Should Casual Mode have been introduced sooner?

[Perkilator]

I know Casual Mode is a pretty hot topic in the Fire Emblem fan base, but I just wanted to ask: in your opinion, should Casual Mode have been introduced sooner?

Personally, I think it should’ve been introduced as far back as Blazing Blade, since it was the first FE game to be launched outside of Japan.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

It never needed to exist.

It´s just a worse reset.

[Jotari]

I would have welcomed it in Shadow Dragon if it meant the Gaidens were implemented more naturally, but no sooner.

[lenticular]

With the benefit of hindsight, it should have been there right from the original Famicom Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light. It's a popular feature that a lot of people like, that increase accessibility, and -- importantly -- has no impact at all on people who prefer not to use it.

Without the benefit of hindsight, I'd say they got things about right. They started off with the design intent that people would play ironman style, then when they noticed that people weren't doing that, they tried various different workarounds or incentives before coming up with casual mode (and later time rewind) as a solution that works.

[Alastor15243]

It never should have been introduced at all. It must does not gel with the balancing or playstyle of the franchise, and its mere existence makes classic mode appear more intimidating than it actually is.

I got into playing the series classic-style when my middle-school ass got FE7 for Christmas. Would I have made the same decision if there were a casual mode back then? Given how intimidated I was by the hard modes, probably not. I would've thought it was too much for me, and as the true timeline attests, I would've been wrong.

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, Alastor15243 said:

It never should have been introduced at all. It must does not gel with the balancing or playstyle of the franchise, and its mere existence makes classic mode appear more intimidating than it actually is.

I got into playing the series classic-style when my middle-school ass got FE7 for Christmas. Would I have made the same decision if there were a casual mode back then? Given how intimidated I was by the hard modes, probably not. I would've thought it was too much for me, and as the true timeline attests, I would've been wrong.

I feel like there should be an intermediate mode between Classic and Casual called Retreat mode or something to encourage players to graduate to Classic. Instead of your characters dying when killed in battle, they become injured and unplayable for three chapters or so. Which would make a big difference to a casual player. They might still live, but they'll fall behind on the exp curve and you might have to drop them. A little taste of classic without going all the way, so to speak.

[Lightcosmo]

Thinking about it, is Casual mode even as "safe" as something like RD Easy/Normal turn saves?

As for the topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with it being around, if players want to use it, let them. It's as simple as: if you don't want to, don't, and if you do, go ahead.

What's the reason for those not wanting it anyways?

[Integrity]

fire emblem's always been poorly (if at all) designed with regards to permadeath, and casual mode is both based and cool, but i don't think there's any way to say it 'should' have come about sooner. should fire emblem have gone with permadeath in the first place? maybe, maybe not, but there isn't really a 'logical' place for casual to have been implemented for the first time, so why not when it was? the op mentions 7, but that's about as arbitrary as any other place and was also in a culture of very different game design focus, so i don't see why it would have been any more or less reasonable than anytime else.

[PostZordem]

No, Casual Mode was introduced at the right time. I believe Awakening was the first game to feature Casual as an option, but I'm not 100% sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong. Fire Emblem wouldn't be what it is today if a Casual Mode was incorporated earlier on, and the franchise wouldn't have survived without a Casual option, so I feel like Awakening was the right game to establish an "Easy mode" for new players looking to get into the series without feeling overwhelmed. 

As long as Casual doesn't replace Classic I feel like both modes can coexist without there being any real issues.

Phoenix Mode however, now that's a mode that shouldn't have existed in the first place. 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I feel like there should be an intermediate mode between Classic and Casual called Retreat mode or something to encourage players to graduate to Classic. Instead of your characters dying when killed in battle, they become injured and unplayable for three chapters or so. Which would make a big difference to a casual player. They might still live, but they'll fall behind on the exp curve and you might have to drop them. A little taste of classic without going all the way, so to speak.

Now this is an absolutely genius idea. I would totally be down for a Retreat Mode, even though I'd probably still reset/rewind for any injured characters. It would serve as the perfect transition between Casual and Classic, so I'd welcome an Intermediate mode with open arms. 

1 hour ago, Lightcosmo said:

What's the reason for those not wanting it anyways?

I would say gatekeeping, but that hardly answers exactly why Casual gets some flak. Plus, I don't believe fans of any game franchise would want to exclude any potential new players from becoming fans themselves. My best guess would be that Casual mode doesn't provide the "true experience" where any mistake on the battlefield could cost you a character's life. Since Casual takes away the threat of permadeath (Something that defines Fire Emblem), there's far less need to strategize and know when to make a play and when to hold back. 

