Video: Nintendo's Fire Emblem Echoes Overview Shows How It Shakes Up the Formula

The game looks good but... do I really want to go back to my 400 × 240p screen ??

I really like that there's a map though. The castle was neat in Fates but I had no real motivation to do small fights.

I seriously can not wait for this game. I am looking forward to this.

The fact that they aren't changing the desert maps (the most infamous ones) doesn't bode well.

Besides that, I'm pretty certain it'll blow Awakening out of the water (considering it's one of the few games I've played that I'd call "bad") and could easily outdo Fates in the overall package department (though Fates' gameplay and actually designed maps will probably still make it the better game).

@CrazedCavalier I haven't played the original what's wrong with the map?

Absolutely love it, this trailer was beyond epic. Extra props for making fun of Pair-up.

Awesome, can't wait to play it - I discovered FE only last summer, and since then I have logged an embarrassing amount of hours in Awakening and Fates. Plus, it's coming out on the day of my very last university exam, so it will be a lovely way to unwind after all the stress.

@Setery10 Desert tiles limit your movement to one for all but PKs.
Celica's side has quite a few desert maps mid-game.
Do the math.

Can't waaaaaaaaaait!!!!!!!

@Jezebel95 That was me and Fates last year! I cannot wait!

I really wish this was being put on the Switch, my 3DS is just a Mario Kart DS machine now with no other purpose. Haha, but seriously I might pick it up if I remember it.

Just hope I'm able to secure a pre-order for the Limited Edition in Canada. Doesn't seem like any retailers have it up and running yet.

I guess I'll be picking this up in May.

Fire Emblem Awakening for me was one of those Nintendo titles that was so perfect i dont want to play anymore of that kind. Was my first Fire Emblem.

Also not a fan anymore of that epic anime fluff.

@CrazedCavalier I started playing through Gaiden earlier this year and got to the chapter shown in the video... I'm enjoying Gaiden, but that chapter was a nightmare... I don't remember, but was it only 1 movement all the time? In the video I noticed that they had 2 movement in the desert.

I have it preordered, but I'm not completely sure why. I think it looks great and am looking forward to it, but I won't be playing it for several years. My backlog is currently sitting at 189 games, and includes six earlier Fire Emblems that I would want to complete first (including Gaiden). Oh well, at least if the game becomes hard to find due to being released so late in the 3DS life cycle, I'll have my copy handy.

The desert maps are infamous in all FE - specially the older ones, since they were unforgiving.
I haven't played the original Gaiden, but the desert map on FE6 is a freaking nightmare.

Super hyped for this game!

Well good.

I really didn't like the approach taken in Birthright/Conquest.

It felt like fantasy fulfillment fan-fic run amok. Okay, so both royal families are fawning over you for your loyalty, beautiful women are trained at birth to serve and fawn all over you, and mystical beings grant you a pocket dimension to rule on top of all that where they fawn all over you.

There was a little of that in Awakening, but not even close to that extent. (it did have time travel loops, which are often a sign that a franchise is running out of ideas)It will be nice to get back to the series roots of a deposed lord fighting guerrilla campaigns against an overwhelming foe.

@Action51 Wholeheartedly agree on the analysis of Fates. I still enjoyed the core FE gameplay mechanics, and a lot of the maps and missions in Conquest were cleverly designed. But it just felt like they put way too much fluff and mysticism into the storyline. And somehow they do all this fighting, but don't actually kill anybody? The whole thing just felt a little off, and I got a little tired of all the castle stuff. Felt like all that stuff just kept me from getting to the main game.

I wish I had 3DS so I could get this. Never played Awakening, but I've played the Tellius games and had a reproduction of Binding Blade (which I lost), so I suppose I lean more towards older games. I've been hype from the first trailer since I want to try the older Fire Emblem titles, so I hope it's pretty good.

@Action51

Seriously man, took the words out of my mouth. Fates was a complete disappointment and I've been summing it up as a bad fanfic myself. Corrin is basically the kind of character a teenager dreams up in a bad fanfic. OH AND HE'S HALF DRAGON! OH MY GOD!

That said one of my button-pushers is the misconception that Awakening saved FE. It did no such thing, because it dumbed the series down to ridiculous levels. So if by saving the franchise they actually mean taking away anything that resembles a good FE game, then yeah okay, sure. I'm of the opinion that FE Awakening was actually marketed and thus sold well for that reason. I never saw much marketing for any of the older FE games in the US (which were vastly superior). Don't get me wrong, Awakening is a good game, but it's not a very good FE game. I feel like 90% of the Awakening fanbase has never played a classic FE game and really need to. Awakening is not FE. Fates is even LESS FE. I too want the series to go back to a small force taking on a huge imperial army, with none of this face-touching anime waifu crap. Less emphasis on that, more emphasis on FE.

Didn't realise the marriage option was gone/never there. I spend way too much time worrying over who to pair off anyway so it's probably for the best.

I'm really looking forward to this one. I think Awakening was amazing and I think Conquest is a little bit better than what most people think of it (Birthright seems a bit weaker). And I'm also kind of glad that marriage is gone in this one, since I thought it was pretty lame in Fates (especially the personal quarters part). Now you will want to keep characters alive because they are great soldiers, not because you ship them.

@Frosty_09
Unfortunately, I haven't. But I think the desert levels in FE 6, FE7 and FE10 are a royal pain.

Long live 3DS!

This one is a day-one purchase for me.

Looks great for a Fire Emblem game. However, it doesn't appeal to me enough to give Fire Emblem another try.

Why do you guys complain so much? Awakening is amazing, fates also. I did played every single FE, yeah FE7 still the best, but come on guys? Do you really prefer the death of the series over change?
And no Gaiden wasn't a great FE neither a great game, I really hope they make a better job than they did with Shadow Dragon. Shin Monsho no Nazo was way better but we never got in the west.
But above all please stop the "mememe awakening and fates is bad and for casuals" it's just lame.

"Grid based combat is the ultimate test of a leaders tactical prowess". Btw I like fire emblem.

SICK!! So pumped for this game, I wasn't super happy with certain things about Fates, so I really hope that this game perfects the formula!

@SanderEvers

they are doing a timed release on the LE, so if you go into Gamestop right now you shouldn't have any trouble snagging one. If you place an order in store within a certain time period, you get one. (at least at GS, not sure about the UK stores...)

It looks great!

