Jump to content

Do you feel like casual mode is unnecessary with the addition of time-rewinding mechanics like Divine Pulse and Mila's Turnwheel?


twilit
 Share

Recommended Posts

With the release of FE12 (and more importantly with Awakening as that actually released in the west), the FE series saw a new casual mode be added for the more casual fans of FE or beginners who don't want to stress about permanently losing their units, as is the case in classic mode. While there was debate as to whether this was a positive addition to the series (as long as both are optional I see no issue with it), the amount of new fans that the series received with Awakening unquestionably proved that this was a financially beneficial change at the very least, broadening FE's appeal to a wider audience.

But the most recent games in the series, SoV and 3H, have added a new mechanic that allows the player to rewind time to account for mistakes or poor strategy, called Mila's Turnwheel and Divine Pulse, respectively. Given how this effectively serves the same purpose as casual mode has, do you think that casual mode is now made pointless in the presence of such an ability being given to the player?

Edited by twilitfalchion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not really. Things like the Turnwheel and Divine Pulse are useful for more things than just preventing loss of a unit. You can use it when clicked something by accident or when want to see a particular boss conversation or regular unit conversation when doing such things would be a risk move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It kinda felt too easy to keep everyone alive in SOV with the rewind already, so I think casual is arguably kinda redundant now with it. 

I've not got far in TH but I hear that game ended up having traps that basically require the player to essentially save-scum with the rewind function to get by, so I'd rather have Classic mode instead if that's going to be the way they design games with a rewind feature. (Also Thabe's Labyrinth in Echoes with Grima basically requires you to abuse it considering how insane the enemy stats are.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that it's unnecessary. I've seen new people play 3H and even with the addition of Divine Pulse they still ended up losing a lot of people and had to restart because they weren't playing on casual.

13 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

It kinda felt too easy to keep everyone alive in SOV with the rewind already, so I think casual is arguably kinda redundant now with it. 

I've not got far in TH but I hear that game ended up having traps that basically require the player to essentially save-scum with the rewind function to get by, so I'd rather have Classic mode instead if that's going to be the way they design games with a rewind feature. (Also Thabe's Labyrinth in Echoes with Grima basically requires you to abuse it considering how insane the enemy stats are.)

Only on the Maddening difficulty, which they only added post release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

premise: i never liked casual mode to begin with as i think it completely annihilates the whole point in playing an FE game

this said, i got used to it being a thing, and i now think it's ok to have it, along with turn-rewinding mechanics
they're both allowed to exist, as they satisfy many players' different needs

yes, they're redundant together, but hey, that's just the way it is

Edited by Yexin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because I think casual mode really neuters the FE experience since permanent death makes the games seem more grounded in a believable reality. Divine pulse is better in my opinion because you get a limited amount of it and it helps to curtail the need to constantly reset t the game if a unit dies.

Edited by Wraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the time, losing a unit isn't because of a mistake made just now, but a mistake made a turn or two ago. It's not always a single bad attack, but bad overall tactical play leading to overextension, or similar. For myself, I am quite content to rewind as far back as it takes, because I enjoy the process of finding the perfect tactics for a given map, but I can definitely see how people who like casual mode might not want to have to do that. For a player who is only really playing for the story and the characters and wants an easy romp of a gameplay experience, I don't think that time-rewind on its own would be a good susbstitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I do. I think the turnwheel solved my greatest issue with casual mode - that the player isn't expected to learn from their mistakes. With turnwheel, you manually correct what you did wrong, and the player becomes better at the game without having to suffer such harsh consequences or thinking they need to stop and grind for more stats. My ideal Fire Emblem game would still have a casual/classic mode split. Casual would have unlimited turnwheel uses, and killed units would just be gravely injured for a chapter rather than dead completely. Classic would have permadeath and a number of turnwheel charges equal to half (rounded up) the amount of units you deploy in that map. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Glennstavos said:

Casual would have unlimited turnwheel uses, and killed units would just be gravely injured for a chapter rather than dead completely. Classic would have permadeath and a number of turnwheel charges equal to half (rounded up) the amount of units you deploy in that map. 

That still sounds like way too much, especially if classic is the most hardcore setting. We should just get an option at the beginning of the game for how many rewinds we get per map, from 0 to maybe 15 and then infinite if you set it higher. I still think the fact that the game is assuming everyone is using so much as a single rewind at all is a massive contributor to how messed up 3H's map design is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbh I'd rather have there only be a casual mode, because then the other characters would actually be relevant in the story. Right now we have 3 characters driving the story and the rest of the cast nearly never appearing or saying anything of consequence in the story at all. I want more people to drive the story than just a lord and a retainer. With only Casual mode, they could make the non-lord characters actually important in the story. Humanity has progressed past the need of classic mode. It's actively holding back the writing now. Most people reset when a character dies anyway so what's the point unless you're playing an ironman for a challenge or sth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gordin said:

Tbh I'd rather have there only be a casual mode, because then the other characters would actually be relevant in the story. Right now we have 3 characters driving the story and the rest of the cast nearly never appearing or saying anything of consequence in the story at all. I want more people to drive the story than just a lord and a retainer. With only Casual mode, they could make the non-lord characters actually important in the story. Humanity has progressed past the need of classic mode. It's actively holding back the writing now. Most people reset when a character dies anyway so what's the point unless you're playing an ironman for a challenge or sth.

