What do you think makes good gameplay design in Fire Emblem hacks?

[MarkyJoe1990]

I think we can all agree that the value of story varies from game to game, and that for Fire Emblem, story isn't nearly as important as the gameplay. No need to draw out this debate out further. This topic is specifically about gameplay regarding Fire Emblem, and not the value of story in a game.

EDIT: MOST of us can agree that story isn't nearly as important as gameplay for Fire Emblem, not all... Either way, I don't want to continue discussion about story, since it's irrelevant to the topic.

Edited January 15, 2013 by MarkyJoe1990

[Chocolate Kitty]

How is it irrelevant when the topic is "what do you think makes good design in fire emblem hacks"?

The thread was made to obvious involve debates and discussions, stopping them for no apparent reason because you disagree with the issue is just dumb.

[MarkyJoe1990]

How is it irrelevant when the topic is "what do you think makes good design in fire emblem hacks"?

The thread was made to obvious involve debates and discussions, stopping them for no apparent reason because you disagree with the issue is just dumb.

When I say "good design", I meant the gameplay, and only the gameplay. I'll change the topic title to suit this so there's no further confusion.

[Chocolate Kitty]

When I say "good design", I meant the gameplay, and only the gameplay. I'll change the topic title to suit this so there's no further confusion.

Probably should have clarified that a long time ago...

[eclipse]

- Figure out your target audience. Some people like to turtle, while others like to LTC things. Use this to help design your game.

- FE4 Chapter 2 was full of surprises, and not the kind of surprises I find fun (i.e. a ton of backtracking).

- Don't expect players stats/levels to be some arbitrary number. RNG blessing/screwage happens, so take that into account when dropping enemies!

- Do think about what your player should have in inventory, and don't rely on players to do things like map shop before a chapter (FORT RIGWALD I AM LOOKING AT YOU)

- Balance danger and reward. For example, if you plan on having a lot of earlygame enemies, make promotional items available earlier.

That's what comes to mind when I play through hacks.

[Raven]

I think something that compliments all styles of play is good. And the implementation of new methods to advance/complete chapters to keep things fresh and different is always welcome.

[Gone2Ground]

I'm just going to go ahead and copy the list Mark Rosewater (Head designer for Magic: The Gathering) has for game design in general, then add in FEHacking specifics:

1. A Goal or Goals

"How does your player win?"

This also goes hand-in-hand with MJ1990's post on incentive for the most part, although it forms the bare bones of that incentive. "I want to beat this chapter" should be the goal of the hack, or to do it in 10 turns or less for a gaiden mission.

2. Rules/Restrictions

"Restrictions are an important part of your game. Reaching your goal should not be easy."

As far as hacks go, most people playing them will be familiar with the FE games to the extent of playing Hard Mode more often than not. Therefore, most hacks can be expected to be difficult, and the best way to do this isn't to just ramp everything up, but to introduce interesting restrictions. Limit your weapon usage, fill exploit holes, don't let the pegasus knight be broken. Stuff like that.

3. Interaction

"There needs to be some part of your game that makes players react"

Don't let them turtle, make the hack play so that the player is always on edge, wondering what happens next, where they could come from, and more importantly what could go wrong. Force them to be, if not necessarily aggressive, at least fluid.

4. A Catch-Up Feature

"There needs to be a way for players who have fallen behind to catch up. A game becomes frustrating if a player feels like he or she has no chance to win"

Don't make your hack impossible. Give them a way out somehow, be it through a village infodump or an overpowered character in the endgame COUGHAthosCOUGH.

5. Inertia

"There needs to be something in your game that moves it along towards completion. You have to have something built into your game that makes sure it ends."

Basically, more incentive. But like was mentioned earlier, use an NPC to force movement, or a story to make you care about progressing.

6. Surprise

"There need to be elements of your game that the players cannot predict. People enjoy being surprised. You have to make sure your game has moments that are unexpected"

This can range from plot twists to reinforcements to new allies to a sudden trap or a map change.

7. Strategy

"The reason people like playing games again is that they want to use knowledge from past games to do better in future games."

Make a map with enough differences that there are multiple approaches to it, so that now the player is aware of reinforcements and so on they can approach it from a different angle if they have to. Reward them for finding a different angle, don't deny it.

