Jump to content
Wafflenipples

Save states, yay or nay?

Save states, yay or nay?  

110 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you use save states?

    • Yes
      78
    • No
      39


Recommended Posts

I don't like memorizing ambush reinforcements and other unexpected events beforehand so I use savestates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolded part 1: I didn't dismiss the argument, I conceded the point, lol. Yes, it's not a good argument for the GBA games. But the point about effort still holds, I said. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but you have a habit of either completely misunderstanding my posts or selectively reading parts of them. You might want to go read them again. I think the entirety of your arguments are based on confusions and misunderstandings of my view.

Alright Chiki, if there's so much confusion going on then I may as well just type a segment that is not in direct answer to anything in particular to clarify what I think, and then I would ask you to clarify your position in response to that. I don't wish to get into pedantry on how I understood your responses prior.

I agree that savestates, when abused repeatedly to rig hits, misses, and crits in an otherwise casual playthrough are detrimental to the point of the game; strategy, and are likely the mark of a lack of skill.

I agree that if you can't accomodate for an odd miss or whatnot in a casual playthrough of most of the series on a normal difficulty, then your strategy is probably flawed and you should consider playing it safer.

I agree that the use of savestates to secure specific goals such hitting an evasive enemy twice, or critting within the context of LTC is fair game and should not be viewed in a bad light.

I believe that we both agree that savestates can be utilised for convenience such as experimenting with the AI and in that context, has no reason to be scorned.

What I disagree with, is your assertation that every chapter must be attempted and beaten in one clean clear, and that the utilisation of a feature such as map saves within DSFE games is something to be looked down upon.

Hereonin is conjecture.

My understanding of your argument is that you believe that the player who has exerted more effort in repeatedly restarting the chapter to make sure everything happens the way they wish it to is a "better player" because of the extra time and effort put into a successful clear.

However, I contest that going back and repeating the same string of actions does not make anyone a "better" player. Even outside of the context of a game with a fixed RN string, a reliable strategy can accomodate for the odd miss here in the more standard levels of difficulty within the series. This is because unless you are LTCing, you will often have a unit or two who does not have a pressing action to immediately preform, or you can utilise something such as the rescue mechanic in order to save them. Due to this, unless the difficulty is very high, or the goal is strict (LTC), a strategy can still be RNG proof without having 100% hitrates.

Now, I believe that, given said person's strategy is reliable, making use of a savestate for reasons such as preferential treatement towards a weak unit that a player may wish to raise do not really equate into their skill, their overall strategy, or their ability as a player. It merely reflects on what they enjoy doing within the game.

If one wishes to feed a kill to a weak unit, then they can utilise a savestate or map save to make sure the unit weakning an enemy does not crit/proc a skill, and then following that that the weak unit does not inadvertedly miss. For clarity's sake, we can assume the hitrate to be acceptable, and that if the weak unit misses, it is not a big deal and that the situation can be resolved by a different unit instead who may have not done anything important this turn otherwise. Obviously if the initial unit crits, then it is also not that big a deal. The player may also simply wish to have the weak unit recieve a good level up.

The player who does not use map saves or save states will either reject the prospect of restarting due to having to repeat a bunch of similar actions, possibly with some slight variance, or will restart the map and mimic their moves to that point until the desired outcome occurs. In both cases, the player is having some aspect of their experience affected negatively. If they use a save, then the negative aspect is heavily reduced. I would accept that the experience is definitely less "organic" than it would be otherwise if you utilise a feature in this way, since it allows for a greater opportunity for bad characters to become better without as much effort. But is that really something worth looking down on, judging the ability of a player? I don't think so.

Now consider an example where the game is on a high level of difficulty and there is no leniancy WRT an errant miss or crit even in casual play. Is the player who did not utilise the ingame map tile saves periodically to avoid full restarts, and instead restarted continously until no unwanted occurances of misses or crits occured for the entire map really "better"? I don't think so.

Finally a point about effort and its relation to skill.

