Jump to content

scigeek101

Member
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by scigeek101

  1. I disagree. Republicans still control slightly less than half of congress as well as a large proportion of the population. We simply don't have the luxury of dismissing them.
  2. I don't see the metaphor as applicable at all. But for the sake of discussion I'll entertain it. You certainly do want to avoid angering your partner in an abusive relationship when you are in an immediate risk of danger. As confronting them when they are violent is not usually a good idea without taking steps to distance yourself first. So better first to deescalate and get to a safe position before taking action. Unlike this metaphor though neither party in the US is a singular monolith and are instead composed of many different people with differeing opinions. And we don't have the liberty of simply divorcing the Republican party and living apart.
  3. Yes but be that as it may we must be very careful not to drive these wedges in farther than they are. As they continue to work their way deeper into political discourse they make it all the more difficult for people to consider crossing the gap for issues that they believe in and prevents our democracy from functioning. Very scant few issues are wholly black and white even if there is a rationally justifiable "correct" side. I fear lampooning and ridicule outside the sphere of comedians only serves to drive the wedge in deeper. Some people simply will not listen to arguments or change their mind and are wholly unreasonable true, but others are always watching trying to decide what side they are on, I feel like there isn't much of any benefit to lampoon and redicule in political discourse rather than simply validate ones owns position at the expense of alienating the undecided.
  4. Well they already are if republican primaries are anything to go by. If anything I think a 3rd party would be beneficial to the Democrats as even if they are in the minority they might still be able to eaque out a win in a 3 way election if the Republicans are split. I'd be more worried if they don't split off than if they do. Official party leadership no. The Democrats have still managed to maintain control. The closest to the fringe who has anything resembling a mothpiece is AOC. The fringe on the Democratic side does not have a united front. They've largely spun off into 3rd parties. Currently I'd argue the fringe elements that get the most Republican attention are the wannabe bolshevik revolutionaries who have tried to themselves to currently the BLM movement and before that the Occupy Wall street movement. Groups like Antifa. Various environmental extremest groups though they have largely been surpressed in recent years following terrorist attacks by ELF in the 1990's and early 2000's. None of these have upset the balance of power within the Democratic party in the same way MAGA types have. But that won't stop the Republicans from using them as wedges to dissuade voters from associating themselves with these groups due to "perceived ties to the democratic party". While I don't think they are equivalent. Similar arguments are used by both sides to convince their side not to vote for the other side. I don't really see campaigns as all that different across party lines. The song is different but the tune is the same. So I'm quite worried that they might backfire on the Democrats in a similar manner to the Republicans if we aren't careful.
  5. This is my opinion. What source do you want for an opinion? Here's a recent news article on republican support for the capitol "protests" https://www.newsweek.com/45-percent-republican-voters-support-storming-capitol-1559662 Most Republicans do not support the kind of violence that happened at the Capitol. Though a troublingly high amount do according to this poll. The party is very much split along these lines. But it's not a monolith. In many ways I think Trump is using this as his own wedge to spin off his supporters from their usual Fox News consumption habits towards whatever it is he decides to do. After all if you get all your customers believing that all other sources are "Fake News" you can get them to believe anything. You are already seeing this as hard-right elements of the Republican part are abandoning Fox News for being too liberal. Instead turning to sources like News Max or World Net Daily which make Fox News look like the communist manifesto in comparison. You can also read this article here that touches on wedge issues and their consequences. https://www.theatlantic.com/membership/archive/2017/12/the-irresistible-effectiveness-of-wedge-politics/547946/
  6. It's been a problem for a lot longer than that I think. And I don't think this is something that is unique to the Republicans either. It's just that they keep pushing the envelope and this kind of thing has been snowballing. It's resulted in not simply having slick politicians using this to try to rile up voters. After decades of it people have grown up being fed this and they wholeheartedly believe it and are running for office and winning on these platforms. But I see similar trends forming in the democratic party as well and it very much concerns me that this division will simply continue to escalate until there is no hope of reconciliation or co-existence without violence. They do. And it's getting worse, but I still think this line of thinking is itself part of that wedge that's been driven through the center. The vast majority of people in both parties are still very reasonable people who don't condone fringe elements. But the fringe elements are growing stronger and any semblance of common ground is collapsing. I think with the Democrats the party leadership still is primarily centrist in their views but if they aren't careful there I think a similar reckoning to the wedge politics will come for them as it came for the Republicans and you'll see the party shift away from that and towards the more fringe elements, which pushes more and more reasonable people to be forced to choose a camp and radicalize their own views in light of social pressures. Currently I think social media is the biggest element in this, but media in general I feel is contributing as it is simply more profitable to report on outrage than it is to report more objectively which I fear is having a feedback on our society and pushing people more towards extremism. In both directions. Largely based on fear of the other guy. I agree but I think we have to heal it or else it will continue to plague us going forward.