8. Fun

"If your game isn't fun to play, people won't want to play it"

This should be obvious. But still, make sure your hack is fun to play. People play differently (I actually enjoy turtling and seeing the armies of my opponents shattered upon my impenetrable wall of defense satisfied in a job well done) and it needs to be fun for all of them. Don't force one playstyle, or you'll alienate some of your playerbase and hurt the replay value of your hack.

9. Flavor

"A game wants to have a trapping. It wants to be about something."

In recent years, all video games have become more and more about the story. I could sit here and write an essay about them, or you can acknowledge this fact and plan out an engaging story and characters. One thing to remember while doing this is that cliches are not bad as long as they are done well (The Dresden Files and Belgariad were both deliberately written around tropes, and are both enjoyable books), but bad cliches are still no-where near as cringeworthy as a bad attempt at something original. Make sure you know where you are going with your story, and try to fill in plot holes. Get a beta reader or an editor for your script. Make sure your characters all have a flaw and a strength to make them realistic. Perfection is unachievable IRL, so why should a fictional character be perfect?

10. A Hook

"If you want people to play your game, there has to be something about it that encourages people to want to try it."

Is your hack story-based or just meant to be really hard? Sacred Contention is obviously just meant to appeal to those who argue about FE7 vs FE8, and use that as a gameplay mechanic, while The Last Promise uses story as its main incentive (From what I've seen, Blazer - sorry if it isn't meant to be!). Find what your hack is going to do, and make sure people know it's that.

Anyway, there's my two cents.

[NobodiePichu]

interesting characters [bosses included], consistent graphics, linear plot, and nice music are always good to have.

also a change in things like the stats of enemy characters as its bothersome to me when I see the same freaking stats

from fe7 for the mercenary class.

[Gone2Ground]

its bothersome to me when I see the same freaking stats

This.

Just this.

[MarkyJoe1990]

After being disappointed with Dream of Five, I've come to realize that there's a consistent trait what I don't like in level design.

Before now, I was sure the only two uninteresting strategies were bait 'n switch, and turtling, but now I'm starting to realize that I also hate dog piling; a strategy where you group all your units together, using them solely to overpower the enemy forces by the shear density of your firepower.

When I played Dondon's hack - which was a while ago - I found it's trial and error gameplay to be frustrating. However, one thing it did magnificently well in it's first level was that I was forced to distribute my fire power in order to achieve success. Every unit's existence mattered, because they had to be somewhere at a certain time, and their unique skills would determine where you'd want to place them. I think that's why the map works so well. It's simplistic, but everytime I restarted the chapter, I thought about where I placed my units and how I could further optimize my strategy.

I think what turned me off so much about Dream of Five is that there was almost never a reason to split up my troops. Chapter 2 had two villages and one unit to save, but because the villages weren't in any danger, I just needed to recruit Chester and then dog pile the rest of the enemy squad. Meanwhile, in my restricted playthrough, I enjoyed chapter 6 because every unit I used had a specific purpose; Amelia needed to wipe out the enemy forces at the bottom and fight the boss, Ilanice had to ferry her there, and Renair, having no second pegasus rider to ferry her, had to outlast the enemy troops while she waited for Ilanice so she could seize the castle.

I think that's when I'm enjoying Fire Emblem most, when it's asking me to split up my units and asign them separate roles in order to achieve a common goal.

Edited February 20, 2013 by MarkyJoe1990

[Shugey]

Good level design needs to allow for multiple ways to beat a level, and not just one path that is blatantly designed and other ways that either are way too hard and luck based or break the level entirely. That being said, not every level needs to have multiple paths. I just don't want to have to make sure Unit Y is at Village X by Turn Z.

[CT075]

and then you continue to complain about how ltc is not fun

[MarkyJoe1990]

Good level design needs to allow for multiple ways to beat a level, and not just one path that is blatantly designed and other ways that either are way too hard and luck based or break the level entirely. That being said, not every level needs to have multiple paths. I just don't want to have to make sure Unit Y is at Village X by Turn Z.

Well here's the thing. Villages aren't typically required to beat a level. You COULD choose to use a safer strategy, and lose out on the village prize, or you could be risky and go after it for the prize.