There is some skill involved in modifying your strategy to accomodate variances. However, does your entire point about skill and effort rely on this crux? It isn't unreasonable to state that the player using a map save or savestate for convenience could respond properly to some inadvertent misses had they instead restarted the chapter. In that case, their skill has only demonstrably changed in context to themselves, assuming a personal unrecorded playthrough. But to claim that because they did not restart the entire chapter (after they figured out how to resolve their experiment with enemy behaviour) that they are not as good as somebody else who did does not really seem to have any basis besides the assumption that because they chose not to do something, they cannot do it.

The player who restarted repeatedly put in more effort. But putting in more effort does not make them a better player, it means they put in more effort. Exerting a degree of effort is a neccessary part of being a player, exerting more effort does not make you a "better player". It takes a lot of effort to savestate and burn RNs for 30 minutes to rig somebody to dodge but I can't say someone's a better player for doing that.

Bolded part 2: I'm really confused because you guys keep alleging that I'm against save state use even in LTCs (and other cases in which save states are merely convenient, and don't get in the way of strategizing), but I said at least 3-4 times in this thread, and in my first and second posts, that I'm not.. you guys really ought to read my posts.

I didn't claim otherwise, it was merely a part of the point I was trying to illustrate for the use of map saves or savestates.

Bolded part 3: I already admitted this in my first post. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to argue against.

This was directed at Nicolas, not you.

Edited by Irysa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I'm a horrible, heinous person who has no empathy for others simply because I think some people are bad players at a video game, and I think people have more than enough time to restart chapters. In fact, I'm on the level of Hitler and Stalin. You guys are pathetically sensitive, lol.

It's more that you won't shut up about how much "better" you are, actually.

Edited by Alg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that 's a way to use savestats without breaking this game. Problem is that NM in most FE isn't even hard without savestats. And this game was designed to play without saving in middle of the battle. Even making mistakes and losing unit in some games is not problem.

But there are people who makes easy game even more easy, because they spamming savestats. If someone can't beat single chapter without using savestats (no lunatic, 0%, ltc or other bullshit) then I assume he is not good at this game.

Maybe if you makes that much mistakes you should not play strategic games? No offense, but if you are tired you cannot makes that good tactic like you would be relax. There are more relaxing game than FE and when I play them I feel better than brainlessly spamming savestats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you resume a chapter midway, the RNG will return to the state in which you left it when you suspended or temporarily quit that chapter. that's why enemy phases always work out the same way, units that die will still die, etc.

if you restart a chapter, either you booted up the game from a soft or a hard reset (in which case the RNG seed will be 8, 56, 21), or you suspended and restarted (in which case the RNG seed will not be 8, 56, 21).

OOoooohh! I see! I SEE! That actually makes everything make sense now. (and the whole part about set RNG make sense)

The disgust i have with portions of the argument is the idea that people who arent too wonderful at the game(s) and thus use save states, have really no business playing these games at all and are just a bunch of losers that should be judged. Like...seriously?

2q0u9n6jpg.gif

Why is it such a problem how other people play a game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it matter so long as we all have fun and can pointlessly argue on the internet at the end of the day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems like chiki mostly agrees with the statement i made previously:

now as far as its convenience goes with regards to experimentation with enemy AI, it probably saves about as much time overall as the VBA turbo function, so i also don't see a problem with it. the only use of savestates that would make me roll my eyes is when someone spams them repeatedly just to brute force their way through a tactical error.

and also this statement:

I agree that savestates, when abused repeatedly to rig hits, misses, and crits in an otherwise casual playthrough are detrimental to the point of the game; strategy, and are likely the mark of a lack of skill.

I agree that if you can't accomodate for an odd miss or whatnot in a casual playthrough of most of the series on a normal difficulty, then your strategy is probably flawed and you should consider playing it safer.

I agree that the use of savestates to secure specific goals such hitting an evasive enemy twice, or critting within the context of LTC is fair game and should not be viewed in a bad light.