@Frank90

People say that about Awakening because it literally dumbed down the mechanics in order to be accessible to casuals. Lessened difficulty, no light magic, no weapon wgt, casual mode cause nuuu permadeath is bad, ridiculously abusable skills, lack of variety in maps, no fog of war, almost no defense missions except maybe the one with Tiki, etc etc etc. Awakening is every bit deserving of the flak it gets from hardcore fans, even if Lunatic mode is a thing. If any other franchise (Such as Dark Souls) were as dumbed down as FE was, there would be a much louder outcry. If anything, I'm surprised the complaints aren't louder. Not to mention Fates' removal of weapon durability cause oh no, I might have to think before I go around using OP weapons! Fates is arguably the worst one so far, with a cringy story that managed to be even worse than Awakenings, recycled characters, idiotic map gimmicks, etc.

Or I could just sum up your post as "Omg stop having opinions!" and call it a day, which was tempting. People have opinions, deal with it. Critical thinking should be encouraged, not discouraged.

@Action51 Well said, this is the true essence of Fire Emblem.

"No more predictable archers."
Yep, those archers have sure had it hard in combat effectiveness up until now. Especially the ones named Takumi. At least they've balanced the classes with ranged attacks by making the mages hurt themselves.

I'm not sure I understand these complaints of people fawning over Corrin. Should his family not care about him? Should he have a more limited support list? Do the games before Sacred Stones (The oldest one I've played) feature casts that hate the protagonists?

I've played and loved Sacred Stones, Awakening, and Fates, so I'll give Echoes a chance. I'm not sure about the dungeon exploration element. I think I'd rather keep marriages instead for the extra supports and characterization. I can do without the kids, though.

@Onion Did you really played fates? I think that's hardly possible with your statement, the removal of weapon durability is a great thing and if you played through Conquest you know how hard and twisted some maps can be. Yeah Revelation is full of gimmick maps but still a passable FE experience. The only Fates' fault is the excess of "lords" with amazing powers witch make some units redundant (like Camila and Beruka)
Yeah Awakening was simple, but needed to be, because the overly complicated maps in Tellius saga dropped the sales. I love Radiant Dawn and Path to radiance but they can be weird sometimes, with some characters being useless and others almost needed to beat the game, like Fates almost.
And you say about simplistic maps, but did you remember the maps in FE6 and 7 (Roy and Lyn ones) being called overly simplistic when compared to Genealogy and Thracia? And it was simple indeed, but sometimes it's necessary.
And DEAR GOD Casual Mode is optional, stop being a cry baby, I can deal with yours or any opinion, can you do the same with the new Fire Emblem way?

@LArachelDisciple Yeah Support and Marriage is welcome, but the kids have to be for a reason (like in Genealogy and to a lesser extent in Awakening). And I'm happy with better archers since besides Takumi almost every archer/sniper is weak in recent games.

@Frank90 I used Setsuna over Takumi and Beruka over Camilla just because I liked them more. It's funny that my least favorite Fates siblings are the ones to headline Fire Emblem Heroes, but whatever.

I hope I can eventually get the Radiant Tellius games for less than 120 dollars each. Though I might not be able to defy who the games wants me to play with permadeath involved.

@Frank90

Played it, despite my better judgment, so please continue to falsely assume. Do you want a picture of it next for proof, too? Removal of weapon durability was another pointless example of dumbing the mechanics down further to detract any sort of risk from playing the game. Conquest on its hardest map is still a walk in the park compared to almost any random pre-Awakening game, and the map gimmicks were largely dumb, but we agree on that point at least. Breakable weapons exist to force the player to think about what they use. Stronger weapons typically were harder to come by and thus you had to think before using them. On Fates, there's no reason not to worry about it, and it felt like a dumb attempt to return to the wgt system as opposed to just bringing it back.

Lol@ "Overly complicated maps". Holy crap, way to prove my point for me. It's like the Awakening fanbase is afraid of having to form actual strategies and think about what they do. And this isn't even bringing up how insanely powerful all your units in Awakening are. Why bother trying to decide what unit to use? They're all gods among men anyway with consistently perfect stat level ups.

FE7 still isn't nearly as simple as Awakening. Nearly every map on FE7 (and even 8) is unique in some way, with objectives that change. Battle Before Dawn on FE7 being one such example, which was relentlessly challenging and extremely engaging. Not a single map on Awakening can compare, though Conquest DID get more creative with maps, I agree.

And thanks for the unnecessary insult. I don't think insulting me and calling me "cry baby" is exactly a good way to convey your points. Optional or not, the fact it exists is still a detraction because any hardcore FE fan will snub their noses at it anyway. The idea of playing FE without permadeath is like playing Dark Souls where you respawn with all your souls intact. What's the point?

EDIT: I also wanted to point out that you're lashing out at me about casual mode when I actually have never brought it up much till now. Go through my posts if you want, you won't find me complaining about Casual mode in any of them. This is literally the first time I've brought it up.

This definitely looks interesting. I've only played two FE titles so far, but I'll be giving this one a try

@Onion Whooooo... It must be so sad that nintendo doesn't cater to you. I mean, you could enjoy the newer FE games like everyone else. You complaints are the same as "why isnt this game on wiiU/switch?" You want it to be the way you want it to be, but nintendo and intelligent systems OWN the franchise, and will do what they want with it. And they know how to make/sell/market them well since awakening and fates are the highest selling games in the whole franchise with fates doing better than awakening. And yeah, maybe Nintendo wouldn't have cancelled FE if awakening hadn't sold above their goal, but it most certainly wouldn't have been localised at all, prob wouldnt have any western releases after that, and prob would have been cancelled after the eventual failure of the sequel to awakening. "I'd rather FE awakening hadnt sell well, and FE had remained what it was" is your argument, and It's a stupid one.

Well, maybe it's not a stupid argument, but it's a misguided one. "Change or Die."

@diaverik

My complaint that the series is dumbed down and barely FE anymore has nothing to do with people complaining about what console it runs on, so that's about all I'm going to say about that. You clearly didn't pay much attention to my post. I suppose I'm sorry for wanting FE games to play like FE games? Sure, whatever. If you read my post, you'd also see where I said Awakening is still a good game, just not as good as an actual FE game. I also never said that the franchise should die, I said that Awakening was marketed, and that probably had a lot to do with why it sold well. Market a game and take out the parts that are "too hard" for casuals=Better sales, but at the cost of the game's integrity.

