FEIF Phoenix Mode.

[Leif]

But it's not more intuitive, because simply lowering the difficulty does not resolve the main deterrent new players have when looking to get into the series: permadeath. Awakening's sales speak for itself, they succeeded in attracting the crowd they were aiming for.

The new approach worked. Biggest difference between them all.

^ THIS.

If we want Fire Emblem to continue to succeed here in the west, I think catering to the casual player is most beneficial. If they didn't allow the option for classic mode, then I'd be angry. However, since Phoenix mode and Casual mode are options designed for the casual gamer, I think we should just play this new fire emblem on classic mode and let newcomers choose easier settings. Phoenix mode is really silly, however, it just might help someone out, perhaps a younger gamer, get used to the series.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Leif

[Tangerine]

I'd contest that Awakening's sales have a lot less to do with Casual Mode than you are attributing to them. Undoubtedly, it drew support, but the marketing and style shift towards facilitating more contemporary anime SRPG trends probably had more of a greater impact than anything else.

You can say it's not worth compromising all you want lol.

http://www.destructoid.com/-no-way-fire-emblem-awakening-director-on-casual-mode-250731.phtml

The developers seem to believe Casual had a fair part in attracting new players to FE. The comments section even has a bunch of people saying they're happy it was included, some saying they plan to try a harder mode afterwards. Took two seconds.

This is getting beyond silly.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Tangerine

[Irysa]

Of course, I wouldn't deny it had an impact, and I don't believe I ever did state that. Equally, I believe that some measures such as map saves in FE11, or more difficulty settings also worked, but it's difficult to fairly judge the effects when considering the differences between the games goes well past what modes were available within the game. Casual Mode can't be attributed as the sole factor of Awakening's success, and probably not even the main one. For example, FE12's sales in Japan were not really that much larger than FE11's. Sure, that's just one market, but FE12 had Casual mode and FE11 didn't. There's more to this than one factor.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Irysa

[XeKr]

There seems to be a fixation with the "choice" thing, the simple presence of having options, which is not really the critical issue imo. What actually matters is if there's a good (fun/appealing) game there, for a given player, for the different outcomes of that choice.

I see the main "issue" with blatantly broken mechanics is there's no guarantee there is a good game there after choosing to remove it. Giving too many options can be bad in the sense that players don't necessarily have the time/patience to tweak every setting to their preference, to eventually find that setting they have fun with.

Here in particular because Classic is well...the classic setting previous games were designed around, I think it's reasonable to not care or worry too much about other difficulty modes. There's enough evidence that some people prefer the Casual modes, so it's great each can get their preferred experience.

Edited May 13, 2015 by XeKr

[Tangerine]

Of course, I wouldn't deny it had an impact, and I don't believe I ever did state that. Equally, I believe that some measures such as map saves in FE11, or more difficulty settings also worked, but it's difficult to fairly judge the effects when considering the differences between the games goes well past what modes were available within the game. Casual Mode can't be attributed as the sole factor of Awakening's success, and probably not even the main one.

Radiant Dawn also had map saves, both games were around the same sales of a typical FE game. Casual can't be given all the credit, presentation was certainly important, but it was a significant factor and that's beyond the possibility for argument.

I don't know how long you have been into the series, but I have been around to watch every fansite besides our own die and even Serenes itself slump in activity because the series was failing to appeal to new people. Awakening attracting the casual audience saved the series, and those people are absolutely worth taking into account regardless of how you feel about them. Saying that compromises shouldn't be made to appeal to them is ridiculous, especially when said compromises do not affect your playthrough.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Tangerine

[B.Leu]

Pokemon ? Not hard ? Huh, what about Black/White ? Those were rather difficult. Somewhat.

I don't really care in the end, I won't be using Fetus mode, but this doesn't change the fact that once again, Fire emblem is noobified to death, beyond what Awakening was.

Yeah, we don't know everything, I can admit that maybe It's not so bad, but right now it's pure BS.

But it can be fun to goof off with it, for probably 10 minute or so. Yay...

Edited May 13, 2015 by B.Leu

[Irysa]

There seems to be a fixation with the "choice" thing, which is not really the critical issue imo. What actually matters is if there's a good (fun/appealing) game there, for a given player, for the different outcomes of that choice.

I don't accept this premise, because reinforcement (positive or negative) is important into how games work. A game with effectively zero positive or negative reinforcement that works on entirely arbitrary systems of how anyone determines the worth of anything would be the best game of all under your criteria, given that any player can achieve something appealing in their imagination. Media needs direction, as do games.

Radiant Dawn also had map saves, both games were around the same sales of a typical FE game. Casual can't be given all the credit, presentation was certainly important, but it was a significant factor and that's beyond the possibility for argument.