Each strategy has their pros and cons, and each one still means you can beat the chapter, so there are still multiple ways to win.

and then you continue to complain about how ltc is not fun

Looking back, I think it depends on the level. I didn't mind LTCing the first part of my Ragefest submission, in fact that's pretty much how I designed the first part. I actually found it fun, and it probably would've been more so if I didn't design it in such a tedious manner. But then came the second part and... ugh... it's so restrictive, annoying and tedious. It reeks of laziness, like if it's trying to force difficulty down the player's throat by trial and error bullshit, and by clusterfucking them with needlessly powerful enemy units. It was really, really frustrating.

Because of this and Dondon's project, I think my previous stance on LTC is flawed; it's not so much the concept that I should be taking issue with, it's the way the level is designed. If doing things efficiently and quickly doesn't get me any rewards that I'd miss out on otherwise, it feels pointless.

Edited February 21, 2013 by MarkyJoe1990

[Crimson Red]

so close to necro'ing, dude... even though you're the TC it's still scary as hell lol

I like a certain amount of flexibility in the game, personally. I mean, you get to choose which weapons you use, which characters, and potentially stuff like which classes as well. Instead of thinking of it like a puzzle with only one general solution where you have to decide what each unit has to do, try thinking of it more like there's certain things you CAN'T do, or rather, pieces that fit better in some places than other...

To elaborate

it'd kind of stink if I HAD to use a Pegasus Knight to beat a chapter. What if Ilanice died or something? What if I just didn't want to use her? :|

There needs to be some flexibility, IMO.

However, at the same time, you need to have a good variety of units/classes IMO, or else you're hurting yourself. If you DON'T have a good variety, you as a player need to come up with a strategy to make up for your lack of variety units. For instance, if you don't have a Pegasus and need to cross a river, a pirate or berserker might also work. If you don't have an archer to make use of a close by ballistae and shoot down potential enemy threats at long-range (e.g. a pegasus knight), perhaps have a knight that can bait them in, and then finish them off with a nomad or warrior, or perhaps use long-range magic instead. But just going in with say, all magic units? I think that what units you choose is ALSO a part of the general game strategy, so if you choose to use less units, or only a certain type of unit, you're more or less handicapping yourself, and if the game becomes more difficult at that point, IMO it's likely the players fault more than the designer's; while on easy/normal mode of games it may be possible to get away with such feats, in games with either a higher standard difficulty or just harder modes, I think part of the game is kind of thinking for the future and making sure you can win. Sadly, GBAFE games don't really let you grind except for arenas, so IMO there really is a potential for a player to get "stuck" where their combination of trained units just isn't good enough to complete the chapter...

anyhow my point here is just that the designer doesn't have to map out what the player has to do so much what they SHOULDN'T do. You shouldn't neglect to visit the village on time or else it'll get destroyed; you shouldn't neglect to get the chests or kill the thief spawns or you'll miss out on treasure; you shouldn't throw a pegasus knight in front of a ballista or have your units wait on fire tiles. And you shouldn't throw in a cleric at a chokepointunless they're named Tamiko *shotforTLPhealingtankreference*. I think the game becomes too bland when you can throw practically any unit or combination of units and win. It should be more about picking which units to kill and which ones to wait on--which ones are the bigger threats, and which ones aren't as big threats and can perhaps wait until the next turn, keeping in mind that you don't want any of your units to die. That kind of stuff.

Granted actually doing all this stuff takes a lot of time and effort and trial and error so I wouldn't expect it to be designed on a pro-level but in general putting in some thought from the producer's aspect to make the player also put in some thought while playing is, well... a nice thought, isn't it? :P

[Shugey]

Well here's the thing. Villages aren't typically required to beat a level. You COULD choose to use a safer strategy, and lose out on the village prize, or you could be risky and go after it for the prize.

Each strategy has their pros and cons, and each one still means you can beat the chapter, so there are still multiple ways to win.

What I'm trying to say is that I hate when I have to do a part of a level a certain way. I don't like having to say, wait 5 turns for an recruitable Ally to appear when I could beat the chapter before they arrive. Mid-chapter events or recruitments shouldn't conflict with overall completion.

