Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Clear World

Permadeath, QoL, and The Future

Recommended Posts

Hello you wonderful people.

So I was listening to a Retrospective of Fire Emblem series by ShaneBrained (in case someone was not aware, but was interested), and while listening to it, there was talk about how core the concept of Permadeath was to the game's design. This led me to think about how Permadeath could be implemented so it remains relevant in FE going forward. , I do feel like classic mode (permadeath) shouldn't be pushed to the side or abandoned. Unlike something like Nuzlock for Pokemon, permadeath was part of its established identity that was created by the company through a large chuck of its series history. So there is precedent that it will constantly come back. And I'm aware that there is a decent size player base that wants to keep it as well.

I've seen some discussion about permadeath within FE, listing reasons why its positive and good to keep. I think I have a general idea where the ranges of opinions are for it, and I think most people will agree with me, if I say: 'Permadeath should stay in Fire Emblem, but ... as an option'

So, why I making this thread? Because I think it can more than an option (but still technically be an option). I think it can be the 'intended way' of playing the game, without gating those who want less punishing game. It's all about communication [Gamemaker's Toolkit Youtube Video]. The video I'm linking is a 2018 video about how game devs can communicate to players to get them to understand what is the 'intended way of playing this game'. Now, there is no examples in that video that directly relates to Fire Emblem and my suggestion, but I think the core concept works here too.

Give players the options to modify the QoL features & Permadeath. Imagine this, upon selecting to start a new game. Instead of being given two options, you are given three options (Story Mode, Classic Mode, & Free Mode), and after picking one, it takes you to difficulty options. So why am I treating this like this is a brand new idea, when they already sort of does this? As I said earlier, it's all about communication.

Let's first talk about Free Mode. Selecting this will enable players to specifically change the QoL features the game has. This should not include anything that directly relates to game balance of units/classes/items. This can includes stuff like:

- New game plus

- Maximum Amount of Divine Pulse (or whatever the name of undo-actions will be called)

- Auto-Save occurrences [At the start of the map / At the start of every turn / After every player action (or death) or at the start of the turn]

- Enable Skirmishes [On or Off]

- Permadeath [On or Off]

- Subset for Permadeath (if turned off): When the character is 'revived' [Completing the next player's turn /  Completing a Map / Completing 2 Maps?]

The reason why I list the options for Customize mode is because Story Mode & Classic Mode will be pre-set versions of Customize Mode, and exist as 'intended ways of playing the game', and when selecting one of those two options, it should give a short description on each mod's intentions and why the challenge is important.

The devs are at a crossroad and I believe the best option is communicate what the intended plays are, but give us the option to adjust what are personal needs. This would enable them to be able to design games with permadeath still as a feature, but allow a more causal audience can engage it without having to design the game themselves. Lastly,  I don't think it would even be too hard to create.

... But uhh... that's just my idea and most likely a pipe dream. What about you guys? What do you think they should do, specifically about permadeath and intended play?

Quick Summary of the Actual Concept:

- Reframe Quality of Life Features to something like Assist Tools, existing to help players stay engage in the game & reduce frustration. 

- Make these QoL features adjustable throughout the game (maybe in-between maps or something). Ideally all modes should be able to do this, but notify the player that if they change it while playing Story or Classic mode, that they are changing the intended design of the game.

- I'm classifying 'non-permadeath' or 'casual mode' as a quality of life feature, which implies and maybe nudges players to understand that permadeath is an intended way to play the game with worthwhile value (assuming they design the game with that intention).

- Lastly, I am not advocating that the creators should includes stuff like 0% growth mode, toggleable ambush spawns, or extremely harder enemies/difficulty within the QoL toggleable features. I merely excludes those type of stuff because considering how the game is typically programmed, I can it see it causing a lot more extra work for not a lot of gain. The QoL features on the other hand, I think it would easier to make adjustable because they typically function outside of the core gameplay of a tactical RPG. It would still require work and effort, but it wouldn't really require a nearly complete overhaul of the game and/or maps.

Edited by Clear World

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, exactly, is the issue with the current option of classic/casual?  Why are extra bells and whistles needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eclipse said:

What, exactly, is the issue with the current option of classic/casual?  Why are extra bells and whistles needed?

Honestly, on paper these kinds of choices can allow people to better control how they play and modify their experience, say if skirmishes were allowed in the more casual mode but you didn't want the option.

