You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
This game is definitely worthy of a 9. I mean...if you say it has outstanding gameplay and that it sucks you in...As well as having miniscule flaws...What else are you looking for? Just a function of the genre, IMO.
People moaned and cried about IGN's review, but this one was terrible. Only two main criticisms were offered:
-Multiplayer. It's silly enough to criticize Fire Emblem at all in this regard, since it's a single-player oriented experience, but to say that it's worse than previous entries? Baffling. -"Cumbersome interface." Not only is there a clear help function to learn about anything you might have missed, but you can click the weapons / items / skills to learn what they mean. Every other reviewer has called this the most accessible and intuitive game in the series, and rightfully so.
Two baseless complaints, -1.5 from the final score. Ridiculous.
The only thing more consistent than the Pats beating the Texans is my mother's regret she survived childbirth, knowing she spawned a welcher
Christ, are you guys seriously complaining about an 8.5? That's a fantastic score.
In a world where review scores are more like the Warp scale from TNG and beyond, 8.5 is much worse than a 9.6.
(For the uninitiated Star Trek the Next Generation (TNG) and following Star Trek series used a unit called "Warp" to measure speeds faster than light. This unit was scaled differently in TNG than in the original Star Trek.
In TNG warp 1 equals the speed of light (C). Warp 10 equals infinite speed. They created a really weird scale for this, Warp 2=10 C. Warp 3= about 50 C and it scales exponentially pretty normally until warp 9, then they basically through their system out the window and have the speed skyrocket at extreme exponential leaps for each decimal point of extra warp they add past 9
So what was the point of that weird aside? Basically video game scores are like warp, they don't exist on a true 10 point scale. Rather quality grown exponentially toward the higher end of the scale. Really while the average score should be a 5, it is really more like 7. So giving Fire Emblem an 8.5 while perfectly reasonable if operating under a 10 point scale, becomes a far different score when operating under the anything under 7 is crap scale. Its the difference between being "excellent" and "above average".
If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. Harry Truman.