@Onion FE7 - 12 (well, Radiant Dawn ties it) are easier than Conquest. FE1 and Gaiden can be broken into tiny pieces. FE4 isn't much better. And FE3 is pretty straightforward. Please, just stop.

@CrazedCavalier

Not even going to respond to the claim that FE7 is easier than Conquest. As I said above, using insults doesn't work because I won't respond in kind. If you can't debate intelligently, don't debate at all. Also if my argument falls apart, you aren't doing a good job of explaining why. I've had intelligent discussions with people about Fates and Awakening, this surely isn't one of them. Using insults and weightless claims is a poor way to go about it. I'm surprised I'm even dignifying you with THIS much of a response when you didn't present ANY argument of your own and cut straight to childish insults. Your whole post can be summarized as "No u!" Way to go.

@Onion Man, if you don't even understand the implications of your own words, then I'm note sure how you reach conclusions at all. But granted, If you think FE is not FE anymore, why do you care at all what intelligent systems does with their franchise? they do the 'actual' games, and in your opinion they are not 'actual fe games.' I can;t say that you 'think' they betrayed their fanbase, but you do say they lost FE's 'integrity' to sell more games. Who ever heard of a business doing something different to increase their sales, amirite? Look, FE is not what you want it to be. And that is sad. And it will prob never be what you want it to be. And that;s even sadder. And they are sure as hell never removing the casual mode. That's even more sad. Why do you still like a franchise that doesnt do what you like? They 'dumbed down' your beloved FE and it's only a shadow of what it used to be right? And they will never go back. You should move on to games that don't do what Intelligent systems and nintendo have done. Otherwhise, if you still like awakening and fates, all you are doing in this comment section is venting your frustations at the game makers, and the new/old fanbase. Oh, but what is another word for venting? complaining?whining? what do i know?

@diaverik

I care because despite my growing disapproval with how FE has been handled, I consider myself an FE fan. You can't possibly argue that in light of all the face-touching and other plain weird additions to Fates, that the game isn't straying a wee bit too far from its roots. That's not even going into detail on the mechanics.

It's less that I think they aren't "real" FE games and more that the newer games are straying too far from the core of what we know as FE. The games are becoming less about strategy and more about waifus, and they're becoming easier too. FE used to be what I want it to be, but no longer is. With a subpar mobile game floating around out there too? Yeah. FE has strayed. Some people may be fine with it, but some people aren't. I think I'm entitled to not be fine with it just as much as someone else is entitled to think it's great. That's what opinions are about. Besides that, my intention was never to "vent", but to simply express my opinion. I agreed with some of what Action51 said and disagreed with some of what others said. There isn't much more to this discussion than that, except the peanut gallery turning my comments into a crusade. The fact I'm being attacked to this degree actually does more to prove some of my previous words in other topics that Nintendo fans are too quick to attack others simply for sharing different opinions. Whereas I have not attacked a single person in this discussion. (For clarification, I'm not accusing you of said attacking, only the previous two commenters.)

@Onion FE7 gives you good pre-promotes that are still usable at the end-game.
FE7 throws unpromoted enemies at you up to the penultimate chapter.
FE7 has Canas and the Luna spell-- which can cheese the hardest bosses in the game.
FE7 has Lyn mode, letting you train up certain units so that they'll be a cut above everyone else once you move on.
FE7, overall, expects less out of the player. There's the odd hard chapter, certainly (Before Dawn, anyone?), but it's fairly bereft of challenge outside of Hector Hard Mode.

Conquest only really has pre-route split to shovel EXP towards Corrin-- who you need as a reliable unit because stuff gets challenging fast. You have enemies on-par with your units with skills to boot. Enemies tend to be much more well-rounded (Swordmasters and Falcoknights aren't gonna be one-shot by anything not named Effie, and good luck on trying to double them; Spear Fighters and Onis have the defense and strength to not easily be ORKOd, Archers went on steroids) and have access to dual strikes and pair-up. The pre-promotes you get serve to make things more manageable, rather than just destroying enemies and taking the fun out of raising other units.

The lack of weapon durability I don't have a problem with-- heck, I like weapon effects conceptually. The issue is deeper and something you haven't touched on-- forged iron weapons are simply more cost-effective than steel and silver ones, as at +1/+2 they have only 1/2 might less steel/silver weapons with none of the drawbacks.

I don't like Awakening-- I think it's a bad game. But I enjoy Fates, and especially Conquest.

@CrazedCavalier

And yet despite all of what you said, FE7 also still has units that don't get godly level ups constantly (Hector and a few others aside), most FE7 enemies throughout the game have the potential to kill one of your units if you get careless (which is not true of Awakening aside from Counter users). The fact you had to resort to bringing up Canas and Luna shows that you're pretty desperate to try and bash FE7. May as well argue that Hector is in the game too. Also, Canas doesn't join for a while, so may as well claim Athos makes FE7 easier! ALL FE games have a few OP units, so that's a poor argument. I could also just point out Niles, who makes the game significantly easier just by existing. I didn't know we were going to pull a bunch of OP units out of our pockets to try and cherry pick reasons but since we are, yeah. Niles. He makes the game easier than Canas and Luna did for FE7 plus joins early and can capture enemy units. How is that NOT broken? At least all Canas has going for him is Luna, Niles is almost game breaking.

Lyn mode is a fair point, but also entirely optional once you clear the game once. Once you delve into Hector Hard Mode, you'll see what I mean about how much harder FE7 is than Fates or Conquest. If Lyn mode counts against it, then Hector mode should count in favor of it. And nothing, NOTHING, touches Hector Hard Mode. If you say otherwise, I'm going to strongly doubt you actually played it. HHM trumps anything Conquest could even think of doing. The only times Conquest comes close is when it has to resort to BS mechanics like enemies using weapons with 1-2 range and double crit, enemies being immune to floor traps, etc. BS mechanics shouldn't count but that's just me.

Claiming that FE7 "expects less out of the player" based on the above is pretty laughable, when everything in FE7 is harder versus Awakening and Fates. Even recruiting of all things is harder, as Awakening is basically summed up as "talk to them with Chom or Robin", whereas you have units like Guy and Raven that don't rely on a Lord at ALL for recruitment. If the simple process of recruiting is harder, then that's a bad sign for Fates and Awakening who hold your hand the entire game. If you think Conquest is challenging, then you must not be very good at games as I never once felt particularly threatened by anything in that game, while FE7 had intense moments almost the very moment Eliwood Mode begins. Factor in Hector Hard mode and things get nuts pretty fast. You're just being delusional at this point. I didn't touch on the weapon issue much because I just didn't feel like going into detail on it, and never felt the need to.