The point is that not one game in the series has been balanced around a total party wipe being the fail state. That is so much more extreme of a loss than losing one unit in one map or losing all of your units over all of the maps that If you actually got what you asked for, either the game would be laughably easy if they didn't change anything else, or unrecognizable as even being the same franchise if they did.

Edited by Alastor15243
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

That still sounds like way too much, especially if classic is the most hardcore setting. We should just get an option at the beginning of the game for how many rewinds we get per map, from 0 to maybe 15 and then infinite if you set it higher. I still think the fact that the game is assuming everyone is using so much as a single rewind at all is a massive contributor to how messed up 3H's map design is.

You want to ask the player how many rewinds they want? Imagine a new Fire Emblem game comes out, nobody credible has an opinion on its difficulty, and you're asked how many you want before you've even so much as moved a unit. You don't know the future, you have no idea how many you'd need to avoid a game over at any point of your playthrough. And for the vast majority of those chapters you'll still end up with a surplus if you did know that magic number. The game developers are far more qualified to decide than the player ever is.

Honestly, I'd be fine with turnwheel uses being infinite on all difficulties, but if you're going to have a "classic" mode for the challenge runners, then there needs to be some threat of a game over. The balance between designing casual/classic settings is really a balance of catering to new players and challenge seekers. And if you lean too hard in one direction, it impacts the play experience of players inbetween.

Edited by Glennstavos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Glennstavos said:

You want to ask the player how many rewinds they want? Imagine a new Fire Emblem game comes out, nobody credible has an opinion on its difficulty, and you're asked how many you want before you've even so much as moved a unit. You don't know the future, you have no idea how many you'd need to avoid a game over at any point of your playthrough. And for the vast majority of those chapters you'll still end up with a surplus if you did know that magic number. The game developers are far more qualified to decide than the player ever is. 

True, I've made similar complaints about infinite food and potion systems in action RPGs. But it's extremely important that not using the turnwheel remains the default mode, the one that the game is balanced around. The one the devs assume people playing the hardest difficulties are playing on. Because the devs have not demonstrated the ability to think of ways to keep the difficulty as engaging with the turnwheel as it used to be without it, and until they do, I am not convinced it's even possible without making the gameplay unrecognizable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

True, I've made similar complaints about infinite food and potion systems in action RPGs. But it's extremely important that not using the turnwheel remains the default mode, the one that the game is balanced around. The one the devs assume people playing the hardest difficulties are playing on. Because the devs have not demonstrated the ability to think of ways to keep the difficulty as engaging with the turnwheel as it used to be without it, and until they do, I am not convinced it's even possible without making the gameplay unrecognizable.

I don't really see the correlation between turnwheel and bad maps. Bad maps are bad maps. You may think the turnwheel provides "license to have bad map design", but bad maps existed long before the turnwheel. I can't even point to a game that "keeps the difficulty engaging", can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

I don't really see the correlation between turnwheel and bad maps. Bad maps are bad maps. You may think the turnwheel provides "license to have bad map design", but bad maps existed long before the turnwheel. I can't even point to a game that "keeps the difficulty engaging", can you?

Conquest. And the reason why the turnwheel encourages bad maps is because of how Fire Emblem works.

A lot of SRPGs are low consequences, low transparency. You're very unlikely to understand how damage works in the Final Fantasy Tactics games, for example, or how much damage an enemy's gonna be able to do to you, but the consequences for miscalculating are also much less dire, because nobody permanently dies (usually).

In Fire Emblem, it's the opposite. There are high consequences for mistakes, but there's also a massive amount of transparency. When the system is working, the game gives you everything you need to be able to recognize mistakes before they happen. You can check, before placing a unit, whether or not they have a chance of dying come enemy phase.

Meaning that as long as you're paying attention, it is very hard to create a map that you'd need to rewind 5 times over... without adding in mechanics that have nothing to do with smart decision making. Things like ambush spawns and fog of war and needlessly brutal critical hits the game gives you no reliable means to counter.

If there were a Fire Emblem game where I could use half a dozen rewinds and still feel satisfyingly challenged, that game would either have to have intricate systems and levels of long term planning so far beyond what even Conquest offers that it would boggle the mind... or it would have to ditch the "high consequences, high transparency" model entirely.