I don't see how it is, considering as I've just pointed out, FE12 had Casual Mode over FE11 and did not sell more than it in Japan.

http://garaph.info/softwareindividual.php//gid/3152

http://garaph.info/softwareindividual.php//gid/4473

In fact, it may be safe to say it had almost no impact whatsoever.

I don't know how long you have been into the series, but I have been around to watch every fansite besides our own die and even Serenes itself slump in activity because the series was failing to appeal to new people. Awakening attracting the casual audience saved the series, and those people are absolutely worth taking into account regardless of how you feel about them. Saying that compromises shouldn't be made to appeal to them is ridiculous, especially when said compromises have no affect on your playthrough.

I am not bothered by the prospect of a series eventually dying due to lack of sustained appeal. All things must come to an end. I've witnessed the death of many franchises I've loved over the years, and whilst I was sad to see them die, I preffered the death many of them recieved to zombificiation of some of them which were converted into hollow and unsubstantial mobile games. Not that I'm saying If is going that far, but I'm trying to illustrate that, to me, there are things worse than a series ending.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Irysa

[XeKr]

@B.Leu: It's pretty unfair to characterize things are "noobifying" considering Lunatic still exists (and Nohr is supposed to be hard). Wider range of appeal, sure.

I don't understand that train of thought at all, Irysa. >_> maybe I just can't parse prepositions right now

edit: Okay it's only fair to clarify my point a bit too. I don't thinking bringing up slippery slope-ish thought experiments is very useful in this context, because the "more choices/optional stuff = yay" argument isn't a very strong one itself. What matters more is if those options have specific purposes (such as player appeal/fun, or on the development side, stuff like projected sales). Some absurd/extreme examples people bring up ignore this facet of design.

Edited May 13, 2015 by XeKr

[goodperson707]

^^ however it seems that it needs to be sustained appeal according to you. not to anyone else's opinion

And fire emblem 12 having casual is different in many ways than 13 and also probably helped Fe 13 sell, as casual mode being a thing most likely spread via word of mouth/Internet so it wasn't a new feature anymore, so those who bought the game might know about casual, cause of fe12.

Edited May 13, 2015 by goodperson707

[Tangerine]

I don't see how it is, considering as I've just pointed out, FE12 had Casual Mode over FE11 and did not sell more than it in Japan.

And? It wasn't released in the west and it wasn't a new game. NA and EU both have shown a lot of support for the new mode and even the developers are telling you it had significant impact on the game.

Several people in the comments section of the article I linked had clearly played FE before - likely one of the GBA FEs as they were the next most popular here - and did not like permadeath. They got into the series with Awakening

Edited May 13, 2015 by Tangerine

[Irysa]

Second attempt then.

What actually matters is if there's a good (fun/appealing) game there, for a given player, for the different outcomes of that choice.

Here's my attempt to reformat this statement.

"What matters is that any given player can find an enjoyable experience of some manner within a game"

I disagree with this statement, because it leads to an argument that the most flexible possible game (one that has essentially no limitations or rules beyond what the player themselves sets) is inherantly better, and I contest that inflexibility is equally important (if not more) in interactive media. Inflexbility is what allows for reinforcement of particular behaviour or creation of pattern recognition and skill development, which is what our contemporary understanding of "fun" boils down to.

^ however it seems that it needs to be sustained appeal to you.

It doesn't need to, strictly speaking, obviously I can't stop them from doing what they want, and rightly so, as they can create and develop as they wish. But that doesn't mean I don't have ideas about what I would prefer games to be like, and equally this means I don't play games I don't like. Shrug.

And? It wasn't released in the west and it wasn't a new game. NA and EU both have shown a lot of support for the new mode and even the developers are telling you it had significant impact on the game.

Several people in the comments section of the article I linked had clearly played FE before - likely one of the GBA FEs as they were the next most popular here - and did not like permadeath. They got into the series with Awakening.

The point is that for all intents and purposes, it's a lot fairer to compare FE11 and 12 due to many similarities and their statuses as remakes of older games. Comparing Awakening to an older title is very difficult due to many other factors.

If there was not a significant impact on Casual Mode's introduction in FE12, then it does not follow that Casual Mode itself is the key to the increase of sales. Clearly, the other factors have to play in a lot more. This may be one market, but Japan is the home of Fire Emblem, and the series sales there with Awakening also reflect the increased interest across the world; it is not unfair to try to say there's parity. I do not believe if FE12 had been released with Casual Mode in the West that it would have really have drawn in that many more sales than Shadow Dragon, if not less sales entirely due to diminished interest in the series over time, even taking into consideration the fact that the West had never gotten Marth's games before either.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Irysa

[Tangerine]

I think the developers flat out saying it brought in new fans holds a lot more weight than you making a comparison involving a game that never got released in two important regions.