  7. While I agree that we shouldn't allow the reaction to totally dictate policy making, I do think we need to focus on what policies are realistically implementable in the long term. Currently we have a game of political football going on where executive orders are punted back and forth as administrations change. I believe there is one abortion related funding order that flips with each successive president since the Clinton era at the least. I think this is done more for visibility and political leverage than actually making functional policy, but I do strongly believe this kind of unstable policy making is far more damaging to society in the long term than a less effective but more stable policies that can last across administrations. Let's not forget the Republican hold almost identical views on the democrats and had you substituted Obama for Trump here we'd have something that would be right at home as a Fox News opinion piece. I don't think continuing as we have will lead to any kind of functional solutions here. The political dynamic will need to change if we don't want to be repeating history every 4-8 years with more "excitement" in each cycle as we have been for decades now. I don't think our current dynamic is sustainable and our political landscape will see massive shifts as the baby boomers start dying off. I doubt either party will exist in its modern form in 30 years time. But who knows. There is kind of a stranglehold on any 3rd parties gaining much relavence due to the way the 2 party system works. I don't see a patriot party having much relavence beyond a single election cycle. There's been talk of this sort of thing for years now. These are definitely big concerns. But the flow of disinformation works both ways. Extreme and fringe elements of both parties are magnified and made to look mainstream in an attempt to scare people into voting for the other guy. Rather than actually focusing on effective policies, it's much more expedient to simply bring out the "fear vote". I think far more troubling and endemic than the white supremacist groups is the religious extremist wing of the Republican party. They have been syphoning off non-active voters for years by pushing the fear narrative. It's only gotten worse as social media has pushed a lot of otherwise incompatible groups together under a similar banner. Most of the troublesome fringe groups you see online like the anti-vax camp have existed since the 90's at least in some form. They've only gotten more coverage and linked with other fringe groups to create the kind of unified conspiracy theory like Q-anon is. But the undercurrent has been there for years and I don't see it improving anytime soon. If anything nothing motivates voters to get off the couch and stop watching cable news than telling them their children will be eaten alive. Or they'll go to hell if they vote the wrong guy. The white nationalists in my experience are extremely fringe and are not particularly popular even with the more extreme religious segments of the party. They tend to be ostracized outside of a few regions where they have clout due to historical reasons.
  8. While the potential to do so exists I'd very much question whether the long term ramifications of such actions are worth it. Obama did this on healthcare and the end result ended up being an inability to get most anything done following the mid term elections, which left us essentially in the same place as we were before that was passed. Somethings improved, some things got worse, but the system ended up deadlocked for most the rest of his presidency and was one of the primary factors that lead to the rise of Trump and his victory in 2016. I think if Biden pushes too hard here it can only end with more sectarian violence from the fringes and mainstream backlash from the opposition which will be another ripe situation for someone similar to Trump to be able to take advantage of again.
  9. Very much doubt that, if Trump tries to run again it will be a Ross Perot type situation. He'll likely split the Republican party right down the middle and make the united Democratic front stronger in comparison than a split Republican party. The real fun comes in if a candidate fails to get a simple majority of electoral votes in a 3 way split. That'll make previous electoral college complaints look tame in comparison.
  10. I'd wager "back end developer wanted" is what they mean.
  11. Hard mode certainly provided me with enough of a challenge on my first playthrough especially on earlier maps. Later on once I was more comfortable with this games mechanics I basically snowballed and cruised through most of the latter half of the game but it never felt so easy that I could just completely ungore bad tactics. Especially with beasts and bossrs. It was a pretty good difficulty overall I think. New game plus was a different matter entirely basically slaughtered my second run. I feel like if you skip a lot of the auxiliary battles and keep your levels close to the recommended level for the chapters it's fairly engaging. I do appreciate the inability to grind forever but again NG+ gives you a huge advantage at the beginning it's less fun.
  12. If feel like it's been the amalgamation of several groups and trends that have been around for decades at least. The current religious conservative movement in the US can mind of be traced back to the Satanic Panic of the 1980's and I feel like it's escalated since then. Though perhaps some of it can be traced back to religious fallout after RvW mobilizing voters who would otherwise not be voting in bloc as we see today. Single issue voters are the glue holding them together. It'll be whack a mole for a bit but I highly suspect Trump plans to spin off his own social media and news service after this.