That said, yeah, I agree Conquest > Rest of Fates, I'm certainly not going to debate that. But Conquest is still a bad FE game to me. I think it's interesting you dislike Awakening but not Fates, but whatever. To each his/her own. I'm not going to try and downplay your love for Fates or Conquest, but spreading falsehoods in an attempt to put Conquest on a pedestal is poor form. I suggest you replay FE7 sometime, or FE4. FE4 in particular is MUCH harder than Fates or FE7.

EDIT: Also wanted to point out that most of my problems with Fates and Conquest stem from story and not so much gameplay. Conquest is absolutely more challenging than Awakening and def has better map design (the ninja traps map was insanely fun), but still weaker overall compared to previous games IMO. Deal with it. I mean, just the fact Casual Mode and Phoenix Mode EXIST is enough to say Conquest/Awakening is easier. I mean, seriously? Are you even listening to yourself? Even if these modes are optional, they still exist. They still make the game easier. Arguing otherwise is just silly. Permadeath is absolutely a part of FE and the fact there's a mode that REMOVES that to make it easier is pretty bad. As I said before, Dark Souls where you can't lose souls. No point. Also, pair up exists purely to make the game easier. While it's more broken in Awakening, it's still pretty borked in Fates, too. Supports were balanced, Pair Up is not. This is to say NOTHING of how absurdly broken skills are.

While archers may be less predictable this way, they're much more balanced in the newer games. (Although, those games instead have somewhat overpowered mages that have a range advantage with no drawbacks, and they don't even have any weapon weaknesses in "Awakening.") Giving them even more of a range advantage with no drawbacks along with the usual bonus against flying units makes them seem like they'll be the most overpowered units in the game, especially since the mages are heavily nerfed. There better at least be units that get a bonus when fighting archers.

@Frank90 I like the basic idea behind removing weapon durability and making the weapons beyond the second stage very rare, but "Fates" kind of ruined it with the broken forging system. It's way too easy to get everyone equipped with second stage weapons forged to be even more powerful than unforged third stage weapons. They should've either made the forging ingredients harder to aquire or charged an arm and a leg for the service like they did in "Awakening" to keep us from abusing the system.

Hot damn, i think this is just what i need to get back into the series, haven't enjoyed Fire Emblem since Path of Radiance.

@Onion I've played Hector Hard Mode. I've played Conquest on Hard. Conquest Hard has the edge. That's not even touching Conquest Lunatic, which I've only seen videos of.

FE7 is much less stat-dependant-- hence, the units with good stats and level ups are much better than those in Fates, because Fates expects you to have those units. Heck, as I've pointed out, late-game FE7 is still throwing unpromoted enemies at you-- while Conquest entirely phases them out by Chapter 18.

I'm okay with casual mode (wish there was some incentive to play classic, but I'm not going to endlessly bellyache about it), and guess what-- most people didn't even touch Phoenix mode and it's gone from SoV.

Conquest is definitely the hardest of the localized handheld titles. Accusing me of "spreading falsehoods" and "not being good at games" leaves me to think that continuing this argument is a waste of time.

@Frosty_09

Nope, can't say that I have. I found FE4 brutal enough as it was, but I may have to try that out sometime.

@BulbasaurusRex also makes a good point about the forging system which I agree is messed up, but like I said before, not terribly interested in going into a huge amount of detail on the weapon thing cause for me, the simple fact durability is taken out bothers me.

@CrazedCavalier

Now I know you're just making things up. Anyone who has played both modes can attest that HMM is significantly more challenging than ANYTHING in Conquest. You can trivialize almost everything in Conquest with very little effort, whereas you can't do so in FE7 unless you arena abuse and even then, arena abuse carries a degree of risk. Another thing I forgot to point out about FE7 is the Tactician Rank, which also adds another dimension to the challenge for those who want the best possible rank. You conveniently ignored that in your comparisons, as well as the final stage having a boss gauntlet with units who have maxed out stats and legendary weapons. So while you continue to prattle on and on about how FE7 uses unpromoted enemies, you conveniently miss that point. You also fail to mention that the enemy stats in Conquest are abysmally low, and comparing Chapter numbers is exceedingly stupid because FE7 has more chapters than Conquest. Eliwood's first Chapter is Chapter 11, so you're conveniently missing the fact that of course it takes longer for FE7 to start using promoted enemies, it's a LONGER game! You can't possibly look more silly to me now. Chapter 18 on FE7 is still using unpromoted enemy units because that's technically only chapter 7. Please continue to cherry pick more so I can laugh at you a little harder. While I'm at it, I have to ask why does it even matter if there's unpromoted units? FE7 throws larger numbers of enemies at you, so it's fair to assume more of them will be unpromoted. Chapter 18 of Conquest has about 30 or so enemies while Chapter 21 of Eliwood's has over 40, some of which are reinforcements.

FE7 is less stat dependent? That's a good laugh. Tell that to any speed runner who had to memorize the RNG for the best possible stat gains. FE7 is just as stat dependent as any other FE game, possibly more. The stat boosters actually matter in FE7 cause most units don't have ridiculously broken level ups like they do in Conquest, so you NEED them to help other units keep up. Granted, this is precisely why Conquest has more promoted units: The game knows you have an army of gods. But FE7 has less because the devs knew that your units probably aren't rocking maxed out stats. In other words, the unpromoted units are a by-product of the lower stat gains. Those unpromoted units that you drone on and on about are still a threat because even if your units are promoted, most of them probably aren't capping out. An unpromoted archer is still going to be a threat because your whole unit isn't full of OP characters. At best you may have a couple of OP units, but that won't balance out the fact you're up against 40+ enemies who can rip you to shreds. Using the fact Conquest has more promoted enemies as "proof" that it's a harder game is absolutely, 100% ridiculous when you factor in how much more powerful you are in Conquest overall. Between the weapons, the skills, and the OP stat gains, the game HAS to use more promoted units just to keep up. It does not reflect in no way that the game is harder. It just means the game has to up the stakes to keep itself challenging (which Awakening did not do). FE7 has weaker units so naturally, you're fighting weaker enemies by comparison. Duh. How is that proof that it's an easier game? You're skipping a lot of context while floundering to try and form a coherent argument in favor of Conquest and it's pathetic.

