Jump to content

MuteMousou

Member
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Pronouns
    She/Her

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Thracia 776

Recent Profile Visitors

111 profile views
  1. It can be either depending on who we are talking about. Sort of the main idea is that I think 1. FE6 makes more sense to play first story-wise because FE7 was made after FE6 and most likely intended as a supplement to it. 2. I think you can start with either FE6 or FE7 whether you are new or a returning player, but that the English community in general overlooks FE6 as a potential starter for either group, which I disagree with.
  2. I think we are talking about different things as far as what "show don't tell" means. I consider story integration of gameplay explanations to be far different than magical disembodied text that breaks the 4th wall, and generally prefer the former. I also think the tutorial houses in the early games are a good way of incorporating things because people will probably visit them and returning players won't need to see them. As for actual "show versus tell," fe3 and fe4 do not really tell you how to directly approach anything at all at any point, they kind of just tell you things that would otherwise be impossible to know if you want to know them but you're otherwise kind of just expected to be fine, which I think is good, as the first chapters of the SFC games are not difficult at all. In particular fe4 prologue shows you the importance of villages, terrain, castles, etc, as well as what you can expect from the game because your only option from the beginning is to just throw sigurd at the enemies, which goes well, so the player is probably going to realize how that will work well in the future. There are a lot of good examples here of showing you how the game works without verbally telling you, in my opinion. I do agree that different games will require different kinds of tutorialization, but I just don't really see how it is going to be that insanely different between action games and non action games. There are plenty of times you can not be sure what to do in an action game, if you consider games like the Tales games or Star Ocean to be action games, these are not easy at all to understand as a newcomer, and I would maybe say they require more understanding to get started than any FE game. Sure, you can just mash buttons at enemies and attack them, but this will not be very effective usually, and you need to understand the other mechanics of the game before you can have any idea of what to do to actually get anywhere. On the other hand, I still don't see how it is that hard to just press buttons in a turn based game and figure out what is going on, the commands are literally labeled according to what they will do, "attack" "rescue" "defend," and so on. In any case I think you could almost argue it's easier to figure out what to do with them than action games sometimes. The deep mechanics that the player needs to work to understand exist in strategy games just like they exist in action games, sure, you could say it takes more effort usually to understand the more complicated parts of an SRPG, (there are still dumb things like this in dark souls such as different enemy resistances, i-frames, weapon requirement scaling, etc) but I don't think this is really to a degree to where it drastically changes what you can expect the player can figure out to the point that you have to completely change your philosophy on how you convey things to them.
  3. I don't quite get your point about the boat maps not working well or what this has to do with show versus tell, if the devs learned a lesson from that, I'm not sure what you mean because the 3 games after that also don't have a verbal tutorial. I think that developer quote is kind of stupid considering action games aren't really that simple, knowing how to do one thing by pressing one button doesn't inform you of any of the mechanics of the game, I really question if that developer actually understood anything about how action games work. By the same logic, you could find out that pressing buttons in an SRPG causes certain things to happen and figure out the game that way, it's not like SRPGS are like in some undecipherable code that you need to bring up a key to even begin to understand what is going on.
  4. Well, of course it can have bad consequences? I really need to put into perspective just how unnecessary most of the things given to you in every FE game are in order to complete the game, most players aren't going to be using like 80% of fe6 characters in a single playthrough, and you're probably not going to be using every durability of every weapon, staff, and consumable you get. Most players are going to end the game with like 200 or so items in their convoy that they never use. The scenario you're describing seems nearly impossible for any player to do outside of like, a literal 5 year old playing a video game for the first time, a boomer who has never played a game in their life, or just any random gamer who has no interest in seriously playing an SRPG. People will generally bother to try to understand the game if they have any interest in playing it.
  5. I don't really think this is a fair comparison as fe6 is not that hard early on, you don't need to have an entire handhold consequence-free section for the player to understand that there are consequences for them making mistakes. Fe6 normal is not like, that hard, finishing an FE game in general definitely doesn't assume perfect play, as long as you make it to the end with the lord alive, you finished the game, you don't need to save every item and have every character survive to the end, the games were designed specifically around this, which is why people always note the phenomenon of FE games always tending to get easier as they go on, this is because you weren't generally expected to just have a group of ultra strong units survive to the end, you were more expected to just have some of them die along the way and continue with the game.