And the option changes are specifically in Free mode, this isn't something that affects your classic/casual modes at all.

That being said, there are issues beyond that to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't messed around with perma death since I started with Awakening and that game sort of spoiled me. If there are actually dynamically different game modes available, I might be inclined to try it out then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somehow i get the sense that you want to apply the flexibility of Western RPG or specifically DnD-RPG where many things can be tuned, changed, or configured. those game that have something like game master mode. maybe just me...

 

dunno why you want this, and yes it is pipe dream since IS subsidiary of Nintendo (100% in house development/not community driven), so too much flexibility and option regarding feature seems more of nuisance than investment, not to mention the nature of the game. i dont even know how to balance it when theres so much things you can turn on/off or if it even gives impact than just on-paper choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, eclipse said:

What, exactly, is the issue with the current option of classic/casual?  Why are extra bells and whistles needed?

In the same timespan that Casual mode has been around things like extra content (DLC, NG+ bonuses, barracks bonuses, etc) has been expanded upon and can have a similarly profound effect on how the game is played as being able to turn off permadeath. And more recently, in-game save states. Grinding too but that's been on and off longer. You can always say "don't use them" but having an option to turn them off helps remove the temptation. And in the case of skirmishes it'd be beneficial to faster playthroughs in the games where they might get in the way, like Echoes.

I'd be all for a broader casual-classic split that lets you pick and choose your own combination of features, provided the game is playtested with all the red pill options in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dayni said:

Honestly, on paper these kinds of choices can allow people to better control how they play and modify their experience, say if skirmishes were allowed in the more casual mode but you didn't want the option.

And the option changes are specifically in Free mode, this isn't something that affects your classic/casual modes at all.

That being said, there are issues beyond that to deal with.

 

7 hours ago, X-Naut said:

In the same timespan that Casual mode has been around things like extra content (DLC, NG+ bonuses, barracks bonuses, etc) has been expanded upon and can have a similarly profound effect on how the game is played as being able to turn off permadeath. And more recently, in-game save states. Grinding too but that's been on and off longer. You can always say "don't use them" but having an option to turn them off helps remove the temptation. And in the case of skirmishes it'd be beneficial to faster playthroughs in the games where they might get in the way, like Echoes.

I'd be all for a broader casual-classic split that lets you pick and choose your own combination of features, provided the game is playtested with all the red pill options in mind.

The two of you completely missed the point.  WHY.  I think they'd be better off as in-game menu options, not as permanent options that are chosen at the beginning of the game.  About the only ones that I think would need to be specified at the start of the game would be stuff like skirmishes and permadeath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eclipse said:

The two of you completely missed the point.  WHY.  I think they'd be better off as in-game menu options, not as permanent options that are chosen at the beginning of the game.  About the only ones that I think would need to be specified at the start of the game would be stuff like skirmishes and permadeath.

This doesn't preclude having the options while progressing through said Free mode playthrough..

Though that wasn't in my mind when I commented, it's certainly sensible.

But are you thus saying that fixed modes shouldn't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dayni said:

This doesn't preclude having the options while progressing through said Free mode playthrough..

Though that wasn't in my mind when I commented, it's certainly sensible.

But are you thus saying that fixed modes shouldn't exist?

If your goal is true flexibility, then give the players a chance to fiddle with things as they play the game, as many as possible.  I think going from Classic to Casual is about as good as can be done via an in-game menu option.  Stuff like skirmishes may not be as easy to program in (but if either of them could be, then that's what I'd be in favor of).  If it's fixed growths, I think that's another one that would be an "all-or-nothing" at the beginning of the game.  But fiddling with divine pulses and the like shouldn't completely break the game if it's changed partway through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only reason to prevent changing difficulty upwards after starting a game is if your users are supposed to be proud of taking their end-of-game Victory Screenshot 'hey, i beat Impossible Mode! worship me.' there's genuinely no excuse outside of programming that makes it prohibitive to do so on the fly to not allow difficulty to be tuned downwards on the fly. fixed modes should not exist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, X-Naut said:

I'd be all for a broader casual-classic split that lets you pick and choose your own combination of features, provided the game is playtested with all the red pill options in mind.