As I said, just the fact those casual modes exist is reason enough to say Conquest is easier, because as you said, no incentive at ALL to play Classic. I could literally sum it up as that and be done with it, but I like to overachieve. In light of everything I just said, I'm going to say that no, Conquest is not the hardest, and using the fact it has more promoted units is one of the stupidest arguments I've seen so far to support the idea that it's harder. If you want me to agree it's harder than Awakening? Sure. By a long shot. But FE7? No. Because it's simply not true. You're going to have to keep trying harder if you want to establish that fact. When Conquest gives you so many powerful weapons, units, and skills to make you more powerful, you can't realistically argue that it's somehow harder for having more promoted enemies. That's just friggin' dumb. I mean, you count Canis and his Luna tome as a reason FE7 is easier but ignore all the crazy skills in Conquest (Luna, Aigis, etc) that make it easier? Holy crap.

So in summary, let us analyze everything Conquest does to make itself EASIER:
-Ridiculously high stat gains
-Ridiculously powerful weapons
-Insanely powerful skills
-Niles
-Casual modes still exist
-Infinite weapon durability
-Pair up
-Reclassing

The only things it has that make it potentially harder:
-More promoted enemies

That's it. Literally that's it, and that's the whole argument you've been clinging to in a desperate attempt to put Conquest up on a pedestal. Conquest on Normal is a friggin' cakewalk. FE7 on Normal is not. End of story. Even people who aren't good at strategy games can beat Conquest on Hard/Classic, while the same can't be said for FE7. There's a REASON so many newer fans gravitated towards Awakening and Fates, and that's because it's EASIER! Stop being in denial. You're just embarrassing yourself. You didn't even respond to most of my points and just shrugged your shoulders and whined about how further arguing is a waste of time. I actually agree. You ARE wasting your time. You're trying to make an impossible argument. Just save yourself some time and stop.

@LArachelDisciple Beruka not because I hate hear, but Setsuna is awesome and takumi is a cry baby so I used her, but the power level is incomparable and matters a lot in lunatic. And I have both radiant games but a HD collection or even a eShop release would be awesome.

@BulbasaurusRex Oh yeah I do agree, I hate durability in FE, it's a staple, but is bad. I hope that they make FESwitch a middle of the road just like you said.

@Onion How did you now bring Casual mode? The only way to bring back characters to life is in the casual mode. And I agree with @CrazedCavalier Conquest is way harder than any FE since Thracia. FE6 come close but a lot is because of some bad map designs, by the way FE6 is very bad and nobody complain about it. How that can be?
FE7 Lyn can kill any enemy at max level.
FE8 Eternal grind just like Awakening
FE9 Besides 3 characters every other character is very strong.
FE10 Easier than 9 the only reason people think that is hard is because the error in the difficult translation
FE11 **** Shadow Dragon
FE12 Shadow Dragon corrected, but it's very easy. Casual mode starts here.
FE13 Easy as 8
FE14 - Birthright Just like 13 and 8
Conquest Hard as hell (AKA Thracia)
Revelation on par with Path to Radiance.
Man I respect your opinion since we're both fans but you're being blinded by rage over changes.

I hardly think that Awakening of Fates are perfect, but the Character Design is superb, the stroy is great or at least good, a lot of characters are amazing, the strategy is functional or even amazing, the game is great to play. We will get 3 Fire Emblems (Echoes, Warriors e FE15) in 2 years so I suggest that you, as a fan, enjoy.

@Frank90

I stand corrected, a worse argument for Conquest supposedly being harder has just been presented. "Lyn can kill any enemy at max level"? Really? I don't even have anything to say to that one. It's just beyond stupid, and barely has anything to do at all with my above post. So that's about all I'm saying about that. I could go into vivid detail as to why this is so astronomically stupid, but it'd be like using an atom bomb to swat a fly. It's just... not necessary. Think what you want, dude. I doubt you even made it through Lyn mode with reasoning that bad.

Also... the story is good? Okay. If you say so. I know how to pick and choose my arguments and this is one case where I'm simply not going to bother.

@Frank90 Watch it--- SD's my favorite game in the series. And lots of people like FE6 as well.
I'm not sure what reason you have to get on me; FE's never had very good storytelling, but Awakening and Fates scrape the bottom of the barrel. But I appreciate the game designers and their efforts in taking a broken mess of a game (Awakening) and making a refined, mechanically sound experience (Fates).

@Onion Dude. I'm fairly active within the fanbase. Virtually everybody says Conquest is the hardest game in the series since Thracia. And by the same token, most hold FE7 as pretty easy if you know what you're doing.

Guess what?
-Enemies have higher stats that match your units
-Of all units, you single out Niles? He's not bad, but not great either (bows have a disadvantage against magic, making his niche of mage killer not so great)
-The legendary weapons are no more powerful than silver weapons in previous games
-Most skills aren't really game-changers. And guess what? Enemies have skills too. Often ones outside of their class set that help them out even more
-No weapon durability doesn't make things easier; it just tones down micromanaging
-Pair-up has been heavily nerfed and enemies can use it to
-Reclassing is of limited use, and oh yeah enemies get skills outside their class set so it evens things out
-Casual mode's existence does not make the experience easier; heck, I use Casual mode for the ability to fire off the occasional battle save. I reset when a unit dies, and that's the metric of difficulty I'm using here

"Conquest on Normal is a friggin' cakewalk. FE7 on Normal is not. End of story. Even people who aren't good at strategy games can beat Conquest on Hard/Classic, while the same can't be said for FE7."

Conquest on normal is closer to Eliwood Hard than normal mode. And that last statement is pathetic. I have seen playthroughs of Conquest on Hard from people who have played nearly every single game in the franchise and there were plenty of points where they struggled.

So, let me tell you something: Stop being in denial. You're embarrassing yourself. You're wasting your time trying to make an impossible argument. Save yourself some time and whatever sanity you may possibly have and just stop.

@Frank90

Yeah, watch it! He can't handle differing opinions! You'll trigger him. (That said I dunno, FE6 and Shadow Dragon's aren't my faves either.)

@CrazedCavalier

Oh really? The fanbase agrees it's harder? The voices in your head don't count.

https://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?/topic/59635-conquests-normal-difficulty/

Literally a topic full of people basically confirming that Conquest is easy enough even for a newcomer to beat on normal difficulty, so keep trying. Literally a guy in that topic admitting he could beat Conquest on Hard/Classic without being that good. One guy said it was even easier than Awakening in some ways. So yeah.