  6. That is kind of far and away from what I was talking about. You don't have to see the good ending on the first playthrough, if you really want to then just play the game again. If they want to avoid this kind of thing happening then someone else can spoil it for them. This is still quite a stretch away from what we were talking about anyway since we were talking about how losing items affects gameplay and not how it affects something far more complicated like what game ending you get, both endings are an ending regardless and items breaking locking you out of an ending is far different from them breaking and them not being usable in gameplay. I think this is a strange way to say this would be a problem for fe6 because fe6 arguably is designed more around the expectation that the player will lose units than any other game barring fe1/3 consideringt how many characters are in it. If people die then they can just use other characters that they get the next chapter, it won't be insanely hard or anything. This was always kind of an intended thing is that bad players will have the option of just using new characters instead of resetting for every death.
  7. Characters dying or wasting useful items is part of the game and the game is generally designed around the fact that players will have these things happen. You can waste useful things or lose important items in basically every game with any kind of inventory system but that doesn't mean that the game should need to take extra special care of telling the player that since it should be evident when items are finite or can be lost in some way.
  8. You could say this about literally anything in any game. "First time dark souls players might not understand the concept of equip weight affecting roll speed or weapon stat requirements, then that means it must be verbally explained to the player in a series of text popups." There are points in almost any game where players cannot be sure what something can do or how they use it, and it is up to the game to make this evident in a creative way to the player, for example, the first fe2 levels are actually a very good tutorial for terrain, because anyone who is paying attention would realize that hit changes based on the terrain a unit is on, and you would pretty easily notice this even as a new time player, I feel like we are sometimes riding on the perception that we must bring down the pacing of the entire game just off of the chance that maybe a few players will not understand whatever mechanic on their own. If there are players that want everything verbally explained to them, this is what having optional explanations or using the internet is for, the entire game does not need to be designed around the tiny amount of people who wouldn't understand what is going on even if the game pretty deliberately shows what a mechanic does through good tutorializing. Gamers generally hate wall of text tutorials anyway so I think in general people would probably prefer less talking and more actual video game. I also appreciate games that don't barrage me with walls of text even if I'm new. Even though Berwick saga isn't a game I fully understand still, I still think the early chapters seem to explain the mechanics pretty well, and I think I prefer this over a slow forced tutorial, the thing is even if the game verbally explained everything I doubt it would increase my understanding of the game at all. But in general I just enjoy games more that have some respect for my ability to think on my own, of course I am only one person but that's the case for everyone who plays video games.
  9. I remember the fates tutorial level with Xander also does this haha. It is a bit strange in this instance also considering that Awakening was more of a "soft reboot" game than fates and did not have such a tutorial, on top of the fact that it's generally easier than Fates.
  10. I'm not sure how much of the removed mechanics and QoL from fe5 to fe6 are actually because of system limitations. They did a pretty good job getting it to work on the GBA though, i just don't really like gba music or the fact that map animations are kind of lame in gba compared to fe3-5
  11. The thing is I think that tutorializing through having the player forced into something and explaining literally everything is always worse than just showing you what you should pay attention to through gameplay alone, it could be a ridiculously easy level but as long as it relays something important to the player through how it uses the game's mechanics, it doesn't really matter how easy it is. If you first present a situation to them where they actually have to recognize something on their own, I think it will be better kept in their mind versus being told that something is important and not being given the actual normal gameplay context to understand why it's important.
  12. Personally I agree, but I don't think that necessarily tells whether the game is better to start with versus fe7 for any random person. I mean, I don't really understand your point. Difficulty being subjective just means certain people will find things difficult where others won't, which is an objective fact that people just tend to look at things differently.