[goodperson707]

^^ okay but that last part seems to be slightly contrary to what i believe to be your stated belief of causal destroying/damaging the spirt of the game.

Also i would say that your opinion on the options for interactivity debate is ignoring those who don't care about the gameplay and just want the fun of enjoying the story and the characters but still want to play the game so they can chose what their characters do and how they grow, that is also fun for some people and is no way damaged and is in someways improved by lack of limits.

Edited May 13, 2015 by goodperson707

[B.Leu]

In Awakening they had Casual, which means than when one of your units die, they come back next chapter, I facepalmed at that but I had no real problem it was a choice that I was more willing to ignore, and it wasn't so bad.

Now Phoenix Mode, one of your units die, they come back at the very next turn, the hell ?

So no, I really don't think it's unfair to say they noobified Fire Emblem more and more. Especially since those new things will be representing Fire Emblem in the future.

Also I believe that Lunatic and Lunatic+ are pure BS difficulty, I don't want them to force me to do x thing, RNG manipulate, reset the game, or whatever. I want hard mode to be hard, if it's not the case, they do their job wrong.

[Irysa]

I think the developers flat out saying it brought in new fans holds a lot more weight than you making a comparison involving a game that never got released in two important regions.

Opinions are opinions, stats are stats. I don't deny that new players were likely drawn in via Casual Mode (it's a pretty observable phenomenon), but I'm saying there is not an effective way to judge whether or not Casual Mode was a significant dealbreaker in drawing in new players. How many of them would have still bought the game or have been comfortable playing Normal/Casual if it simply had battle saves but didn't remove permadeath? I place a far greater weight on Awakening's nature as a game, it's presentation and marketing more than the presence of this single mode, and my reasoning for this is backed up by statistical evidence.

There is no reason to say Japanese sales have no relation to Western sales when there is a degree of parity between markets in interest across the games - see Awakening.

^ okay but that last part seems to be slightly contrary to what i believe to be your stated belief of causal destroying/damaging the spirt of the game.

Damaging what I believe to be the spirit of the series. I recognise my subjectivity in this.

Also i would say that your opinion on the options for interactivity debate is ignoring those who don't care about the gameplay and just want the fun of enjoying the story and the characters but still want to play the game so they can chose what their characters do and how they grow that is also fun and is no way damaged and is in someways improved by lack of limits.

I wouldn't say it ignores them, because I've repeatedly said you can achieve an ideal playing field for them without removing permadeath if that really is their concern (and think that such a goal is worth reaching for).

Edited May 13, 2015 by Irysa

[XeKr]

Second attempt then.

Here's my attempt to reformat this statement.

"What matters is that any given player can find an enjoyable experience of some manner within a game"

I disagree with this statement, because it leads to an argument that the most flexible possible game (one that has essentially no limitations or rules beyond what the player themselves sets) is inherantly better, and I contest that inflexibility is equally important (if not more) in interactive media. Inflexbility is what allows for reinforcement of particular behaviour or creation of pattern recognition and skill development, which is what our contemporary understanding of "fun" boils down to.

Hmm...if I'm understanding you correctly now, didn't I say in the next few sentences why might being overly flexible be bad? I also tried to clarify things a bit earlier, in an edit.

Moreover, I think there is some nuance in referring to a "good game" vs. "enjoyment experience of some manner within a game" (sure subjective/semantics, but a weaker condition, no?).

@B.Leu: Games like Path of Radiance and Pokemon Black/White (really most FE and Pokemon games) are far easier than Awakening Lunatic(+), even on Casual. Any perceived (extreme) dependence on RNG is related to your skill, to be blunt.

Edited May 13, 2015 by XeKr

[Tangerine]

Flawed statistical comparison*

Either way, I don't have the patience to continue arguing pointlessly with you. You're welcome to believe what you like, and you have to deal with the changes the series is going through regardless of how you feel about them. The casual audience is what they are aiming for, and they're not aiming for it because it is a fruitless endeavor.

[Baldrick]

Also I believe that Lunatic and Lunatic+ are pure BS difficulty

Then you have some required reading.

It's funny you're complaining about a trend towards people not gitting gud

Edited May 13, 2015 by Baldrick

[B.Leu]

@B.Leu: Games like Path of Radiance and Pokemon Black/White (really most FE and Pokemon games) are far easier than Awakening Lunatic(+), even on Casual. Any perceived (extreme) dependence on RNG is related to your skill, to be blunt.