Here's where the trouble comes in - should the player be able to put themselves in an unwinnable scenario? Say I'm playing 0% growths Ironman Maniacal/Hard-5 mode, with enemy growths buffed by 20%, and there's a boss (whom I have to beat) that I literally cannot damage. Maybe my one potential damage dealer died last chapter, maybe I missed out on a house with the Bosslayer, IDK. Maybe neither, and I've played perfectly up until this point.

Is it... okay for this to happen? Should I be allowed to "screw myself", in the difficulty options I pick, or should any scenario be beatable? And if 0% IM H5+20% is beatable, how do they keep IM H3 from being a cakewalk? Of course, the alternative is to prevent the player from picking "unwinnable" combinations, but then isn't that undermining the freedom to tune your own game experience?

Bottom-line, while I like the idea of seeing more difficulty valves, I don't see how they could universally "balance" the experience for every potential combination. Some modes will be stupidly hard, possibly impossible, and others will be pathetically easy. That's just the territory that comes with expansive options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Here's where the trouble comes in - should the player be able to put themselves in an unwinnable scenario? Say I'm playing 0% growths Ironman Maniacal/Hard-5 mode, with enemy growths buffed by 20%, and there's a boss (whom I have to beat) that I literally cannot damage. Maybe my one potential damage dealer died last chapter, maybe I missed out on a house with the Bosslayer, IDK. Maybe neither, and I've played perfectly up until this point.

Is it... okay for this to happen? Should I be allowed to "screw myself", in the difficulty options I pick, or should any scenario be beatable? And if 0% IM H5+20% is beatable, how do they keep IM H3 from being a cakewalk? Of course, the alternative is to prevent the player from picking "unwinnable" combinations, but then isn't that undermining the freedom to tune your own game experience?

Bottom-line, while I like the idea of seeing more difficulty valves, I don't see how they could universally "balance" the experience for every potential combination. Some modes will be stupidly hard, possibly impossible, and others will be pathetically easy. That's just the territory that comes with expansive options.

I don't get what this has to do with the topic at hand. Your 0% IM H5+20% example stretches well beyond options that would be designed into a game and leans heavily into self-imposed challenges. All I'm suggesting is for what options the game does give you, the gameplay shouldn't be built assuming all the easy ways. Turnwheel is a bad excuse for having too much RNG or not thinking through same-turn reinforcements. Counting on the player to have DLC is scummy business practice. Most of these are crutches to make the game more accessible for newcomers or to spice things up on repeat playthroughs. If I need them to make the game bearable then, to quote you, they're undermining my freedom to tune my own game experience.

Permadeath is the only one I would answer "yes" to regarding your question, but it's a hazy answer since how you handle it is a choice within a choice. Best I can say is it's a matter of whether reasonable losses are sustainable without making them a slap on the wrist or slowing down considerably to grind new meat. If you're nearly routed and want to keep going there's a risk of softlocking, but losing one or two big players in a short period should be something I can recover from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, X-Naut said:

I don't get what this has to do with the topic at hand. Your 0% IM H5+20% example stretches well beyond options that would be designed into a game and leans heavily into self-imposed challenges

I suppose I wasn't being clear. I was referring to a hypothetical Fire Emblem title where all of these options are, in fact, baked in to the game. Namely, a 0% growths option, an Ironman mode, higher difficulty levels, and the ability to further buff enemy growths. Features that many, if not most, players would want considered independently - but in combination, could make for an RNG-reliant, perhaps downright impossible experience. 

4 hours ago, X-Naut said:

All I'm suggesting is for what options the game does give you, the gameplay shouldn't be built assuming all the easy ways. Turnwheel is a bad excuse for having too much RNG or not thinking through same-turn reinforcements. Counting on the player to have DLC is scummy business practice.

These are two different things, but generally I agree. I like the turnwheel, but if STRs are intended to make the player spin it, then I'm not a fan of that design philosophy. And yeah, ability to beat the game should not depend on having the DLC... but has that ever been the case? Like, Three Houses can be made easier with DLC features, but even on NG Maddening, it's beatable without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2020 at 11:57 PM, eclipse said:

What, exactly, is the issue with the current option of classic/casual?  Why are extra bells and whistles needed?

Let me put it this way. Some mechanics should absolutely come with toggles. One big one is the nature of ambush spawns.

 

New Game Plus Hard Mode is too easy for me in Three Houses. I would love to take my New Game Plus into Maddening, but ambush spawning assassins with pass are bloody terrible game design. Someone else might enjoy that gameplay and even want to add it to lower difficulties. 

 

And in general, the more "bells and whistles" the player has, the better. Customized difficulty is good, and being able to officially do so in engine is better than self-imposing these things.

Edited by Fabulously Olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Let me put it this way. Some mechanics should absolutely come with toggles. One big one is the nature of ambush spawns.

 

New Game Plus Hard Mode is too easy for me in Three Houses. I would love to take my New Game Plus into Maddening, but ambush spawning assassins with pass are bloody terrible game design. Someone else might enjoy that gameplay and even want to add it to lower difficulties. 

 

And in general, the more "bells and whistles" the player has, the better. Customized difficulty is good, and being able to officially do so in engine is better than self-imposing these things.

It's like you took that one quote and stopped reading.  I already addressed this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I felt like I preamble way too much in my initial post to reach my actual point. But I want to try to make this clear:

- I think players should be able to customize the Quality of Life Features, because I view those stuff as an 'Assist Tool', not a 'Balance Tool'.

- I think they should be adjustable throughout the game (maybe only in-between maps or something), which I forgot to mention. Maybe all modes could use this, or maybe just free mode.

- I'm also classifying 'non-permadeath' or 'casual mode' as a quality of life feature, which implies and maybe nudges players to understand that permadeath is the intended way of play (assuming they design the game with that intention).

- Lastly, I am not advocating that the creators includes stuff like 0% growth mode, toggleable ambush spawns, or extremely harder enemies/difficulty. I excludes these stuff because considering how the game is typically programmed, I can it see it causing a lot more extra work for not a lot of gain. The QoL features on the other hand, I think it would be easy to make them adjustable because they typically function outside of the core gameplay of a tactical RPG. It would still require work and effort, but it wouldn't really require a nearly complete overhaul of the game and/or maps.

On 12/30/2020 at 7:57 AM, joevar said:

dunno why you want this, and yes it is pipe dream since IS subsidiary of Nintendo (100% in house development/not community driven), so too much flexibility and option regarding feature seems more of nuisance than investment, not to mention the nature of the game. i dont even know how to balance it when theres so much things you can turn on/off or if it even gives impact than just on-paper choice.

Yes, complete pipe dream. But to your second point, it isn't actually hard to design/balance a game like this. These features should be known as QoL features (or maybe as assist features) that can be toggleable if needed to reduce the negative impact of punishment. Balance should not be the focus of the toggleable. Assuming if they did something like this, balance would only need to be designed around one or two options: Classic or Story mode, which is what it currently is now.

On 12/30/2020 at 5:43 PM, eclipse said:

If your goal is true flexibility, then give the players a chance to fiddle with things as they play the game, as many as possible.  I think going from Classic to Casual is about as good as can be done via an in-game menu option.  Stuff like skirmishes may not be as easy to program in (but if either of them could be, then that's what I'd be in favor of).  If it's fixed growths, I think that's another one that would be an "all-or-nothing" at the beginning of the game.  But fiddling with divine pulses and the like shouldn't completely break the game if it's changed partway through.

I regret that I forgot to write that in in my long preamble of an initial post. I'll make a edit to clarify what I am actually suggesting.

I do think these QoL options should be adjustable during the game, or like in-between maps or during like a prep screen. They shouldn't be an "all-or-nothing" setting at the beginning of the game as that would be asking the players to design the game for themselves before they even know what they are getting themselves into. Pre-sets options like Story Mode and Classic Mode should still exist, and I would argue a player should still be able to change the QoL options in those modes (but merely notify that they are changing the intentions of the game by doing so).

Edited by Clear World

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2020 at 11:57 PM, eclipse said:

What, exactly, is the issue with the current option of classic/casual?  Why are extra bells and whistles needed?

To build the foundation in which the creators have the mean to please both sides without having to compromise too much on whatever they actually design, and even extending pass classic/casual split.

I'm also aware skirmishes are somewhat divisive in the community, so I think this is also a good solution to remove things that players may actively avoid to keep the game from becoming too easy while also still allowing players to keep if they enjoy it.

22 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Here's where the trouble comes in - should the player be able to put themselves in an unwinnable scenario? Say I'm playing 0% growths Ironman Maniacal/Hard-5 mode, with enemy growths buffed by 20%, and there's a boss (whom I have to beat) that I literally cannot damage. Maybe my one potential damage dealer died last chapter, maybe I missed out on a house with the Bosslayer, IDK. Maybe neither, and I've played perfectly up until this point.

This is why I'm not keen on making stuff that directly affects balance within these togglable stuff. But regarding about your hypothetical situation, this is why communication needs to be important, they need to be aware what they are getting into and if it happens, then it happens. I like to think about a game like Hollow Knight with Steel Soul mode. The game should inform you what you're getting yourself into, including the detail that if someone in your party dies, then you will just have to move forward without them and that too many poor play early on may lead you to a horrible situation later in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Clear World said:

To build the foundation in which the creators have the mean to please both sides without having to compromise too much on whatever they actually design, and even extending pass classic/casual split.

I'm also aware skirmishes are somewhat divisive in the community, so I think this is also a good solution to remove things that players may actively avoid to keep the game from becoming too easy while also still allowing players to keep if they enjoy it.

First, this is a double post.  Use the Edit button.  Yes it's a gigantic pain in the neck to deal with, but you've got the Multiquote thing down.

Second, this isn't a matter of sides - this conversation is lost if you truly feel that there's a divide.  Interest in a video game is a spectrum, and I think the "main" options should target the middle of that spectrum.  Any supposed "bells and whistles" would be for the other ends of it.  I also think that a game that's truly well-designed won't need too many options that fundamentally alter the experience (it's not like the longtime FE players literally never had a death in the middle of a chapter before, we worked around it) - because once a game loses sight of its target audience, it gets ugly.  It's a fun balancing act, just like trying to balance my ancestry with my current country of residence - I don't have to throw one away in the name of the other!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clear World said:

Yes, complete pipe dream. But to your second point, it isn't actually hard to design/balance a game like this. These features should be known as QoL features (or maybe as assist features) that can be toggleable if needed to reduce the negative impact of punishment. Balance should not be the focus of the toggleable. Assuming if they did something like this, balance would only need to be designed around one or two options: Classic or Story mode, which is what it currently is now.

yes, after reading it again, i get your point, there are actually many games that have toggle-able part of difficulty nowadays, not just RPG in fact. in Racing games like forza for example, you can toggle how much assist in corner, how much dmg impact performance, etc etc all can be on/off in middle of the game except in ongoing match/race

but thats not a feature those game emphasizes, its just there. so im still on opinion that things like that not necessarily will improve general perception toward FE. since each map can be substantially longer compared to every fight or race in other game that you dont care to change it again.

again nintendo, so this falls neatly into " Something you'd love in a fire emblem game but fear you'll never see"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about the multiple post. Anyways...

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Second, this isn't a matter of sides - this conversation is lost if you truly feel that there's a divide.  Interest in a video game is a spectrum, and I think the "main" options should target the middle of that spectrum.  Any supposed "bells and whistles" would be for the other ends of it.  I also think that a game that's truly well-designed won't need too many options that fundamentally alter the experience (it's not like the longtime FE players literally never had a death in the middle of a chapter before, we worked around it) - because once a game loses sight of its target audience, it gets ugly.  It's a fun balancing act, just like trying to balance my ancestry with my current country of residence - I don't have to throw one away in the name of the other!

I find your conclusion confusing, because I agree with your core concept. The creators of Fire Emblem should  aim at whatever they want it to be, and should have the leeway to design the game however they choose. But I also believe in that the game should be able to be engage at the level the player's wants, which is a wide spectrum of skill level, ranging from first-time players to longtime FE players such as yourself. 

To be honest, it sounds like you think I'm suggesting something that I'm not, because what you said should be done for a well-designed game, is more or less what I think should be done. What am I purposing that is altering the fundamental experience of the game?

I'm suggesting that game be able to design the mode they really desire, at the power curve at their choosing, without having to compromise and create the game at the middle if they don't' want to. Afterwards, they can add the "bells and whistles" to expand on the spectrum of players who can play and engage with the game at the level that suits the player better, but make it clear what is the intended design, and what isn't. 

Difficulty isn't just the only thing that blocks players from enjoying a game, and some of these fundamental experience may be huge road block for a lot of players to initially enter the game.