[Integrity]

6 minutes ago, CyberZord said:

Phoenix Mode however, now that's a mode that shouldn't have existed in the first place. 

phoenix mode (and story difficulties in general, see the 90s crpg remakes) actually whips ass, because it enables

• people to play the games who wouldn't have ordinarily, i do not give a shit if they don't 'improve' to be good enough to play fire emblem, and
• for veterans to be able to test shit way more easily and do wild bullshit like the guy on this site who ran the game 9 times on phoenix back to back to build a castle of only ryomas, and on top of that
• makes it a lot easier for us in the serenes forest business to get info for the site without data mining tools and dedicated smart people to use em

people who sing the praises of casual mode and say phoenix mode is an abomination baffle me. i've never played phoenix mode, and i never will, because it isn't for me, but the reasons always end up being the exact same as the dorks gatekeeping only permadeath mode allowed except with the goalposts shifted south.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Integrity

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I'm all for more options and modes of play, even when it's an option I will never select. But I think a lot about how three of my close personal friends got their start on casual mode Awakening. None of them picked up any fire emblem game since. Yet the one friend that got his start borrowing my copy of Path of Radiance - and Radiant Dawn after he finished? He gave Three Houses a shot and stuck it out to the end. Wants to try out FE7 on the Switch once he has time. Just wants to re-experience that magic of that first playthrough. And every buddy I let try out Sacred Stones/FE7 back in middle school was obsessed and repeatedly asking to loan it for the years that I still knew them. I think Classic mode just leaves a stronger impression and understanding of Fire Emblem as a strategy game more than "Just another rpg". And since a lot of those friends that lapsed after Awakening still play and love Xcom, permadeath might actually be the difference. 

So on that note I think Awakening was the right time (Well, FE12, but for anybody reading this, Awakening). The series was at its lowest point of the twenty first century. A shakeup needed to happen. And as far as shots in the dark go, this one was pretty smart and (relatively) harmless. If Awakening only featured Classic mode it would still be the most casual, sandboxy entry in the series. Casual mode is just extremely marketable too. Because it sounds like a problem has been fixed for players that hate the idea of permadeath, whether they've taken a chance on it or not. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Integrity]

the difference between fire emblem and xcom is way more than permadeath. i think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

 

i know a lot of people who love xcom who have bounced off of fire emblem at many different phases of the franchise (from the old ages through awakening through feth) because xcom offers unit design while fire emblem offers relatively little of it compared to contemporaries. permadeath or otherwise, the charm of xcom is that you make your guys and you assign meaning to them, while fire emblem gives you neatly-wrapped unit packages. they scratch completely different itches for people, to the point where assigning it to 'didn't have permadeath' is doing a significant disservice to xcom actually designing systems around permadeath, something fire emblem rarely does. i would wager if you and your por friend were six years younger, and he'd borrowed awakening instead at the same point in his life, things would have turned out pretty much the same.

[Lightcosmo]

1 hour ago, CyberZord said:

My best guess would be that Casual mode doesn't provide the "true experience" where any mistake on the battlefield could cost you a character's life.

RD battle saves disagree. Literally saves that can be used any time during the players turn. Like, how is that not just as bad if not worse?

Edited July 24, 2023 by Lightcosmo

[Florete]

I think the most logical time to introduce it would have been Radiant Dawn, for a few reasons:

1. RD was on the Wii, a more casual player-focused console.
2. RD was pretty difficult compared to past entries, so much so they went out of their way to add a mid-map save feature (only in international versions iirc, but still) which was kind of a precursor to Casual mode. Because of the difficulty, players would be less likely to feel like casual mode was making the game too easy.
3. RD came right about when games were really becoming more mainstream and readily available, and everyone was starting to get phones in their hands (among other things). This means there were more games available to play in general and more things to do in the average person's downtime, leaving them less likely to dedicate a lot of time to any one specific thing, like a long RPG that might force you to reset a couple hours of progress if you make one mistake. Though given Nintendo's penchant for being behind the times, it was probably too early for this to come up even if they'd been considering casual mode at the time.

You could say (as some posters have) that the mode could have been there from the beginning or at any point since, and that's fine, but as far as having factors that would make casual mode appealing to as many potential buyers as possible, as early as possible, I think this is it.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Florete

[Hrothgar777]

IIRC there was a shelved proposal to put casual or something closely resembling it in FE4. The reason they didn't do so was because, in the 90s, the whole permadeath shtick was what made Fire Emblem different from other RPGs.

 

So I can see the value in Classic, and I can understand why they were hesitant to change the formula. But I don't get the elitist "Humbug, if you're not good enough to clear the game when you're losing half or a third of your party every battle, and you're not patient enough to retry the average level 10 times to make sure you lose no one, then you don't deserve to enjoy the game you paid for" attitude. Games are supposed to be fun, not just for the uber-talented diehards but for the average player. And if not for those average players buying huge numbers of copies, the franchise would simply be cancelled and the diehard minority would get no new content (in a nutshell, imagine if Awakening had no casual and only reaped half the sales because half of all players were deterred at the sight).

 

What I think Nintendo should've done is have both, but specifically reward the player for roughing it out in Classic. Change not just the gameplay but the dialogue and, to an degree, even the story, if you lose certain people and/or successfully keep certain people from dying. I can see why they don't do this, since it'd make developing a given installment take way longer, but I think it would put the controversy to rest.