[MarkyJoe1990]

What I'm trying to say is that I hate when I have to do a part of a level a certain way. I don't like having to say, wait 5 turns for an recruitable Ally to appear when I could beat the chapter before they arrive. Mid-chapter events or recruitments shouldn't conflict with overall completion.

Hm... I'm... I kind of see where you're coming from. You're meaning to say "If I'm playing well, I don't want the game to punish me for it". The example you provided kind of sounds like that, at least, since it's a design that punishes the player for beating the chapter too quickly, which is, by proxy, playing well. =X

so close to necro'ing, dude... even though you're the TC it's still scary as hell lol

I like a certain amount of flexibility in the game, personally. I mean, you get to choose which weapons you use, which characters, and potentially stuff like which classes as well. Instead of thinking of it like a puzzle with only one general solution where you have to decide what each unit has to do, try thinking of it more like there's certain things you CAN'T do, or rather, pieces that fit better in some places than other...

To elaborate

it'd kind of stink if I HAD to use a Pegasus Knight to beat a chapter. What if Ilanice died or something? What if I just didn't want to use her? :|

There needs to be some flexibility, IMO.

However, at the same time, you need to have a good variety of units/classes IMO, or else you're hurting yourself. If you DON'T have a good variety, you as a player need to come up with a strategy to make up for your lack of variety units. For instance, if you don't have a Pegasus and need to cross a river, a pirate or berserker might also work. If you don't have an archer to make use of a close by ballistae and shoot down potential enemy threats at long-range (e.g. a pegasus knight), perhaps have a knight that can bait them in, and then finish them off with a nomad or warrior, or perhaps use long-range magic instead. But just going in with say, all magic units? I think that what units you choose is ALSO a part of the general game strategy, so if you choose to use less units, or only a certain type of unit, you're more or less handicapping yourself, and if the game becomes more difficult at that point, IMO it's likely the players fault more than the designer's; while on easy/normal mode of games it may be possible to get away with such feats, in games with either a higher standard difficulty or just harder modes, I think part of the game is kind of thinking for the future and making sure you can win. Sadly, GBAFE games don't really let you grind except for arenas, so IMO there really is a potential for a player to get "stuck" where their combination of trained units just isn't good enough to complete the chapter...

anyhow my point here is just that the designer doesn't have to map out what the player has to do so much what they SHOULDN'T do. You shouldn't neglect to visit the village on time or else it'll get destroyed; you shouldn't neglect to get the chests or kill the thief spawns or you'll miss out on treasure; you shouldn't throw a pegasus knight in front of a ballista or have your units wait on fire tiles. And you shouldn't throw in a cleric at a chokepointunless they're named Tamiko *shotforTLPhealingtankreference*. I think the game becomes too bland when you can throw practically any unit or combination of units and win. It should be more about picking which units to kill and which ones to wait on--which ones are the bigger threats, and which ones aren't as big threats and can perhaps wait until the next turn, keeping in mind that you don't want any of your units to die. That kind of stuff.

Granted actually doing all this stuff takes a lot of time and effort and trial and error so I wouldn't expect it to be designed on a pro-level but in general putting in some thought from the producer's aspect to make the player also put in some thought while playing is, well... a nice thought, isn't it? :P

I don't have much to say in reply to this, since it sounds pretty sensible to me.

I guess in a way, it makes me think like this; "If you don't have X unit, this part isn't impossible, but it's more difficult". Which makes sense to me because it doesn't restrict/punish the player's unit choices so much as provide them with an obstacle they need to deal with as a result of their choice.

Edited February 21, 2013 by MarkyJoe1990

[CT075]

i disagree with the statement that having no returns for finishing faster is necessarily a Bad Thing

people like me play for ltc for the sole purpose of smaller numbers, and if i can ltc and still get every objective all the better

if you don't, that's fine, but who are you to call out the poor level design when the level was created with this philosophy in mind (referring to dondon's hack)? especially since i remember hearing you talk about how hacks try to cater to a large widespread audience and end up missing out on tapping into the niche- don's hack is made specifically for people like me (and the people who hang out in drafts, etc) who enjoy this trial-and-error method? that's just how ltc is played anyway

[MarkyJoe1990]

if you don't, that's fine, but who are you to call out the poor level design when the level was created with this philosophy in mind (referring to dondon's hack)? especially since i remember hearing you talk about how hacks try to cater to a large widespread audience and end up missing out on tapping into the niche- don's hack is made specifically for people like me (and the people who hang out in drafts, etc) who enjoy this trial-and-error method? that's just how ltc is played anyway

Trial and error isn't a good thing. Dondon's game would be better if you didn't pretty much fail everytime a new element was introduced. The last time I played it, I didn't realize Hector was the only one who could recruit the NPCs when it seemed just as sensible to recruit Serra with someone else, like Matthew, a character who has worked with her before, yet for some reason they have taken a vow of silence towards each other, with absolutely no hint that this is the case.

If Dondon's game laid out it's factors before you so that you could focus entirely on making an optimal strategy, it would be a lot better, because then there would be nothing to rudely interrupt the enjoyment of testing out your strategies and watching how they play out. The game's goal is to challenge LTCers while making casual players strain their mind for solutions. If it didn't have these frustrating trial and error factors, it would be a lot more approachable by both factions.

[CT075]

the hack's purpose is to be puzzleFE, and it does that very well

trial-and-error elements in puzzleFE are not bad because that's kind of how puzzleFE works

edit

"it would be more approachable by both factions"

as an ltc player myself (a mediocre one, at best, but also from being in a chatroom of those way better than me) i honestly didn't have a problem with random elements being thrown at me on the first run

that's the whole thing about LTC, there's always a trial run

Edited February 21, 2013 by CT075

[MarkyJoe1990]

the hack's purpose is to be puzzleFE, and it does that very well

trial-and-error elements in puzzleFE are not bad because that's kind of how puzzleFE works

"Because that's kind of how puzzleFE works"

"It's good because... that's just how it is!"

That's not an endearing argument.

What makes puzzles fun is that everything you need to know is laid out in front of you, except for the solution, which you need to contemplate on your own. The only thing that makes you fail is when you make a mistake, or have a flawed plan. When you fail because the game didn't tell you something, or give you any reason to anticipate it, it's the game's fault, not yours, which is a bad design.

Tetris makes it clear what your next piece is going to be, so it's just a matter of planning where it's going to go.

The Adventures of Lolo is a well received action-puzzle game that lays out all the factors of the levels before you. All you need is to think of how you will solve it.

All puzzle games provoke thought and reward well thought out strategies with victory. Dondon's project does that, but only after you've learned all of it's tricks, which you only learn by restarting over and over again after these tricks are inconveniently introduced when you can't recover from them.

Edited February 21, 2013 by MarkyJoe1990

[CT075]

for one, i disagree with your philosophy that 'restarting more is bad'

puzzlefe is fun because you have hte option of trying out strategies again and again until something works

why do all the elements need to be laid out in front of you before you can properly formulate a strategy? i had absolutely no trouble finding ways around the new twists dondon laid out, so your assertion that 'there is no way to recover from element xxx' is also flawed

the entire point of LTCemblem is to work around new twists to figure out the initial clear (the trial run) and then come back to it armed with new info to cut down

i'm not evne going to try and find some objective argument that you'd agree with because, in the end, the audience it was intended for finds it fun

[MarkyJoe1990]

for one, i disagree with your philosophy that 'restarting more is bad'

Alright, let's see how you back up this point...

puzzlefe is fun because you have the option of trying out strategies again and again until something works

Key word here is "option". When the game gives you no way of seeing certain elements coming beforehand and causing you to fail because of such, then it's not an option, it's an obligation that only becomes an option after you find out everything the chapter pitches at you.

why do all the elements need to be laid out in front of you before you can properly formulate a strategy?

Because it's intuitive, and doesn't make the player feel cheated when they fail.

i had absolutely no trouble finding ways around the new twists dondon laid out, so your assertion that 'there is no way to recover from element xxx' is also flawed

Proof please. How many times did you lose because of something in the game you had no way of seeing beforehand? Are you saying you "didn't have trouble" because once you failed solely off of some dues ex machina, then proceeded to make a working strategy around it afterwards? Because that still means you failed because of a cheap design decision that does nothing but pad your gameplay experience, not enhance it. Or... perhaps you're masochistic and like feeling cheated and didn't have "trouble" because you enjoyed the feeling of having to redo the entire chapter over something you had no way of foreseeing?

the entire point of LTCemblem is to work around new twists to figure out the initial clear (the trial run) and then come back to it armed with new info to cut down

This one actually caught me for a bit. I was actually sitting in my chair thinking maybe I was wrong for a short while, but then I remembered something.

When you word it that way, it makes your argument sound more valid, but here's the thing... this has nothing to do with Dondon's sense of intuitive design. You can argue that LTCEmblem is about getting as low a turn count as possible, and that part of the fun of restarting is that now you have new information, but that says absolutely nothing about Dondon's design. Thinking about it closely, I do agree that part of the satisfaction of LTC is restarting each attempt with new information, but it's an emotion that should be naturally induced. The player should be able to say "Well, my turn count wasn't as low as it could be, because my strategy wasn't good enough", not "Well, my turn count was high because the game decided to throw an element at me that I had no way of preparing for".

See where the separation exists? One gives player the feeling that they can improve, and makes them want to achieve it, while the other makes the player feel like it's the game's fault that they failed, and that they don't need to improve their skills and methods, but instead just remember one extra detail that isn't immediately apparent, and prepare for it this time.

I'm not even going to try and find some objective argument that you'd agree with because, in the end, the audience it was intended for finds it fun

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like a sore loser trying to dismiss his opponent just so he doesn't feel like he lost.

Just because people like something doesn't mean it can't be improved on. Take a look at Michael Jackson's album "Thriller". It's the best-selling album of all time, and it's very clear why. It's music is great. However, a few critics complained that it's title song breaks the momentum of the album. Sure, it's still a great album, but the flaw still exists. Additionally, just because someone finds something fun doesn't mean they think it's flawless, or without it's faults. Many people love The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, but many of those same people also dislike certain elements, like the Water Temple.

If you want to call me out on something, don't try to dismiss me when I'm trying to be reasonable with you. I think my complaints are quite valid, yet your own arguments have mainly been "That's just the way it is!" or "That's how it's supposed to be!". Why are you settling for the status quo when you could be going beyond?

Edited February 21, 2013 by MarkyJoe1990

[Crimson Red]

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like a sore loser trying to dismiss his opponent just so he doesn't feel like he lost.

doesn't to me

also I haven't played Dondon's hack but there should always be hints of things to come, total unexpected stuff with no clue as to its coming is kind of annoying. FE13 has notices sometimes but at some point it just kind of expects you to know that reinforcements are going to come from the stairs, forts, etc., and you better either have them blocked or be ready to take the hits, and that's not too bad IMO, since the game introduces you to the concept first, then expects you to implement that/keep it mind while playing on your own.

[MarkyJoe1990]

doesn't to me

I spoke with Cam on skype and he told me he didn't intend for it to be read the way I interpreted it as. S'all just a misunderstanding. My apologies for calling you out like that, Cam, and my apologies to the serenes public as well.

[dondon151]

in my defense the more recent versions of dondonFE are less frustrating mostly because almost all of the ambush spawns have been fixed and important information is printed prior to beginning a chapter.

and in any case i'd appreciate it if y'all stopped calling it "LTCemblem" because LTC is not mandatory to finishing any map.

cam is certainly correct that the point of every map is to collect information and formulate a plan (i believe this is called a "strategy") based on that information. if i could, i would publish an exhaustive list of every reinforcement, item, and conversation, but then y'all would criticize me for removing the important element of discovery from gameplay, so i don't do it. i am not obligated to hold your hand through every surprise that can occur because you can definitely play under the assumption that surprises will happen (honestly i am surprised that so few people do). it is pretty easy to imagine that some dude with an LRT is going to come out of those stairs in that locked room, for instance. why else would that staircase be there?

the best maps are strategically interesting, but they don't have to mandate the best strategy. the problem here is that it is difficult to satisfy both conditions because it is shockingly easy in fire emblem to do things that you aren't supposed to do and trivialize any strategic challenge that a map had in the first place. so you have to overdesign to account for that, and then people start complaining.

Edited February 25, 2013 by dondon151