• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

'New' or 'Old' Fire Emblem?

'New' or 'Old' FE?

  • New

  • Old

  • Can't decide

Results are only viewable after voting.


Zofian General
Jun 28, 2017
Ram Village, Zofia
A common debate in the FE community is which games are better, 'New' or 'Old.' To keep everything the same in this thread, anything Before Awakening is old. That means Awakening and after it is new.

Which do you like better, old or new?

Though please give Awakening credit for saving the series. It really did save it.
Before Awakening for me.

I wanna say though... yeah Awakening 'saved' the series... but only because Nintendo finally gave an FE a worldwide release with enough copies to go around. Being in England finding and FE game before Awakening was like finding gold dust. The fact that anything before Awakening on any other console goes for near triple figures (even the Wii one) when you find one in stores just shows how rare they are around here and why I could never play one growing up.

So at least in england, yeah Awakening saved FE... only because people could actually buy the ****ing thing.

That aside I've enjoyed FE's stories and characters much more in games before Awakening. And Fates was ****ing awful in the wriring department and the DLC was a con and it just wasn't very good overall, also **** Echoes for the DLC being more expensive than the damn game.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not too big on emulating games so the four FE games that I've actually played were games that were actually released in the United States. Echoes I guess can be considered old, since it is a remake/remaster, and Sacred Stones can be considered old-ish too, since the threshold people seem to be using is Awakening. So, I really can't say I have much an opinion because I lack sufficient data.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom