I know I already reviewed Rev, but this game is leagues better that both Rev and Birthright and to me is the best FE Fates has to offer.
Every time I discuss this game with my friends, I always come away feeling like a hater. The positives my friends list are all things I agree with, so why then do I rate it so much lower than them. I don't even dislike playing it, quite the contrary actually. The more I think about it, the more I truly believe the 2.5 - 3 star range is the perfect rating for this game, but on the surface it may not be easy to look at that and tell what I think.
A majority of these stars, if not all, come from the gameplay. The map design and gameplay loop present in SPECIFICALLY Conquest is very close to peak Fire Emblem for me. The rate at which you acquire units is slow yet paced, allowing for each map to build around your growing army. The moment you gain Niles and Odin, for example, the map design seriously shifts. Larger maps begin to take priority, most likely to take advantage of Niles' +1 movement bonus given to his pair-up ally. Through this and the transfer/shelter system, ferrying your units around the map becomes so much more involved, and you can find routes in which you can reach chokes or pivotal enemies a turn or more earlier than normal. Ballistae and magical orbs begin to appear, allowing for specific units to retain use as crowd control during defense maps (Chapter 10 in particular providing an experience that I'm not sure FE has replicated since). All of this is to say that the map design of FE Conquest is acutely aware of who you have access to and reward your creative thinking, rather than ignoring or punishing it as seen in Birthright and Revelations.
With that out of the way, this all seems great! Maybe I am just a hater, why isn't this game rated higher? This exact thought goes through my head after every conversation and discussion I've had about this game.
And then I remember Corrin.
(I could elaborate, but it's simply that I find the writing, characters, and story about as bad as the series gets.)
Every time I discuss this game with my friends, I always come away feeling like a hater. The positives my friends list are all things I agree with, so why then do I rate it so much lower than them. I don't even dislike playing it, quite the contrary actually. The more I think about it, the more I truly believe the 2.5 - 3 star range is the perfect rating for this game, but on the surface it may not be easy to look at that and tell what I think.
A majority of these stars, if not all, come from the gameplay. The map design and gameplay loop present in SPECIFICALLY Conquest is very close to peak Fire Emblem for me. The rate at which you acquire units is slow yet paced, allowing for each map to build around your growing army. The moment you gain Niles and Odin, for example, the map design seriously shifts. Larger maps begin to take priority, most likely to take advantage of Niles' +1 movement bonus given to his pair-up ally. Through this and the transfer/shelter system, ferrying your units around the map becomes so much more involved, and you can find routes in which you can reach chokes or pivotal enemies a turn or more earlier than normal. Ballistae and magical orbs begin to appear, allowing for specific units to retain use as crowd control during defense maps (Chapter 10 in particular providing an experience that I'm not sure FE has replicated since). All of this is to say that the map design of FE Conquest is acutely aware of who you have access to and reward your creative thinking, rather than ignoring or punishing it as seen in Birthright and Revelations.
With that out of the way, this all seems great! Maybe I am just a hater, why isn't this game rated higher? This exact thought goes through my head after every conversation and discussion I've had about this game.
And then I remember Corrin.
(I could elaborate, but it's simply that I find the writing, characters, and story about as bad as the series gets.)