I believe that we both agree that savestates can be utilised for convenience such as experimenting with the AI and in that context, has no reason to be scorned.

and i also think it's fine to say that players who habitually abuse savestates as described above are subpar players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just be prepared for people thinking such a statement is blatant elitism and Stop Having Fun Guy behavior, and calling it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit to not having read the entire thread, but in principle save states don't affect the outcome of GBA FE, since there is no execution aspect to it (other than the dual-occupancy glitch I think). Someone did mention that the GBA RNG is entirely deterministic (predictable seed), but even without this knowledge it's possible to pseudo-save-state on an actual system. Since the game doesn't autosave when burning RNs through the path-finding method, you can preview and determine whether the upcoming RNs are greater or less than 50%. Even on FE iterations where the RNG is well-seeded, there are ways to manipulate outcomes, either through battle save or just plain brute-force resetting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm a horrible, heinous person who has no empathy for others simply because I think some people are bad players at a video game, and I think people have more than enough time to restart chapters. In fact, I'm on the level of Hitler and Stalin. You guys are pathetically sensitive, lol.

Nah, you just lack people skills.

With regards to the topic, I'll use savestates if I really can't be bothered to restart a chapter or before a bosskill but generally I'll try not to rely on them. If you have to keep using them, the chances are the strategy wasn't that reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOoooohh! I see! I SEE! That actually makes everything make sense now. (and the whole part about set RNG make sense)

The disgust i have with portions of the argument is the idea that people who arent too wonderful at the game(s) and thus use save states, have really no business playing these games at all and are just a bunch of losers that should be judged. Like...seriously?

2q0u9n6jpg.gif

Why is it such a problem how other people play a game?

Let me explain.

Using savestats changes the game dramatically. Hard modes aren't challenging anymore, normal modes are blah and overall you don't need to plan anything even in single chapter. When you can easily fix your problems you don't even have to focus on this game or think about strategic for this game and tactic for this chapter.

Plan is everything in FE games. If you don't have a plan you won't be better an FE games(because you don't practice making plans) and you won't even play in FE games. There games are designed to play them with plan, with strategic. Using savestats for casual gameplay kill making plans.

Also I don't really think that Chiki is writing this all post because he want to feel better about his skill in FE. Look at his list of LTC run. It's quite impressing. Also why whould he want to hurt you? Have you done anything to him so what give him reason to revenge? Or maybe the reason is just diffrant that this, which you suggest?

Edited by Nicolas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good for people who want to enjoy the games but aren't good enough to play it vanilla. Hell, I know people who can't even beat Sacred Stones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Chiki, if there's so much confusion going on then I may as well just type a segment that is not in direct answer to anything in particular to clarify what I think, and then I would ask you to clarify your position in response to that. I don't wish to get into pedantry on how I understood your responses prior.

I agree that savestates, when abused repeatedly to rig hits, misses, and crits in an otherwise casual playthrough are detrimental to the point of the game; strategy, and are likely the mark of a lack of skill.

I agree that if you can't accomodate for an odd miss or whatnot in a casual playthrough of most of the series on a normal difficulty, then your strategy is probably flawed and you should consider playing it safer.

I agree that the use of savestates to secure specific goals such hitting an evasive enemy twice, or critting within the context of LTC is fair game and should not be viewed in a bad light.

I believe that we both agree that savestates can be utilised for convenience such as experimenting with the AI and in that context, has no reason to be scorned.

So far so good.

What I disagree with, is your assertation that every chapter must be attempted and beaten in one clean clear, and that the utilisation of a feature such as map saves within DSFE games is something to be looked down upon.

Must is a strong word. All I'm saying is that such a chapter clear is a much greater indication of skill than someone who doesn't do a one clean clear with a strategy planned out. It's not a necessary indication of skill (Florina could somehow figure out a one clean clear for some chapter, but if I stopped doing those and started save state abusing to hell, that wouldn't make her a better player than me.)

Hereonin is conjecture.

My understanding of your argument is that you believe that the player who has exerted more effort in repeatedly restarting the chapter to make sure everything happens the way they wish it to is a "better player" because of the extra time and effort put into a successful clear.
However, I contest that going back and repeating the same string of actions does not make anyone a "better" player. Even outside of the context of a game with a fixed RN string, a reliable strategy can accomodate for the odd miss here in the more standard levels of difficulty within the series. This is because unless you are LTCing, you will often have a unit or two who does not have a pressing action to immediately preform, or you can utilise something such as the rescue mechanic in order to save them. Due to this, unless the difficulty is very high, or the goal is strict (LTC), a strategy can still be RNG proof without having 100% hitrates.

Only in the GBA games. Outside of the GBA games, coming up with an RNG proof strategy is something that takes skill, so it's not just effort involved.

I'm very confused by the second paragraph. It's very unclear what your counterargument is outside of the GBA games. You say here that you agree anyway:

There is some skill involved in modifying your strategy to accomodate variances.

Now, I believe that, given said person's strategy is reliable, making use of a savestate for reasons such as preferential treatement towards a weak unit that a player may wish to raise do not really equate into their skill, their overall strategy, or their ability as a player. It merely reflects on what they enjoy doing within the game.

If one wishes to feed a kill to a weak unit, then they can utilise a savestate or map save to make sure the unit weakning an enemy does not crit/proc a skill, and then following that that the weak unit does not inadvertedly miss. For clarity's sake, we can assume the hitrate to be acceptable, and that if the weak unit misses, it is not a big deal and that the situation can be resolved by a different unit instead who may have not done anything important this turn otherwise. Obviously if the initial unit crits, then it is also not that big a deal. The player may also simply wish to have the weak unit recieve a good level up.

The player who does not use map saves or save states will either reject the prospect of restarting due to having to repeat a bunch of similar actions, possibly with some slight variance, or will restart the map and mimic their moves to that point until the desired outcome occurs. In both cases, the player is having some aspect of their experience affected negatively. If they use a save, then the negative aspect is heavily reduced. I would accept that the experience is definitely less "organic" than it would be otherwise if you utilise a feature in this way, since it allows for a greater opportunity for bad characters to become better without as much effort. But is that really something worth looking down on, judging the ability of a player? I don't think so.

I never disagreed with this. I only said people who use save states for the sole reason of clearing are chapter are worse players. People like Florina who need save states to be able to clear chapters are the ones I am deeming "bad players."

The player who restarted repeatedly put in more effort. But putting in more effort does not make them a better player, it means they put in more effort. Exerting a degree of effort is a neccessary part of being a player, exerting more effort does not make you a "better player". It takes a lot of effort to savestate and burn RNs for 30 minutes to rig somebody to dodge but I can't say someone's a better player for doing that.

"Good player" is a complicated term. It doesn't necessarily mean "most skilled." One can come up with many counterexamples to "skilled player" being a necessary and sufficient condition of the term "good player."

You can imagine two equally skilled players, one of whom is lazy but just save state abuses through every chapter, but the other who does their best to come up with an RNG proof strategy for each chapter that he does. In that case, the better player is the one who exerts more effort than the other skilled player.

You can imagine a retired FE player (retired from doing LTC playthroughs and such), who may still be the most skilled player, but it'd be strange to say that a retired FE player is still the best player in the world. That would likely go to the next best active player.

OOoooohh! I see! I SEE! That actually makes everything make sense now. (and the whole part about set RNG make sense)

The disgust i have with portions of the argument is the idea that people who arent too wonderful at the game(s) and thus use save states, have really no business playing these games at all and are just a bunch of losers that should be judged. Like...seriously?

Why is it such a problem how other people play a game?

I don't have any problems with how you play the game. It's just a video game; why should it matter to me, or to you, if you're a bad player?

But of course it matters to children and children in the bodies of 30 year olds online. They don't have much to do with their lives apart from video games. Video game elitists are heinous and evil people.

Edited by Chiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally prefer not to use savestates for my playthroughs but that's just because it's what makes the game fun for me.