  13. Agreed but that leaves violence as the only option to deal with terrorists. Also agreed but this is very much the state of popular political discourse at the moment. Well I think it's because they are getting riled up on social media and Trump's and other extreme partisan Republicans attempts to gain political power by playing into people's fears. But the why isn't very important. Whether the beliefs are legitimate or not they are real to the people that hold them and that makes the situation very dangerous. I get the suscint impression that a lot of people in government really just don't understand what makes these people tick and their responses to them only serve to make the situation worse. Like the fact checking blurbs on Facebook, people who have decided to believe in conspiracies have already decided not to believe anything that proves their conspiracies wrong. There are more effective ways of placating them and dispelling the conspiracies that don't pour more fuel on the fire so to speak. Currently most certainly not on Trumps side. The question is what happens as time goes on? The supreme court was never supposed to be partisan yet it's consistently stacked by each administration. As partisanship escalates it will slowly creep into all aspects of government if not stopped.
  14. This is of course assuming that those people share your values. Terrorists are viewed as revolutionaries and freedom fighters in their own ranks. If you aren't careful you can serve to embolden more to their cause. These people feel as if democracy has failed them. But not even just that, they believe that their vote is not counted or heard. The truth of the matter is irrelevant to them as their belief in whether it's true or not is all that they care about, they'll reject facts and evidence as propaganda outright if it doesn't fit their preconceptions of the situation, and if enough people believe this and feel that democratic methods cannot be used to implement their political will. They will resort to other methods. Riots, violence etc. People in the US like to think that these movements are more fringe than they are but there are increasingly large cracks forming betwern various groups and the us vs them mentality is causing more and more people to vote in candidates that further the political divide. I really can't see this ending well if things continue along their present trends. Seems like the US is on course for a Civil War again if it hits the point where about half the country believes the current government is illegitimate and that their views are not represented. Very similar to what happened the last time. I don't think we have an issue as regionally divisive like slavery was at the time right now. But I do see an increasingly strong divide between rural and urban areas. I strongly feel that if trends continue as they are for another 10 or 20 years the US might hit a point of no return where a Civil War is inevitable. I don't think anyone wants that, but I feel the short term interests of many people in Washington including President Trump are taking heavy precedence over long term stability concerns that will continue to grow until they are too big to ignore any longer.
  15. I saw a ghost while driving once. Admittingly I was extremely tired and shouldn't have been driving. Other people I learned later saw a ghost in the same area. Said to be the spirit of someone who died in a car accident or something. I knew nothing of this at the time so it was surprising since I don't believe in ghosts. I think there is something to these sightings, some part of the unconscious brain that interprets threats or takes input and make you think there is something there when there is not. Think like the process of a dream bleading into your concious mind.
  16. Yeah you'd need to have perfect knowledge of all languages to be able to make any kind of judgment. The best you can hope for is a comparison list of a small group of languages. But bias from the native language isn't exactly the right word. It has something more to do with brain development when you are a kid. Your brain isn't predisposed to any particular language but you will over time learn to filter out meaningful inputs from inputs that have no meaning and these tend to become set for most people. It's one of the reasons why direct translations really suck. For individual sentences you often have to add or remove information for them to make sense in the target language. But this all tends to balance out over the course of a long passage or conversation for instance. But there really aren't one to one correspondence between even simple things like noun meanings when you want to get into it. It's like the "is cereal a soup" question. Cereal isn't a soup, because our culture has decided it's not. But if you want to get into pendantic arguments sure, it could be considered one. A wasp and a bee are different insects but if you are speaking Japanese they aren't. Blue and Green we can both agree on the meaning but what color is this 🚦? Japanese will give you a different answer than an American. But this is because the Japanese word for 青 overlaps between the English Blue and Green and the textbook only pics one since there is anotjer word that is more green but not another word for blue.