  13. I'm not saying there is like an objectively better way to play the game or anything, like certainly the games that are supplements to other games always give the context to understand what the hell is going on at least to some degree without having played/read/whatever the other thing beforehand, as anything should do. My entire point is that, given that it was made before and takes place in the same world, that I think that is reasonable that the developers probably intended at least in some respect to have the game that came first be the one that was played first, as it was obviously intended that the latter game was made with fans of the first in mind. Also note that there are things that you won't understand the intended significance of at all if you haven't played fe6, such as the epilogue scene where you won't get what the hell the significance of Roy, Lilina and Zephiel are if you don't know that fe7 is a prequel, the only real point of some of these scenes is to tie the game into fe6, which will be completely meaningless to someone who hasn't played that game. I don't know if i necessarily agree with the statement that because people liked the game that this means the tutorial wasn't especially offensive. The thing in general is that it is completely skippable for Japanese players who have a save file of fe6, but it is impossible to ever skip as an English player unless you finish the game twice (or more? not sure if this is correct) which in itself I thinks shows the flaw in how Japanese developers understood English audiences at the time, branching all the way back to the reason super mario brothers 2 wasn't initially released outside of Japan. I don't believe the super long and tedious tutorial was actually necessary for new players because three houses is a much more popular game with a much less intrusive tutorial.
  14. I don't know how I'm supposed to know what this has to do with anything I said or how this is the case if you don't give any reason for why. The fact of posting a DDR song on its own actually goes against your own point for multiple reasons. 1. It's a rhythm game, rhythm games can be understood easily, probably more than any other type of game, by literally just watching someone play the game, it's not that hard to understand in most cases. 2. Showing a difficult song does not pertain at all to whether or not a tutorial is good or how a particular part of the game is good at showing you what certain things do. A hard rhythm game song is often as conceptually easy to understand as an easy rhythm game song, it's the exact same mechanics (unless there are some mechanics introduced in harder songs, which usually are few and don't always exist) except it's just literally more of the same mechanic. There's usually not much being thrown in there that challenges your basic understanding of the game, it's just the same thing as before but more mechanically difficult to perform, because that's really all rhythm games are, a test of how mechanically good you are at something. So, your entire point is moot there unless you were under the impression that I was implying that something such as the fe5 final chapter should be a place to tutorialize a player to understand the basic mechanics of the game, and even then, it doesn't even apply in your example if what we're talking about is a game's ability to convey the basic mechanics to you in some way, because it's not like there's much meaningful difference in being able to conceptually understand what is happening in a difficult DDR track versus an easy one. Now, if you're talking about if it would be completable by a new player, of course not, but would it make much meaningful difference in conveying how the game works to a spectator? Probably not. If you did believe that I thought any random point in any game should be used to inform the player of the basic mechanics, my only reasonable response is to think that you were perhaps purposely bad faith misinterpreting what I was saying. I mean maybe I am biased on the difficulty of fe7 for various reasons which I could be convinced of, but I don't really care at least in this context because it's not really integral to my main point, it's still relatively easy compared to a lot of the games in the series anyway, and tons of people have wildly different takes on what game is the easiest/hardest for various reasons, all of which can be equally valid sometimes, but that's a different topic anyway. So I asked "why is it relevant" and then your reason is "because you whine about something being easy," as if that answers the question at all. The entire point has nothing to do with hard mode I mean, you can say I don't understand things and tell me that I should keep something to myself, but when you explain this by not actually giving any reason to support this claim and instead support all of this with a bunch of irrelevant things that either wildly misinterpret what I was saying or don't even directly matter in the context of what we were talking about, then I'm going to have to say that you shouldn't bother coming into this being as performatively arrogant and preemptively dismissive as you are if you weren't going to attempt to actually present anything worth listening to
  15. I do think if you just used Marcus/Oswin/Hector or something on every enemy in fe7 normal you would run into very few issues over the game. Obviously the difficulty is subjective again, but there's definitely newer games I wouldn't recommend to certain people not because they're difficult, but moreso how easy they are or the immaturity of the settings sometimes (I wouldn't necessary call 3h an immature game but there's plenty of people who are tired of the school setting, and justifiably so, I think.) Of course, this would require some effort, but if they wanted to they could play fe6 then play fe7 with a save transfer so they can skip lyn mode and do eliwood or hector hard mode (i'm not sure if a save transfer can unlock hard modes in the JP version but you could still just download a save from the internet for the ENG version). Idk if anyone has made an english patch for the japanese version of fe7 but that's the thing is I wish you had the option to skip lyn mode in English if you wanted like in the JP version. The Japanese version is still more challenging on normal mode also due to increased weapon effectiveness and fe6 thrones existing in the game, in particular I recall the Cog of Destiny boss is a lot more difficult in JP compared to English. So I think the game definitely considered the idea of returning players playing it looking for a challenge in Japanese, the thing is this is removed from the English version, so I think if people really wanted they can start from fe6 and still get a challenge from fe7.
×
×
  • Create New...