Do whatever you guys like when you play the game. (thankfully) Nobody gets to decide how you play the game except for yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must is a strong word. All I'm saying is that such a chapter clear is a much greater indication of skill than someone who doesn't do a one clean clear with a strategy planned out. It's not a necessary indication of skill (Florina could somehow figure out a one clean clear for some chapter, but if I stopped doing those and started save state abusing to hell, that wouldn't make her a better player than me.)

What about the hypothetical of clearing a map in one sitting, but you hit savestates/map saves along the way anyway as a matter of "just in case" yet never need to use them? One may have a strategy planned out but utilises the features anyway for reasons I gave.

Only in the GBA games. Outside of the GBA games, coming up with an RNG proof strategy is something that takes skill, so it's not just effort involved.

I'm very confused by the second paragraph. It's very unclear what your counterargument is outside of the GBA games. You say here that you agree anyway:

I'm proposing that the skill required in order to respond to slight modifications of one's approach to a chapter, such as; "Oh x unit missed an attack, I'll have y unit clean up" or "Y unit crit so it can do something else this turn", is not really a significant point towards a player being better because everyone does this normally anyway. Those slight modifications are typically pretty simple to work around, unless a large amount of events conspire against the player. I'll concede, there is a difference in applied skill via observation, but I don't believe that basic adjustments like that are beyond the capability of any remotely decent player.

Thus, saying that someone who does not always demonstrate that ability to themselves isn't as good a player doesn't make sense, for they probably do it a lot anyway.

I never disagreed with this. I only said people who use save states for the sole reason of clearing are chapter are worse players. People like Florina who need save states to be able to clear chapters are the ones I am deeming "bad players."

Alright, great.

"Good player" is a complicated term. It doesn't necessarily mean "most skilled." One can come up with many counterexamples to "skilled player" being a necessary and sufficient condition of the term "good player."

You can imagine two equally skilled players, one of whom is lazy but just save state abuses through every chapter, but the other who does their best to come up with an RNG proof strategy for each chapter that he does. In that case, the better player is the one who exerts more effort than the other skilled player.

You can imagine a retired FE player (retired from doing LTC playthroughs and such), who may still be the most skilled player, but it'd be strange to say that a retired FE player is still the best player in the world. That would likely go to the next best active player.

If the first player is abusing their way through every chapter, then it is very possible that they may end up actually spending more time and effort trying to rig everything or undoing every small mistake than one who has a clear strategy in mind. In that case, how can the first player be determined as better because he exerted more effort?

As for the second example, titles such as "best player" are not very quantifable on the whole since there are actually quite a lot of things to measure it by. The retired player may have pioneered all of the important strats or knowledge within the game prior to retiring, and the next best players may still just be reusing all of that. In that case, I think that unless someone else has a comparable achievement to the retired player, they may still be considered the best player. The title of "best active player" would be passed to the to the best currently active player of course though, since that directly excludes the retired person in question.

Edited by Irysa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any problems with how you play the game. It's just a video game; why should it matter to me, or to you, if you're a bad player?

But of course it matters to children and children in the bodies of 30 year olds online. They don't have much to do with their lives apart from video games. Video game elitists are heinous and evil people.

The only person in this thread who seems to really have a problem with how people play the game is Nicolas (who is the one Loki was referring to in his post). I have no problem admitting that the use of save states (to the point you need them in order to beat the game) is indicative of a less skilled player, but the sense of elitism coming from posts like "You shouldn't be playing Fire Emblem if you use save states" is freakin' ridiculous.

Heck, we don't even need unofficial emulators to use save states anymore! Virtual Console on Wii U and 3DS allow save states!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain.

Using savestats changes the game dramatically. Hard modes aren't challenging anymore, normal modes are blah and overall you don't need to plan anything even in single chapter. When you can easily fix your problems you don't even have to focus on this game or think about strategic for this game and tactic for this chapter.

Plan is everything in FE games. If you don't have a plan you won't be better an FE games(because you don't practice making plans) and you won't even play in FE games. There games are designed to play them with plan, with strategic. Using savestats for casual gameplay kill making plans.

