loved Shining Force 2 and (event ho it was the first RPG i ever played) I only near-finished it 2 years ago or so.But such games often feel like a facade to something that could be experienced without a computer/console.It doens’t feel interactive.

Well basically what I wanted to say is that action games can have a lot of strategy but developers aren’t paying it that much attention.It sure seems SFNeo isn’t.It might not be a good SF game but it might turn out to be a quality actionRPG.

I watched the video and was not impressed at all. SFNEO Looked highly derivative of the current crop of action RPG’s.

On a Fire Emblem note, apparently the EB Games website has a release date for another game in the series on GBA, currently slated for a 5/22/05 release. It is entitled Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones

Thing is thos seems systemic problem at SEGA, when you look at the PS games, the sonic games and the NiGHTs game, they never seem to be able to follow it up with a brilliant sequel that ahs teh same root charm unless it happens ot be an arcade game.

I dunno Gahpnaet… you can try to put strategy elements into an action game, but ultimately it comes down to a person’s reaction time and hand-to-eye coordination. In an action game, you’re directly controlling one character as opposed to say, a 12 character army.

Turn-based games allow for long bits of thinking. This is why chess continues to be the game of choice among some of the most brilliant minds on the planet.

That doesn’t have to be a bad thing.I personally never liked parties that much.