Enemies have higher stats? Yeah, no. Some do, most don't. Some of the BOSSES can't even match your units, let alone the friggin' enemies. I singled out NIles because of Kidnap, pay attention. I even said as much.
Skills aren't game changers? Your delusions are growing. Being able to halve damage or ignore enemy defense is pretty big, and you can't do that at ALL in FE7. You singled out Canas for his Luna tome but then turn around and won't acknowledge the fact there's a Luna skill that activates extremely often in Conquest? Yup. Sounds like cherry picking to me. Weapon durability absolutely makes things easier because you no longer have to think about how often to use your weapons. They don't break, so you can use them at will. It's not rocket science. You'll be less likely to use a weapon with only 20 uses and only use it in situations where you need it.
I know Pair Up was toned down, and I'm aware enemies use it, but their usage of pair up actually makes them more predictable, is still broken, and still isn't available in FE7 where the closest thing are supports.
Casual Mode DOES make a difference, because by your own admission, there's no incentive to play Classic. Just the existence of the OPTION is enough to say FE7 is the harder game, simply because FE7 doesn't have it. You can take the easy way out of Conquest, you can't do so in FE7 or any other FE prior to 12. If you play on Casual mode, you've automatically lost your own argument, dude.
Conquest on Hard still can't even compare to FE7 on normal, so no. Go back to casual mode. As I keep saying (and you keep ignoring), the very fact you have access to absurdly powerful skills, pair up, and ridiculous stat gains makes Conquest easier than FE7 (and probably 10) by default. All you get in FE7 are the bare essentials to survive on. You can't put together ridiculous skill sets and breeze through the game the same way you can on Conquest, so keep playing on Casual and trying to argue about things you don't understand. As I said, Hector Hard Mode > Hard on Conquest. I MAY be willing to bend my argument and say Hard Conquest and Normal FE7 are equal, but that's as far as I'd go cause Hard Conquest does have some rough spots near the end when the difficulty spikes up, but overall still found it easier than FE7. This is to say nothing of games like FE4 which are even more challenging than FE7 and put Conquest to shame.
Repeating my own post doesn't make your argument any better, it's actually pretty flattering!

@Onion Normal/Casual if you don't care about losing units is going to be a cakewalk, certainly. Actually playing good, on the other hand... .
You're picking and choosing-- just because the lowest difficulty is easier doesn't invalidate higher difficulties.

Guess what? Bosses and enemies have skills too. Nobody playable on Conquest can debuff defense by six points or decrease stats and deal guaranteed damage on top of what they were dealing.

I single out Canas and Luna because he can make the final boss a complete joke (on top of virtually every other enemy).

Enemies always are slightly inferior to playable characters bar lunatic-- FE7's even worse in that department.

You basically never had to worry about weapon uses in the older games-- you just chose the right weapon for the job and made sure to restock it when it was about to break.

And how on earth does firing off the odd battle save make me lose my own argument? Heck, the fact that I find it harder with battle saves than FE7 is without them should be a testament to its difficulty.

@CrazedCavalier SD is your favorite? Really? I never heard anybody saying it. I really don't like the way to get the gaiden chapters or recruit tons of great chracters. I like Shin Monsho no Nazo but SD deserves a better remake. And I love FE6 but FE7 is better in every single way.
And I just marked you because I was in agreement with you that Conquest is the hardest thing in years.

@Frank90 To me, Gaiden chapters were there so that bad players could be given a bit of a crutch with some fanfare. Of course, it ran counter to completionism and you can't have that apparently.

Either way, how about we both just ignore the root vegetable of a commenter and be on our way?

@CrazedCavalier @Frank90

I never heard anyone say anything good about SD either, to be honest. I do kinda like FE6 though. Also I ain't a root vegetable, and even I were, I'm more sentient than the both of ya.

Anyway I'm well aware that normal/casual is easier, but so is normal/classic, which is my whole point. If you play Conquest on the default settings, it IS MOST CERTAINLY easier than FE7 by default. That's why I stated I may be willing to agree that Conquest on Hard/Classic MIGHT be AS HARD as FE7 on normal, but being more difficult? Nah. HHM pretty much trumps Conquest on all difficulties anyway.

I know bosses and enemies have skills, but with some rare exceptions, they don't aid the bosses nearly as much as they do the players. I know there's a few exceptions, but aside from those, most bosses do not come close to matching the player whereas most bosses in FE7 not only match you, but also surpass you. This is especially true of almost any of the Four Fangs, as well as Sonia, etc.. enemies CERTAINLY don't come anywhere near the player in Conquest, whereas FE7 has both unpromoted and prepromoted units who can give you a bad day if you let them.

As for Canas, that's some seriously bad logic and your argument continues to worsen and worsen by the post. You could just as easily argue that for Athos. Having a character who makes the last map easier does not make FE7 any easier than Conquest, especially when Conquest has more than its share of OP units who can make final maps a breeze. Canas isn't anymore OP than anyone with the Luna skill anyway and the idea of ONE character somehow breaking game balance to that extent is laughable. So you're basically faulting one game for a problem and then conveniently ignoring another game which does the SAME thing. or are you going to try and argue that the MC is completely and 100% balanced and not OP in any way? Knowing you, probably.

As for enemies being inferior, now you're backtracking. You literally just said a few hours ago that enemies match your units, but now admit that they're "slightly" inferior. I think playing on Casual so much has damaged your brain cells.

As for weapon usage, that's only half true. For iron and steel? Yeah. All it meant was having to go back and buy a replacement or use one of the dozens probably in stock. I'm not talking about iron and steel, I'm talking about silver, killer, brave, etc weapons. The Luna Tome you love to nitpick so much has uses too and once it breaks, your precious Canas can't do much to help. Besides that, almost every unit in Conquest is AS STRONG as Canas with Luna (if not outright stronger, which they usually are), which means you're basically playing with 15 Canas on Conquest. And yet it's somehow harder than FE7. Okay.

But yeah. Admitting to using casual mode kinda damages your own argument because you're claiming Conquest is harder than FE7 while you're literally playing on a mode meant for newbies. You're basically admitting to playing on scrub mode and then trying to tell me about difficulty in FE7. I beat Hector Hard Mode, son. I know what I'm talking about when I say FE7 is HARDER than Conquest. You tried to argue that Conquest is harder than HHM and that's such an outrageous claim, I definitely had to call it into question. Conquest is at best a match for FE7 on Hard/Classic but the fact it has so many difficulty lowering options (casual mode, phoenix mode) make it far easier than FE7 Keep playing on casual mode lolz cause you got no leg to stand on here. Period.