  17. I definitely think you could make a pretty authoritative list of language difficulty based on the number of hours needed to reach fluency. But there are a few problems. One is the definition of fluency needs to be established and I don't think an objective definition can truly exist. We would also need to decide whether literacy is important. (I would argue that the spoken and written word are different enough they should be treated as separate skills entirely but you can't truly reach mastery in one without the other in practice imho) I also think you need to divide the list up depending on at the very least the language family the learner is coming from, but their native language is better. There's a lot of debate over say, what romance languages are easier than others for English speakers to learn. Is Spanish easier than French? How about Italian? It's hard to judge. But we can almost certainly say they are easier to learn than German. Which is much much easier to learn than Chinese, Korean or Japanese. But what about if we are in the case of a Japanese native speaker? Korean is the easiest for them because of its grammatical similarities and proximity. Chinese is again quite difficult because of tones but the grammar and writing are of no real consequence as they share a literary history akin to how English shares one with French and Latin. You get to the European languages and the Japanese speaker will have difficulties with grammar, pronunciations, etc. Spanish might still be easier for the Japanese learner over English, but by this point the distinction has become largely academic. It's of no coincidence that Japanese often have poor English skills compared to Europeans. It's simply that the languages are much more alien to each other than languages that developed in closer contact. Esperanto is an interesting example. I love the idea of constructed languages but I don't think they are universally feasible. Esperanto is very eurocentric not that it's a bad thing that it is, the creator was european after all, but the language is of much less use for it's intended purpose once you start moving to the more far flung language families. Modern Chinese is interesting because it shares several aspects of a constructed language. I do believe Mandarin of today was developed from the kind of court language that was used in China to facilitate the communication across their vast empire where many dialects bled the lines between what was and was not an entirely different language. It's really not much different than Europe in that regard where the church and the language of Latin was used as a kind of universal communication tool among the educated. I agree that Japanese is a very easy language when it comes to pronunciation. Beyond that though, I think that even if we ignore the writing system, Japanese is an extremely difficult language for English speakers to learn with a slew of concepts that are alien to English. Irregular verbs are extremely uncommon but you make up for it with different verbs for different level of politeness that change depending on who you speak to, verb conjugations (adjective conguations as well) that delve into a number of concepts that are grammatically alien to English. Volitional? Passive? Causitive? Causitive-passive? That thing they do where your verb ending changes based on whether or not you've seen something with your own eyes or whether or not it's 2nd hand information. Once you wrap your head around them they aren't so bad as the conjugations are regular. But these concepts are difficult to grasp for native English speakers sometimes and even they line between what is and isn't a verb conjugation or a separate word is blurry. Hell that's another debate entirely is what exactly a Japanese "word" is, it's not like English they don't have spaces to clearly delineate. Then there are particles and the need to differentiate wether or not your subject is a subject or a topic. Or even whether or not to include a subject at all. Then there's the issue of homophones and the downsides to the double edged sword of no tones and simple pronunciation means there are only about 50 sounds in the language so a lot of words sound the same or very similar. Then there is the kicker if you want to get really far down the rabbit hole. Contrary to popular opinion, there are essentially "tones" in Japanese. Not anything like Chinese. Japanese only has two, and it's not that big of a deal if you get one wrong. But it's still really hard to understand people if the, shall we say rhythm of their speech deviates from the norm too much. Writing system is just the preverbial tip of the iceberg.
  18. Yeah it's all true. I just think people tend to have an opinion that some languages are innately harder than others but I think that most languages tend to more or less evolve and balance out to approximately the same level of difficulty to their native speakers. They are all a bit different though. I think that languages really just meet the needs of their speakers. Some obscure tribal languages have really bizarre qualities because they serve a small community and haven't evolved to encompass certain concepts that you need in a large civilization. Like I recall studying one Amazonian language that didn't really have words for numbers beyond a singular and a plural. Of course they'd have a way to express a concept like "3", but it would have to be done like "1 and 1 and 1" or something like that. They didn't need a word for it because their society didn't have a need to express numbers often or in large quantities. I think they only had a hundred people or so. But when it comes to our modern societies they are all fairly similar in a lot of regards so things tend to be fairly similar across languages when all is said and done. But the manner in which they accomplish their goals can very wildly. Spelling is a weird one because it seems a fairly unique to english problem. In terms of difficulty I'd say it's about on par with Chinese characters ultimately but the learning curve is reversed. English writing has fewer elements but more ways to combine them. Chinese has more elements but less variety in it's combinations if that makes sense? Granted there are enough exceptions and weirdness that any oversimplification like this really doesn't do anything much justice.
  19. Sure sure I get crunch time is hard and it's impossible to fit in everything when you are on a deadline. In the end I think I'd rather have a bit unpolished but hefty Fire Emblem game than one that's super polished but not substantial. Three Houses definitely has a lot of good going for it, but you can tell they cut some corners and padded it a bit where it was lacking. The only thing I really want to complain about it is the graphics. They suck. Not important to the game so much but can we please just go back to sprites? Imagine how awesome a sprite based FE would be on modern hardware without memory limitations? Surely you can just draw the art almost straight into the game now no? Tile based map designs is fine. But imagine what the GBA battle animations would be like with HD sprite work.