It's not related to my skill at all that I'm forced, yes, forced, to rely on Frederick to win first chapters of the game on L and L+.

How do call a difficulty mode where all the Lunatic+ skills are randomly distribued ?

Then you have some required reading.

It's funny you're complaining about a trend towards people not gitting gud

Okay, so what ?

Also, please forgive me for my lack of understanding, but what does 'gitting gud' means ?

[Irysa]

Flawed statistical comparison*

You haven't explained adequately why the comparison is flawed, sorry.

Either way, I don't have the patience to continue arguing pointlessly with you. You're welcome to believe what you like, and you have to deal with the changes the series is going through regardless of how you feel about them. The casual audience is what they are aiming for, and they're not aiming for it because it is a fruitless endeavor.

I assure you, I am dealing with it right now, and I recognise they are aiming for a wider audience. I'm merely discussing because I enjoy partaking in discussions like these. I'm sorry if you've felt frustrated or whatnot in this topic whilst talking with me, but I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I hope the lack of enmity is mutual.

Hmm...if I'm understanding you correctly now, didn't I say in the next few sentences why might being overly flexible be bad?

You presented one example, but that is not specifically my own main objection. Yours was a practical concern of players being bogged down in options, wheras mine is on a principle - a game without true limitations imposed can't achieve anything except via a player's own imagination or arbitrary measures. So the basis of the argument isn't sound enough to justify it, without adding some more to the statement at least.

Moreover, I think there is some nuance in referring to a "good game" vs. "enjoyment experience of some manner within a game".

There is, but your use of the words "fun/enjoyable" were a large factor in how I interpreted what you said. I don't think games need to be "fun" to be good either, horror games work as an effective counterexample.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Irysa

[Baldrick]

@B.Leu I assume the reason you don't like Phoenix Mod is because it promotes inferior strategy.

Lunatic+ is only called luck-based by those whose strategy is inferior. Reliance on Fred does not mean it's luck-based either.

[Mango Giamatti]

I disagree with this statement, because it leads to an argument that the most flexible possible game (one that has essentially no limitations or rules beyond what the player themselves sets) is inherantly better, and I contest that inflexibility is equally important (if not more) in interactive media. Inflexbility is what allows for reinforcement of particular behaviour or creation of pattern recognition and skill development, which is what our contemporary understanding of "fun" boils down to.

The bolded statement is, at its core, a false premise. If that were the case, nothing would change. Enjoyment does not solely stem from repetition. People enjoy trying out new experiences. That's why innovation exists. The amount of people who who welcome such changes to the series likely far outnumbers the dissenters (although dissenters are always louder).

Edited May 13, 2015 by Zvarri!

[Irysa]

You're misrepresenting what I said. I'm saying that we need "rules" in order to have games within which "fun" can be had. Rules are created and maintained through reinforcement, but they can also be player imposed, and thus, arbitrary.

I am not saying nobody experiments, it's that frameworks have to exist or else "nothing" would be the greatest possible fun, as nothing can be anything.

For example, Fire Emblem has rules governing it. Units move along a grid. There is a set amount of movement associated with each character and class in how far they can move along this grid. If we abandoned this rule entirely, and everyone could move anywhere at any time, then we'd only be constrained by the map. If we move past this, we don't even move within the confines of the map and can move wherever we want. Then we can introduce more than an X and Y axis, or perhaps let units go backwards in time. etc. Each new describable situation has some kind of limit on it, or else it would be indescribable.

The further this goes along, the less focus and less structure the game has. At it's extreme, when it is indescribable, we reach a point of pure nothingness.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Irysa

[Mango Giamatti]

The point of innovation is to break rules and create new ones. I would love to play an FE game which changes how the grid is used, if it were balanced decently. The "rules" between each game in the series isn't always going to be the same. Griping about it is pointless.

[Irysa]

Once again you are missing the point. The point isn't that things should not change at all, it is that a premise that boils down to "maximum flexability" (not exactly what XeKr posted but whatever) is fundamentally flawed because of the neccessity of some kind of ruleset and rigidity in order for a game to even exist. This is not a direct argument about phoenix mode, and you are misrepresenting me to claim it is.

I am not trying to say that specifically, one set of rules is superior to the other. It is that, the most malleable possible experience ever would constitute no rules whatsoever.

Without some kind of rules, there is no way to describe something (heck, the same applies to our universe), and essentially we arrive at "nothingness". What I am saying is that we must have rules in order for there to be a game, so an argument that supposes that "rules aren't important, the enjoyment an individual gets is" is flawed. It's a metaphysical demonstration.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Irysa