You know, you asked three times what reason people have for making savestates, and after people gave you some reasons, you ignored them.

Abusing save states (i.e brute force) is the only case where I would say this is true.

But of course it matters to children and children in the bodies of 30 year olds online. They don't have much to do with their lives apart from video games. Video game elitists are heinous and evil people.

You're exaggerating again.

I never disagreed with this. I only said people who use save states for the sole reason of clearing are chapter are worse players. People like Florina who need save states to be able to clear chapters are the ones I am deeming "bad players."

When did she even say that she needed savestates to clear chapters? Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do whatever you guys like when you play the game. (thankfully) Nobody gets to decide how you play the game except for yourselves.

I haven't been paying attention to this thread but this is the correct answer, regardless of whether using them makes you a less skilled player.

Edited by Refa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find it ridiculous that people (mostly i think just nicolas) seem to imply that anyone who uses savestates in FE is "doing it wrong" (there is chiki who is making legitimate points but is just doing so in such an extremely grating way as to cause people to disagree with him on principle >_>)

Edited by CT075

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicolas's main point is that this is a strategy game that you plan. But who plans out a normal, casual run in an RPG? Fire Emblem is like 75% RPG, 25% Strategy.

I mean, you're supposed to muscle through in an RPG. Casual, LTC, whatever.

Breaking units is like putting Ultima on Terra, Celes, Relm, and Strago and going nuts in Kefka's Tower in FFVI.

I mean the distinction between regular RPGs and SRPGs aren't that much. You just move around a map instead of a 3D world map/ dungeon. It may require less thinking sometimes because you don't have to find your next destination, the game does that for you in the passing of chapters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find it ridiculous that people (mostly i think just nicolas) seem to imply that anyone who uses savestates in FE is "doing it wrong" (there is chiki who is making legitimate points but is just doing so in such an extremely grating way as to cause people to disagree with him on principle >_>)

I know that 's a way to use savestats without breaking this game. Problem is that NM in most FE isn't even hard without savestats. And this game was designed to play without saving in middle of the battle. Even making mistakes and losing unit in some games is not problem.

But there are people who makes easy game even more easy, because they spamming savestats. If someone can't beat single chapter without using savestats (no lunatic, 0%, ltc or other bullshit) then I assume he is not good at this game.

Maybe if you makes that much mistakes you should not play strategic games? No offense, but if you are tired you cannot makes that good tactic like you would be relax. There are more relaxing game than FE and when I play them I feel better than brainlessly spamming savestats.

I've also said something about using savestats in ltc. To lazy to find post.

You know, you asked three times what reason people have for making savestates, and after people gave you some reasons, you ignored them.

Abusing save states (i.e brute force) is the only case where I would say this is true.

Few of them are good (yeah, I said that, check post), but other...

Some poeolpe said everyting about using savestats to save you progress. I don't feel I need to add anything.

I don't think I miss anything.

How about the possibility of being more experimental because you know you're not going to have to restart the entire map. Sort of what Jotari said.

In many games you want to play chapter once just for experiment from begining to end, because you want to know location of every reinforcements, event in every village and enemies/boss AI. Then you reset chapter and with knowledge about it make plan how to beat it as effective as possible. With savestats you can beat it in single try but I don't think that would be much quicker (for some chapter it would be quicker for other maybe even longer).

Overall it's a good point, but that mean you play without plan.

There are ways to use savestates that don't necessarily revolve around rigging the hell out of stuff in order to succeed, that is the only point I am trying to defend.

My apologize Irysa. I miss that part. Completely agreed with you. I try to say that it similar case to grinding: you can do that but you can beat game without any problem if you don't grind.

Nicolas's main point is that this is a strategy game that you plan. But who plans out a normal, casual run in an RPG? Fire Emblem is like 75% RPG, 25% Strategy.

I mean, you're supposed to muscle through in an RPG. Casual, LTC, whatever.