8 minutes ago, joevar said:

yes, after reading it again, i get your point, there are actually many games that have toggle-able part of difficulty nowadays, not just RPG in fact. in Racing games like forza for example, you can toggle how much assist in corner, how much dmg impact performance, etc etc all can be on/off in middle of the game except in ongoing match/race

but thats not a feature those game emphasizes, its just there. so im still on opinion that things like that not necessarily will improve general perception toward FE. since each map can be substantially longer compared to every fight or race in other game that you dont care to change it again.

again nintendo, so this falls neatly into " Something you'd love in a fire emblem game but fear you'll never see"

I actually didn't know that thread existed, until after i wrote this post.

Anyways, it could see the light of day. Nintendo may not be huge on customizing their game, but if the focus in on 'accessibility', there is a decent chance you see something like this in the future. Maybe not to level I hope, but something like it.

Edited by Clear World

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Clear World said:

I find your conclusion confusing, because I agree with your core concept. The creators of Fire Emblem should  aim at whatever they want it to be, and should have the leeway to design the game however they choose. But I also believe in that the game should be able to be engage at the level the player's wants, which is a wide spectrum of skill level, ranging from first-time players to longtime FE players such as yourself. 

To be honest, it sounds like you think I'm suggesting something that I'm not, because what you said should be done for a well-designed game, is more or less what I think should be done. What am I purposing that is altering the fundamental experience of the game?

I'm suggesting that game be able to design the mode they really desire, at the power curve at their choosing, without having to compromise and create the game at the middle if they don't' want to. Afterwards, they can add the "bells and whistles" to expand on the spectrum of players who can play and engage with the game at the level that suits the player better, but make it clear what is the intended design, and what isn't. 

Difficulty isn't just the only thing that blocks players from enjoying a game, and some of these fundamental experience may be huge road block for a lot of players to initially enter the game.

And this is what I fundamentally disagree with.  Not everyone will find every genre playable.  Audience reach is one thing, but when you try to cater to everyone, you're going to lose someone.  The question is "who".  For example, try as you like, I'm probably going to find most action-based games utterly unfun.  All the options in the world isn't going to change it, because if I find an action-based game "fun", I find that those who like action-based games find it unfun.  This tells me that the genre isn't for me.  No, that's not a bad thing.  I don't mind making the game more flexible, but I also don't want FE to forget that it's a SRPG that's known for back-of-the-envelope calculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eclipse said:

And this is what I fundamentally disagree with.  Not everyone will find every genre playable.  Audience reach is one thing, but when you try to cater to everyone, you're going to lose someone.  The question is "who".  For example, try as you like, I'm probably going to find most action-based games utterly unfun.  All the options in the world isn't going to change it, because if I find an action-based game "fun", I find that those who like action-based games find it unfun.  This tells me that the genre isn't for me.  No, that's not a bad thing.  I don't mind making the game more flexible, but I also don't want FE to forget that it's a SRPG that's known for back-of-the-envelope calculations.

I get what you're saying, but I don't get how you're reaching those conclusion.

I need to ask you, what do you think Quality of Life changes refers to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Clear World said:

I get what you're saying, but I don't get how you're reaching those conclusion.

I need to ask you, what do you think Quality of Life changes refers to?

Things that make the interface cleaner.  Not things that fundamentally change how the game is played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

So, to counter your reason. Basically everything I purposed, are things Intelligent Systems have already done in their games. The biggest difference though is that I want them to push up these features to be more accessible to better assist players in need instead of gating these helpful features behind gameplay rewards or being dependent on which game-version you purchased.

On another note, for which I want to be clear on it, if the creators didn't want to include a feature at all in the game like for example 'skirmishes', then they also don't have to include the feature to toggle it on or off. I only list it as an example because basically all of their games that included skirmishes were completely optional. Or if they come up with a better system to better balance skirmishes inclusion, then use that better system inside of just toggle it on or off.

Edited by Clear World

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some things even toggles cant fix.

For example: FE4's Holy Weapons. Sure you could just say to add a toggle and lower their MT, but then it's not FE4 anymore and I think that's what Eclipse means by "lose someone". I could be wrong on that, though, haha.

It needs to keep that core, otherwise what separates it from any other Fire Emblem game?

Edited by lightcosmo

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...