Edited by Alastor15243
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Conquest.

Ew. I guess a new gimmick each map is "engaging" by some definition, but I did not feel satisfied beating maps like the kitsune woods, wind tribe village, or ninja hallways.

Quote

And the reason why the turnwheel encourages bad maps is because of how Fire Emblem works.

In Fire Emblem, it's the opposite. There are high consequences for mistakes, but there's also a massive amount of transparency. When the system is working, the game gives you everything you need to be able to recognize mistakes before they happen. You can check, before placing a unit, whether or not they have a chance of dying come enemy phase.

Meaning that as long as you're paying attention, it is very hard to create a map that you'd need to rewind 5 times over... without adding in mechanics that have nothing to do with smart decision making. Things like ambush spawns and fog of war and needlessly brutal critical hits the game gives you no reliable means to counter.

It's not about "the player needs this many rewinds to progress". It's about having a safety net to avoid a state where the player sees no option but to replay a 30-60 minute map. That, to me, is peak bad fire emblem design. Naturally the player could move on after a death, but you know the reality is that players don't see it that way, they want their units to live because there's uncertainty about whether they can beat the game now. The turnwheel makes these games so much more player-friendly and respectful of the time you put in, while keeping failure states a possibility and prompting the player to correct their mistakes. I don't want future games to just ditch it outside of some very hard, optional difficulty setting. 

Edited by Glennstavos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Glennstavos said:

Ew. I guess a new gimmick each map is "engaging" by some definition, but I did not feel satisfied beating maps like the kitsune woods, wind tribe village, or ninja hallways.

Your loss. I was neutral to the first one and loved the latter two.

Anyway, can you tell me how you typically played Fire Emblem games before the turnwheel, so I can get a sense of where you're coming from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UNLEASH IT said:

Why do you want to limit the ways in which people can play the game?

It feels redundant to have two methods of achieving what is largely the same objective--preventing units from dying. If I play casual, my units don't die. If I play classic but use time travel, my units also are much less likely to die and I get to take a second chance at strategizing. If anything, the second option is more conducive for helping the player learn new strats for the future and improve their skills (as someone mentioned above). In my opinion, it's the better option between the two.

Edited by twilitfalchion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Anyway, can you tell me how you typically played Fire Emblem games before the turnwheel, so I can get a sense of where you're coming from?

I pressed start and some time later I get to the credits. What can my example prove?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Glennstavos said:

I pressed start and some time later I get to the credits. What can my example prove?

It just feels like we play the games completely differently. What kind of mistakes do you use the turnwheel to correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

If anything, the second option is more conducive for helping the player learn new strats for the future and improve their skills.

Why are you assuming that every player wants to "improve their skills"? What if some people just want to play FE casually and not think too hard about anything? That's why I think having multiple modes and safety nets is better, it caters to everyone. However, problems arise when those safety nets are used to justify bad game design, which is exactly the problem that 3H has, especially on Maddening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UNLEASH IT said:

Why are you assuming that every player wants to "improve their skills"? What if some people just want to play FE casually and not think too hard about anything? That's why I think having multiple modes and safety nets is better, it caters to everyone. However, problems arise when those safety nets are used to justify bad game design, which is exactly the problem that 3H has, especially on Maddening.

Because FE is a tactical RPG series. Thinking about what decisions you make in battle is an integral part of the series and its gameplay. I agree that the games should be made accessible, but not to the extent that someone can fly through it without giving much thought as to what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more options for players the better

Though playing casual mode and using the turnwheel is kind of redundant

Only problem I can see is like how 3H is kind of balanced around having access to the wheel means that the game isn't as well designed as it should be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

It just feels like we play the games completely differently. What kind of mistakes do you use the turnwheel to correct?

Well in my maddening run, the turnwheel was usually because somebody got gambited. Even with great charm, the lowest those gambit hit rates can go is 30% which is still never zero. Sometimes the unit that gets hit dies immediately, but more often the turnwheel has to get used on the next turn or the one after that, because the situation just got worse as I threw units in to body block or heal/reposition weakened ones. My limited turnwheel uses force me to choose between digging out of the current situation, or dialing back to before the trainwreck happened. 

The rest of my turnwheel uses are typically the same as the gambit situation, but it's me getting two shotted by two 25-50% attacks, so the turnwheel just lets me bait with somebody else and reroll the dice. Fire Emblem may be a numbers game, but perfect strategies will always be fallible because of the dice rolls, hence why the turnwheel is so vital to keeping things moving. Or you can remove accuracy checks and critical rates in their entirety. Or just have a game that's not challenging in the first place and the player resets because they got too bored to check enemy ranges/weapons/skills. 

Edited by Glennstavos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...