@Onion @CrazedCavalier

@Onion I don't know about FE7, but the lack of weapon durability is supposed to be balanced (were it not for the broken forging system) by the fact that any weapon beyond Iron is a lot harder to obtain in "Fates" than it is in "Awakening" (at least without grinding that DLC weapon map that's so difficult that you'd have to get through most of the game to have the necessary stats to get much out of it, anyway). So yeah, you don't have to worry about holding back on using that Silver or Brave weapon, but not very many of your units are going to even have one to use at all.

I also have to agree that the existence of Casual Mode has no bearing on a difficulty debate. If you think it's too easy, just don't play it. It's entirely optional. More options is almost never a bad thing.

@BulbasaurusRex

It matters because one game has a wealth of options to make the game easier while the other does not. Conquest has not one but TWO optional modes designed to make the game easier. FE7 has none. You can't realistically claim Conquest is harder than FE7 when it comes with so many ways to make it easier. This automatically makes Conquest easier. Also, someone playing on Casual automatically loses the right to try and claim one game is harder than the other when they deliberately play on an easier difficulty. Mid-map saving is not an excuse anymore than save scumming in Xcom is. Bottom line, one game has a wealth of options designed to make it easier for super casual players, the other does not. It shouldn't take a degree to figure out which one is easier overall. Even without casual mode, Conquest is still easier, but the fact it exists doesn't help at all. You can take the easy way out in Conquest (the supposedly harder game) but not FE7. What kind of sense does that make? The one with all the easier modes of play is harder than the one that doesn't have them? Okay sure, makes a whole lot of sense.

To be honest, it doesn't matter that much anyway. The bulk of my argument isn't about Casual mode, I'm just saying that IN ADDITION to the normal mode being a cakewalk, there's also Casual and Phoenix Mode. I'm not basing my whole argument on the existence of Casual mode. That'd be stupid.

EDIT: To further elaborate on my distaste for casual mode, it takes out the strategy element of the game. If someone picks that mode, they're essentially playing turn based Dynasty Warriors. You remove ALL the risk from the game. That's not what FE was all about. If someone wants to play on casual, fine. But don't turn around and try to herald the game as the hardest in the franchise when you're sitting there playing on Baby Mode. I also want to point out that the fact you can change from Classic to Casual IN MID GAME is a HUGE detractor in the challenge department, because you can in fact change to Casual to get by a hard map. How does that NOT affect the difficulty? Even if you don't do that, the fact it's possible is seriously bad. It automatically makes that game easier. On top of that, by switching to Casual, any dead units come back to life. Wow what a challenging game, right? These optional modes don't hurt anything and do increase accessibility, but as I keep saying, their existence makes the game easier overall even if you don't use it.

@Onion You're supposed to be comparing the games on the same difficulty level, such as Normal vs. Normal/Classic or Hard vs. Hard/Classic. Casual and Phoenix modes aren't even part of the discussion, since as you said FE7 has no comparitive modes. Those players who use those extra modes WANT the game to be easier. Those who are trying to find the more difficult game to suit their tastes are never going to even bother with those extra modes, except for a means to do battle saving.

Speaking of which, if you had listened to CrazedCavilier's explanation, he's not using Casual Mode to take advantage of the respawns, only for the ability to do in-battle saving. Whenever he loses a unit, he restarts the level, essentially making it a pseudo-Classic Mode with battle saves.

Like it or not, Casual Mode helped saved the franchise. I certainly enjoy using it, as I find permadeath to be an overly difficult and frustrating mechanic. It does NOT make the games a cakewalk except on Normal difficulty, which I play first in order to get through the game quickly to see the story and recruit all the bonus units. My second playthrough is on Hard/Casual, where it does take some strategy to get through the levels (after the intro levels) without losing all your units.

Yes, I'm aware that Casual Mode was only a small part of your argument, but as I've never played FE7, I could only respond to the parts of your argument that are affected by my own personal experiences.

@BulbasaurusRex

We've already compared games on the same difficulty, that ship has sailed dude. The whole debate up above covers everything, the only thing I'd be doing is repeating evrything I've already said when all I have to do is point to my above posts and the crazed cavaliers. I'm not really going to repeat EVERYTHING I've said just to repeat an argument I've already had and more or less appears to have settled. The only part I'm going to respond to is a point not yet addressed in this topic. If you can't argue much in the way of for or against FE7 vs Conquest, then you honestly shouldn't be getting involved at all because that's a pretty big part of this debate.

Casual mode had less to do with "Saving" the franchise and it was more due to the fact Awakening was the only one Nintendo actually marketed. Awakening had tons of marketing. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only game in the series to get anywhere near that amount of sales is also the only one Nintendo halfway tried to market. Even if dumbing down game mechanics saved the franchise, it did so at the cost of the franchise's integrity and at the cost of frustrating some long-time fans of the series. Awakening was basically Baby's First SRPG and while Conquest helps a lot, it's still pretty easy and dumbed down in comparison to past games. The fact is, if people found durability and permadeath to be intimidating, then FE is not the franchise for them. From Software doesn't compromise the Souls games for newcomers and neither should Intelligent Systems with Fire Emblem. It makes me sick to hear all these people talk about how they became FE fans once permadeath was removed via Casual Mode. Permadeath was a hallmark of FE and if people didn't like it, they shouldn't play FE. Period. Xcom and Dark Souls didn't compromise and those franchises sale EXCEEDINGLY well. The stunts pulled in Awakening would not fly with any other fanbase except Nintendo, a company well known for dumbing down and simplifying their games for their increasingly casual fanbase. Combine all of that with a crappy mobile game and it's pretty obvious that FE is no longer a game for the hardcore audience and has become casual anime waifu crap with less emphasis on strategy and more emphasis on pairing up and having magic future babies. Yeah, suffice to say, that's not the FE I remember.

Basically, I grew up in a time where games demanded you get good before you beat them. Today, everything has to be "accessible" and it just bugs me. The stuff games do today would be considered "cheat codes" back in the day. I feel like there's too many easy modes nowadays and Nintendo is the worst offender, with Fi in Skyward Sword telling you how to solve puzzles and Mario games pretty much playing themselves for you.

