shadowofchaos Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 it makes all that build optimization seem pointless, a competitive multiplayer mode with a metagame would have been the only real way to let all that optimization actually matter. So it's like I said... Except I'm gonna say it more bluntly: People want to rub it in their friends' faces how good they are at a single player game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weso12 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) So it's like I said... Except I'm gonna say it more bluntly: People want to rub it in their friends' faces how good they are at a single player game. I'd chalk it up more to game design problem, if the game designers didn't plan for the game to have multiplayer, then don't give the players the min-max options that could only possibly matter in a multiplayer mode, it'd be like if pokemon didn't have a verus mode, but EVs, IVs, natures etc still existed. Side Note: I still say that the only reason awakening didn't PvP have multiplayer is that 4 units in one battle would cause lag. Edited February 8, 2015 by weso12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonelyVoxel Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Side Note: I still say that the only reason awakening didn't PvP have multiplayer is that 4 units in one battle would cause lag. By four units do you mean four armies? I can see the lag happening if servers weren't to be good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowofchaos Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) then don't give the players the min-max options that could only possibly matter in a multiplayer mode, it'd be like if pokemon didn't have a verus mode, but EVs, IVs, natures etc still existed. The existence of optimization and the mechanics of inheritance for min-maxing and simultaneously, the lack of a multiplayer mode to specifically utilize said min-maxing is NOT a game design problem. It is simply the player making a big deal out of it. Because there's nothing to "test against". It is the player's fault for the lack of fulfillment on that department. No matter what game it is, there will be people what will want to freaking min-max everything. That's the way they play the game. Regardless of the existence of multiplayer to utilize it, they will have fun with it. Saying min-maxing is pointless and it's the designer's fault and its a flaw is (I apologize if this is too confrontational) only your own opinion and preference to what it should be. Which means, you're basing that statement of "design flaw" too much on what your vision of how Awakening could be improved upon and ONLY that. "I wasted my time min-maxing. It's the developer's fault for not giving me a challenge!" You can break any game any way you want to and most of them WILL NOT test you for doing that. Are you saying those games are inherently flawed as well on their game design? I DO apologize for being so passionate about this or when jumping down people's throats... But all I've seen for justifications for multiplayer is "Awakening failed at this for multiplayer, etc." when all you really want to say is "I WANT A FREAKING PVP MULTIPLAYER SO I CAN POUND MY FRIENDS' UNITS INTO THE GROUND AND I'M BELLYACHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I CAN'T DO THAT". You can at least just admit that is the main reason you want it, and not because Awakening "failed" to give the player enough. They gave you enough. They gave you pretty much anything a min-maxer could want. WHICH THEY WOULD DO ANYWAY EVEN IF THE INHERITANCE MECHANICS WERE CRAP. :/ You want Poke-emblem. That's it. But really, I bet the infamous logicians in here can tear me apart. Whatever. Edited February 8, 2015 by shadowofchaos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) By four units do you mean four armies? He's talking about two pairs of units facing off against each other in Pair up. Edited February 8, 2015 by NinjaMonkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonelyVoxel Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 He's talking about two pairs of units facing off against each other in Pair up. Ah, I see. That could be problematic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega zero Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) What I would like to see is a draft mode. The game randomly generates 2 identical armies, with various classes/weapons/skillsets. You then get some time to customize the army, like swapping weapons/skills/positions between units, and then you play it out. Both players would have the exact same options. It can be a single round or a best of 3/best of 5 where both players receive new options in between rounds. No grinding required, and with random identical teams, you don't have to worry as much about over-powered combinations and good/bad class matchups. Kind of like chess, but with new pieces in each game. One issue is the fact that it takes much of the surprise factor out of the game, since you and your opponent will know exactly what resources are on the board. Then again, you can expect to face the few dominant min/max strategies anyway if you were allowed to use your own units. Edited February 11, 2015 by omega zero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerserg Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 @shadowofchaos That multiplayer was bad, i'd rather they didn't have it at all. Regardless this is a fourm expressing views and thoughts. You can say anything you want but the end of the day nothing you said has changed my mind. I would have loved vs, I would have loved a real co-op. Awakening is still my favorite FE game but I would loved to have had more. Just because you believe something doesn't make it correct, I still want what I want. You can make a long winded rebuttal again but honestly your wasting your breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowofchaos Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) @shadowofchaos That multiplayer was bad, i'd rather they didn't have it at all. Let's review the flow of thought: You mentioning that almost every western released FE had multiplayer and Awakening didn't... I mention that Awakening *DID* have multiplayer You talk crap about Awakening's multiplayer being bad Implying Link Arena was good on the GBA Yes, thank you for your coherent thoughts. Yes, I'm wasting my breath because all you want is your precious multiplayer set to your standards alone and bellyaching about Awakening's "lack of one". I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just saying your comparison logic was crap. Edited February 12, 2015 by shadowofchaos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Dragon Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Imagine a world where half of your team can be wiped out on the first turn before you even got a chance to move... Where flying units would reign supreme for their ability to go far across any terrain and then get rescue staved safely out of reach of most units... Where you'd need house rules that you couldn't use in online multiplayer matches with random people to even the odds even slightly... In all seriousness, Fire Emblem could have a better multiplayer, there's always room for improvement after all. However, if it takes away from the main campaign, I'd rather get rid of it altogether. The co op in Awakening was a fun distraction when I was with friends, but if it didn't return, I wouldn't mind too much. Co op is reasonable, and the way they did it worked. Whether or not you thought it was good or bad doesn't matter. It worked. PvP would be a nightmare in my mind though. Fire Emblem simply isn't a game that I believe is very compatible with PvP. Not entirely incompatible, but just not as much as other games. Just my two cents... that I most likely explained poorly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Falchion Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) The general gist of this thread (at least to me) is that PvP in Fire Emblem, especially as it stands with skills n' pair up n' all, would probably most likely have a 99 percent chance of being broken and not fun in most senses of the word. I agree with this. I also think it would be hilarious to see the atrocities such a mode would commit, but then again, the few laughs it would net me would not be worth the effort taken away from the single player campaign to make the said train wreck of a competitive mode. Of course, you can make a game with both a good single player and a good multiplayer mode without detracting from either, but Fire Emblem is not really a series that can do that. Like everyone else has noted. That being said, I think they could start trying to implement an improved co-op mode. I don't think FE14 is going to have anything along these lines aside from a slightly better Double Duels mode, but I feel like there's potential for a better co-op mode down the line. I'm not sure what it would be, but they could probably build something neat off of Double Duels. Edited February 12, 2015 by The Legendary Falchion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.