Breaking units is like putting Ultima on Terra, Celes, Relm, and Strago and going nuts in Kefka's Tower in FFVI.

I mean the distinction between regular RPGs and SRPGs aren't that much. You just move around a map instead of a 3D world map/ dungeon. It may require less thinking sometimes because you don't have to find your next destination, the game does that for you in the passing of chapters.

Bold: It very personal feeling. I play FE games mostly for strategy, because I don't like anime-style graphic (don't understand me wrong, graphic is fine, but sometimes you see something like Neimi's mug and then.... eh), story is not amazing (i mean it's good story in most of games, but it's good story for computer game. When I want to see wonderful story I read books). I like more strategic aspect in this game.

And in most FE games you don't have to have flawless plan. This game alow you to make mistakes. In FE8 you can lose Garcia, because Dozla, Duessel and Ross exist. You can lose Vanessa, because you can have 3 other filers. You can lose Natasha, because Moulder, Artur and Saleh exist. You can lose Seth, because... Wait, you can't.

I can write examples like that for every game. You can even lose units in FE5 (IMO it's even best game to lose units, because 20 cap, scrolls, manuals and other things). In every game you have also statbooster and better weapons (silver/killer) to fix lack of power in some units.

So yeah, you don't have to be master tactican to beat this games with only in-game saves.

Beat FE11H5 without savestats I dare you.

Edited by Nicolas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolded part 2: I'm really confused because you guys keep alleging that I'm against save state use even in LTCs (and other cases in which save states are merely convenient, and don't get in the way of strategizing), but I said at least 3-4 times in this thread, and in my first and second posts, that I'm not.. you guys really ought to read my posts.

this isn't a very obvious interpretation of your posts; if it were, then i wouldn't have bothered with the explanation of why predictable RNG strongly indicates savestate use. for example:

People who use save states (apart from RNG abusing to save a turn, for example) are bad players.

Most players admitting they abuse save states. What a sad day for strategy. :<

these two posts don't acknowledge the spectrum of savestate use. a lot of players will use savestates as a matter of convenience in experimentation, which does not fall under the umbrella of RNG abusing to save a turn. indeed, they may not even be aware that any experimentation on their part is going to save a turn.

i can only assume you're trying to be humorous in the second quoted post, because it doesn't seem to me that many people in this thread are at all guilty of flagrant abuse, i.e. the kind where savestates are employed to brute force out of poor tactical scenarios.

I agree with the first example (rigging a level up is one of the exceptions I had in mind) but the second part not so much. You're not just saving time here. Like I said, I think a good FE player should be able to come up with a strategy for the whole chapter, not just the first two turns. Having a save state on turn 3 makes it too easy to come up with that sort of strategy.

Using save states to experiment something is also ok, as long as you use it to come up with a long-term strategy for the whole chapter.

i reviewed irysa's post, which you responded to with the quoted post above, to make sure that i wasn't getting the context incorrect. i detect a contradiction in the bold clauses. the entire point of keeping a midchapter savestate is to experiment from that point forward without going through the tedious process of starting from the chapter save every time. i'm sure there is not one chapter in which i didn't do this when playing FE6 0% v4.

obviously i had to come up with a long-term strategy because i intended to record each chapter in its entirety. the average player wouldn't have to do that, and there is no incentive for coming up with such a strategy (especially since playthroughs tend to be different), so there is no need to experiment on turn 3, determine the appropriate actions, and then play through the entire chapter again with the new observations in mind.

in any case, you and i may actually agree on just about everything, but i'm just pointing out that you haven't been as clear as you claim to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beat FE11H5 without savestats I dare you.

It's funny that you mention that, since FE11 is one of the newer games where save states don't help much, as the battle RNG is not connected to the pathfinding algorithm. Then again, through use of battle save and plain old resets, the player can achieve the same effect. This is why I don't understand save state criticism, since their only effect is to save time.

By the way: H5 is only hard because of the poorly designed C1-3 bosses (wtf @ Gazzack and Hyman).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...