LogFAQs > #970691313

legendarylemur posted...

You mean aside from the pier chapter, you get like 5-6 chapters of shitty corridors? It's not unanimously agreed lmao. It's a horrendous Lunatic experience, and it was by far the most juggernaut favoring type of map design in the entire series, even more than Awakening which had more open ended maps.

Most people who played everything likes map designs in FE4 or 5 or 8. Calling Conquest map design good is some zoomer shit

Corridors that have strong enemy placing and skill distribution which does the most in preventing you from soloing than almost every previous game besides the Archanea games. I've never heard of 4 and 8 being called top tier maps. FE4 is known for being gigantic open slogs where anything but mounted units are garbage while mounted units dominate (I've seen multiple heavy FE4 fans saying they really hope IS does more to fix FE4 rather archaic maps than Echoes did with Gaiden) and 8 isn't bad but it's pretty simple and straightforward. 5 used to be touted as hard but after the actual good translations have come out people have realized that it's actually not that hard if you know what you're doing with low enemy quality and a lot of busted strategies with staves and wrath. The main difficulty of FE5 comes from blind playthroughs with a lot of bullshit that come out of nowhere and aren't told to you ahead of time.
But the fact that you actually praise Awakening's open maps of all things makes it sound like you're just someone who prefers open maps and juggernauting (which I think you mixed up with turtling since Conquest encourages turtling more with just how strong the enemy are while the games you mentioned encourages OP units juggernauting due to high enemy density and low enemy quality)

There might also be some nostalgia goggles going on here, which Irony's entire gimmick is.

ellis123 posted...

Not really, no. While Conquest is definitely substantially more liked than the other two it is not anywhere near close to "unanimously agreed to have the best gameplay." Like, the entire idea of that is utterly absurd as there are nontrivial amounts of people that will actively not go for the #1 being either 4/5 as well as ones that will only go with the GBA games as having the top slot (generally with 6/7 being on top): there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that a single game has anything resembling a unanimous agreement as best. Similarly "Fates" refers to all three "games" (it really is a case of "one game for the price of three"), so cherry-picking out one third of the overall game as better doesn't change the overall statement. Especially seeing as you are talking about removing the actual canon story version of the game as the defacto.

You were the one being hyperbolic about Fates being universally agreed to be bad first. I was also talking about gameplay. 4/5 and the GBA games are called good due to the whole package (4 in particular is generally considered to have rather mediocre gameplay but is peak FE story), but Conquest is often said to have the strongest gameplay among hardcore players and challenge runners. It's marred by having the worst story in the series which lowers the package by a lot but that doesn't change the gameplay is touted as one of if not the best by hardcore players.
Canonicity has nothing to do with gameplay and iirc Heirs of Fate implies all the routes are canon with Revelation just being the golden ending.