@BulbasaurusRex It's impossible to win an argument with a fool; just ignore the vegetable and let him rot.

@Onion - Now I have to disagree on your assessment of Awakening. Before Awakening I played Fire Emblem and Sacred Stones on GBA, Path of Radiance on Gamecube, and Radiant Dawn on Wii.

I really don't understand the "dumbing down" of Awakening. I'm not super hardcore, I play on regular difficulty but tend to not let anyone die. I find that a solid challenge. IMO, Path of Radiance and Sacred Stones were both easier than Awakening.

What exactly are people talking about when they say Awakening was "dumbed down"? I'm asking out of complete curiosity. I'm curious to know how my experience with this series differs from others.

Day one for me!

@Action51

Basically, you can grind infinite amounts of EXP in Awakening, enemy units are just overall weaker, player units have insanely high growth rates and get perfect level ups way too often, the skills break game balance, Pair Up ruins any and all challenge Awakening ever had (fixed in Fates), weapon rank almost doesn't matter, no weapon weight/CON to worry about, map design is overall really simple, and even something as simple as recruitment doesn't require much skill or tactics as almost everyone is recruited by using Chrom as opposed to other games where you need to use someone else (such as a weak thief having to recruit someone which puts him in danger the whole time.). In a nutshell, the whole depth of strategy is gone. Basically a myriad of things that would take too long to really go too in-depth about and people already hassle me for doing walls of text as it is. Conquest DOES improve it a lot, I'm in agreement about that much.

The existence of Casual mode doesn't help matters because permadeath is such a core part of FE, taking it out goes too far IMO. Phoenix Mode is even more ridiculous. I know these are to make it "accessible" but it annoys me and FE is supposed to be known for being challenging, yet the recent games (Conquest aside) have had no challenge at all. It's impossible to argue that it's not dumbed down because even if you don't use Casual Mode or Phoenix Mode, they're still there. They still exist. They still take ALL the challenge out if someone uses them. FE games were never back breakingly difficult (4 and 5 aside) but they were never this friggin' easy. If you look at the Dark Souls series, that series didn't compromise at all for accessibility and it gets showered in praise. Even my friends who NEVER played FE before complained that Awakening was too easy and look at me like "I thought you said FE was hard?". It's kinda embarrassing how much easier Awakening is than FE7 and earlier.

I can't agree that PoR is easier than Awakening or Sacred Stones, but I do agree those two games were also pretty easy and a lot of people had HUGE issues with Sacred Stones, so my opinion is hardly a new thing. I personally like SS, but it was definitely on the easy side. I played on default difficulty for Awakening and found it way, way too easy. Even if you do have a rough spot in Awakening, you can just grind away, which is also true in Sacred Stones, but not Path of Radiance, which by the way, was also dumbed down for US/EU players. The Japanese version was much harder, and as you can guess, I'm not too happy about THAT either. But what can ya do?

Also, good on you for handling an opposing opinion without attacking me. That shows a lot of maturity. (Although I have to admit, I am getting a little tired of this subject now.)

@Onion - That's quite a dissertation, but I remember finding Path of Radiance to be the easiest and Awakening to be one of the harder games.
(Radiant Dawn being the hardest by far)

I don't mind the ability to grind, but I agree there should be limits, like have some smaller optional battles to help level people up.

As far as the pairing goes, I thought it made things a little harder in some ways. The EXP balance grew even more severe between the heavy weapon tanks and healer/mage units.

I think a lot of this comes down to play style.

@Action51

That's a pretty fair assessment, and FE games DO depend a lot on personal playstyle, luck, and all sorts of factors which coined "Personal experience means nothing". I mostly base my opinion on the fact PoR is much more strict on resources than Awakening and has generally less OP units, plus some of the maps have some pretty challenging items to acquire such as needing Reyson to get one of the bands, and so on. There's a lot of factors to consider. Since you didn't attack me over my opinion, I'd say we can just agree to disagree on Awakening's difficulty. Although I will say, that the exp loss is almost irrelevant with how much EXP there is to go around in Awakening.

Which brings me to a point that dawned on me just now while I was playing some random SNES games. This whole thing was caused by me simply sharing an observation that many gamers have made before with other games. Castlevania IV for example was easier than CV1 and 3, Mega Man 2 was easier than 1 (although MM3 was back to being pretty challenging), Sonic 2 is (arguably) easier than 1, so on... yet no one gets bent out of shape over that. I make almost the SAME assessment about Awakening and Fates and it results in all this needless flak and backlash, with people calling me "pathetic" and "fool". This isn't the first time, either, which leads me to believe the FE community has gotten real screwed up. People pointed out how much easier Sacred Stones was than FE7 and no one cared. You could argue it's because I used the term "dumbed down" but with Awakening having Casual mode and Fates having Phoenix Mode, it's hard to argue otherwise, optional modes or not. Contra 4 didn't have anything like that. It had an easier difficulty setting sure, but if you chose it, you couldn't access the whole game. You can pick Casual or Phoenix Mode with no consequence at all pretty much, even the crazed cavalier admits that much. I'm not saying people can't play those modes, but these modes certainly take away all the challenge and even go against the core of the game. Also I think it's kind of insulting to the new fans, like IS assumes that the new fans need all these easy modes. Phoenix Mode in particular is just a slap in the face. Who on earth would pick that?

Hmm... Maybe the next FE should impose some kind of limit on using the casual modes of play, or make classic more appealing in some way. Maybe have a unit or two exclusive to Classic? I dunno, starting to think Konami had the right idea with how they worked difficulty. Either way, this discussion has basically died so, I probably won't persist anymore past this point. I think the monkeys have stopped pelting me with their anal waste now, so I can safely exit the scene without coming back to more insults about the onion people (which is pretty racist by the way. Onions are people too!).

@Onion - Well, I do still disagree that the inclusion of the casual modes is insulting or takes away from the standard and more difficult modes.

Gamers today don't have the decades of experience grinding their tolerance for difficulty against Castlevania or beating Contra with and without the 30 man code...(still haven't beaten Gradius without the Konami cheat code though!)

I don't mind if people with less skills want to enjoy a Fire Emblem game, as long as I still have a skill level properly balanced for me and other long time players.

Hell, I can't handle the higher difficulty levels beyond the first few scenarios myself...normal difficulty is just about right for me, and I am challenged by it.