  20. I know right? I thought the Japanese name was bizzare until I played the game and you know, it kind of fits, but they really don't have those little touches that make you feel like time is really passing. I still think something like "Seasons of War" or something to that effect would have been a much better title if only they'd stick to that theming at least visually. Mechanics wise don't need much of anything special but just snow in the winter months or leaves changing in the summer, anything really would have been greatly welcome. Playing the same maps over and over would be less boring if they changed ever so slightly between the seasons. Maybe the river is frozen and everyone can cross it? Maybe the Forest isn't as thick in the spring? Idk. Something would have been nice. Still like the game though it just feels half assed at times. Path of Radiance did better to give that feeling and that wasn't even the point of that game. You invade Daien in the winter and it's spring when you finish.
  21. My viewpoint on this has always been that it's basically the equivalent of a spelling bee. No English speaker can possibly know or be able to spell perfectly every word off the top of their head so we have contests for the obscure ones. Likewise to a Japanese person the idea of a spelling bee would be utterly bizzare to them in their language since words are written the way they sound 99.9% of the time with few exceptions. For that matter Spanish or German spelling bees would also make little sense. Modern Japanese has had a number of "spelling reforms" over the years including some of the same "simplified characters" that you see with Chinese. It's why you've got words like Yen with an initial Ye sound despite that not really existing in modern Japanese anymore. The old way of writing it and pronouncing it stuck in the west but it's not reflective of how it's currently written or pronounced in Japan. Most of the redundant kana were removed after WWII except for づ because of it's use in certain Kanji compounds. Likewise character standardizations similar to Chinese resulted in characters like 國 or 會 being simplified to 国 and 会 though the simplified forms were already in wide use for handwriting and were based on older I believe Ming Dynasty era varients that had been in use. Originally Japanese would have been entirely written using borrowed Chinese characters, some Buddhist monks devised a system of phonetic notation for sutras based on Kanji radicals and that became Katakana. Hiragana came about as a heavily stylized cursive style of phonetic Kanji that was supposed to be easy for women to learn but eventually saw widespread adoption. Though before WWII Katakana was still the standard script in use for most public material. Chinese character reform is ankther interesting topic but unfortunately I know far less about that. I believe it is said that the First Emperor of China implemented a standardized set of characters throughout his empire to facilitate communication compared to the old way of every region having different characters for their different dialects. Much later on following the communist revolution something like a 4 step plan was put in place to gradually phase out characters and replace them with "Pinyin" or romanization of Chinese. I believe the example was to move along, for example the character for car changed something like [車 车 che] with the total romanization being the final step, and the middle steps being the gradual replacement of certain characters with others over a 40 year period if memory serves. However ultimately this language reform was halted following the initial step. Resulting in a number of common characters and radicals simplified but the vast majority of characters being left alone. I think this is because it was realized that when romanized fully Chinese becomes difficult to understand and slower to read. The initial education requirements for literacy are very high but there are a number of benefits after you learn it such as being able to better understand certain terms by "sight" where similar words would be difficult to grasp if written in romanization. Chinese is to Japanese as Latin and Greek is to English so I'll give an example. Unicycle, if you are unfamiliar with the word, might not be readily understandable if you don't know the root Uni meaning one and cycle meaning wheel. Ichirinsha, the Japanese word for unicycle is equally difficult to understand on sight if you don't know the meaning on sight. But the Kanji 一(one)輪(wheel)車(car) you can get an idea of what it means if you know the meaning of the elements that make it. For common items this isn't a big deal but for more obscure things like scientific terms, medical terms, or legal terms this can naturally be a pretty good benefit to comprehension. It really isn't something that carries into spoken language and is only apparent in the written script. There are too many homophones and similar sounding words in Japanese and Chinese that it makes a romanization a bit obtuse and unwieldy to use. I feel like Korean and Vietnamese both suffer from this a bit. But I am admittingly quite shit at both of those languages. Some people will say that the post revolution language reforms were primarily intended to make it difficult for the laymen to access pre-revolution literature without party approval, and I think there is definitely some truth to that, but I seriously doubt that is the primary reason for it's implementation and subsequent failure.
  22. I agree with most all of it. The monestary really felt half assed. I remember getting to the winter and being like "they don't even bother to do different seasons" it's disappointing as sin. A menu would have been just as good. My castle was maybe one of the best parts of Fates. I wish they had developed that more. I like the idea of customizing your own map and being able to do some PVP on it. Overall I don't think the general idea behind the monestary or explorable camp is necessarily bad. But you need to have a variety of locations or a much smaller location that has everything closer rather than just going through the same damn building 50+ times on the course of a playthrough. Monestary should have had at least 4 different seasonal changes to make the game seem like time was advancing. And it really should have just gone away in the 2nd half and just been replaced with a war encampment. A few tents in a 10th of the space could easily have the same stuff as the monestary crammed in there. Plus you could just swap out the landscapes and make it seem like you are traveling even if you are just using the same tents over and over again. It vastly outwore it's welcome post timeskip.
  23. Don't most Fire Emblem games allow you to get into an unwinnable scenario? Like you could throw all your items away and save or other idiot moves. Like I think that you can screw yourself out of the ending in classic mode in pretty much every game that doesn't have optional battle grinding (awakening) if you aren't careful. For example in FE1 if you don't get Falchion and let Tiki die, you might have a really bad time with the final boss. Maybe Gotoh can handle it but it can be rough if you don't have enough strong units left alive. FE3 if you aren't prepared for that long mid game drought of shops for several chapters you might be in for a rough experience. FE7 if you're one of those players who lost everyone but the lord's the final chapter might be a real challenge. Hell they made it easier on the American version for this reason. Now how much you can screw yourself unintentionally. I don't know. I suspect it's going to be pretty hard to get into an unwinnable state without intentionally trying on normal difficulties. But the harder difficulties? Pretty sure the unwinnable state is something that's a possibility on most games. Like Shadow Dragon H5 if you don't know what you are doing and let too many people die there's the whole problem of not being able to kill the bosses on the first few chapters. That's definitely an unwinnable state that would be pretty easy to stumble into inadvertently. And I think that Three Houses might be a real problem if you let a lot of your units die since replacements are as readily available as some games.
  24. I'd argue that in general. The middle difficulty is usually the "intended" difficulty regardless of what it's called. But really I don't think there is a real "default" difficulty. The easiest difficulty is there and intended for new players to the series or people not confident in their skills yet. The next one up from that is for veterans or SRPG fans that will get bored on an easier difficulty. The harder difficulties are for people who want to replay the game and want extra challenge. I don't think they are at all intended for blind runs. You have to know what you are doing or you'll screw yourself. Weird difficulty naming decisions aside. They don't want to call easy mode easy anymore because people have too much pride and will play on Normal instead and then complain about it being way to hard like what happened with Radiant Dawn (that and the difficulty names were translated wrong) I think it's the same for any long running series like this, if you are good at games and familiar with the mechanics the easiest difficulty should be a bore to you and something harder needs to be provided. Alternatively having the easy difficulties is great to ease new players into learning the game. I think it's much better than stuff like the casual modes which start to mess with the core game mechanics of Fire Emblem. Regardless. As long as the games difficulties aren't being balanced assumptions that people are playing on casual, I'm fine with the options being there. Casual in Lunatic difficulties for example can be a nice change up from normal since the game is how hard enough that casual mode doesn't completely trivialize it but does make bad RNG a bit more palatable if you don't want to do a really serious playthrough. In general I feel the more options given the better off we are. I do think though that various challenge modes should be added. A no pair up mode in Awakening for example would have made the game more interesting. And I think going forward an ironman option in addition to casual and classic could go a long way to making the developers be concious of balancing the game around the various play styles.
  25. Yeah I feel like Fire Emblem has only gotten easier in the sense that the games have been made to be less frustrating and punishing towards new players. I think the old Fire Emblem games were easier than the newer ones overall but they didn't seem that way since you had limited options and permadeath meant you either restart the whole chapter or you move on. Harder to finish without losing anyone? Probably. Harder to finish in general? Debatable. I thought Three Houses had some pretty hard bits that would have been very frustrating if it weren't for divine pulse. I do think it's fair to say that the easier difficulties of the newer games are pretty much way easier than the old games where you didn't have difficulty options. But even then each game since Radiant Dawn has essentially racked up the difficulty with new insane hard modes. If you look at the games from the easiest difficulty available they've gotten easier over time. But from the hardest difficulty avaible the recent games are much much harder than the old ones. However you slice it they have just given more options to play the games however you want.
×
×
  • Create New...