 

To give my opinion on the question asked, I don't know. When it came to short games from the 90s, the deliberate point was to make it hard so you had to replay it over and over to beat it and get your money's worth. But that was no longer applicable, say, by the time we got to Path of Radiance. I'd say it would've been fine to add Casual to PoR and Shadow Dragon, but I can't speak to earlier than this.

 

(Never played X-COM btw. My only exposure to it was an early Civilization game having an X-COM themed map/scenario, which I played through once more than a decade ago. What is it, exactly?)

Edited July 24, 2023 by Hrothgar777

[Lightcosmo]

38 minutes ago, Hrothgar777 said:

not just for the uber-talented diehards but for the average player

They this makes me think of KH III DLC which most players wont touch because its way too difficult. Xd

[Integrity]

1 hour ago, Florete said:

I think the most logical time to introduce it would have been Radiant Dawn, for a few reasons:

i said there wasn't a 'more logical time' to introduce casual mode but you've changed my mind. i think that's three very solid points.

 

1 hour ago, Hrothgar777 said:

(Never played X-COM btw. My only exposure to it was an early Civilization game having an X-COM themed map/scenario, which I played through once more than a decade ago. What is it, exactly?)

xcom gets compared to fire emblem fairly frequently but i think it's a bit of a false similarity. xcom is a tactics game where you manage little (in the new games) or big (in the old games) squads of action figures and have them kill aliens and sometimes die and make you cry. the similarities end there - xcom has an extra layer of strategy where you have to manage your global response and technological research to fight an accelerating alien force, the games have no similarity whatsoever on the tactical level besides being grid-based and 'having an enemy phase', and your guys in xcom are recruited from the void with no personality besides whatever you assign them (and, especially in xcom2, whatever hella fashion you give them).

if you like tactics games in general, the original x-com (with the openxcom wrapper) is absolutely seminal and you owe it to yourself to at least try it, whether you end up liking or finishing it or not, kind of like how it's worth it for any sci-fi fan to watch some of the original star trek even if much of it isn't very good. the more recent games (xcom + enemy within and xcom 2 + war of the chosen) are, in my opinion, better games, but they're very different and focus on commando squads of personalized, rad dudes rather than the hordes of earthmen at your command like the old ones do. some prefer the old way, which is understandable.

e: actually that's a pretty pithy way to put it - in old x-com, you control army men. in new xcom, you control action figures. both are fun, but they're quite different.

if you like fire emblem, specifically, that's not much of an indicator for how you'll feel about the xcom games.

play xcom: chimera squad tho it's fuckin fantastic

Edited July 24, 2023 by Integrity

[Arvis4Prez]

Mm, it's hard to say for sure. I personally believe that Casual Mode is fine (Phoenix Mode is too much), but at the same time, I don't think it's essential to Fire Emblem. I think most players get too hung up on losing units, and while sometimes you get unlucky and an enemy lands a 22% hit and 2% crit and kills your Lucia (it's happened to me haha), most other times it comes down to the player being punished for over-extending. But even still, in older titles, you can only bring about less than 20 units or so in the final chapters, and you have rosters that number much higher than that. I think that even if you're the type who doesn't want anyone to die, and will reset for a single unit even if it's the last turn of the final map, that is a choice that you, the player, make. And like all choices, resetting has consequences, and I think it's a bit silly to complain about the consequences of resetting. And I'm the guy who played through Radiant Dawn when I was about 9 years old. I lost a lot of units, sure, and it took me a long time to beat, but I did it, and that was before I knew anything about Fire Emblem! 

I also feel that unit death can add to a sense of emergent storytelling. For example, in my first ever run of Sacred Stones, Garcia and Ross had an A support and had been used for the entire game. Until I get to the chapter where you fight Riev at Rausten, where Ross and Garcia were my frontline defenders, and Garcia died next to Ross. It was absolutely crushing, and I kept playing (because I don't reset in my first ever run of a Fire Emblem game) and carried on. Same with Path of Radiance, when Boyd got slept on the endgame map and killed after being attacked by about seven or so units. And I could go on and on and list off every moment a unit I liked died (I'm not good at these games haha). But at the same time, while it's upsetting and depressing to lose units you've bonded with and care about and love (or even units you've invested time and resources into), I find that units dying adds to the gravitas of the game's story. Things start to feel more real because no, not everyone is going to make it home when this is all said and done, and you're no longer fighting to just save the world from whatever big bad is threatening it, but you're also fighting to win so that the units who fell didn't die in vain. Casual Mode doesn't let that happen, and I find it's more so a disservice to the games and its characters because the tension that would come from an enemy phase is just not there anymore, because the permanence of your units dying is lessened severely.

[Dark Holy Elf]

9 hours ago, lenticular said:

With the benefit of hindsight, it should have been there right from the original Famicom Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light. It's a popular feature that a lot of people like, that increase accessibility, and -- importantly -- has no impact at all on people who prefer not to use it.

Without the benefit of hindsight, I'd say they got things about right. They started off with the design intent that people would play ironman style, then when they noticed that people weren't doing that, they tried various different workarounds or incentives before coming up with casual mode (and later time rewind) as a solution that works.

This is about how I feel. All I will add is that while it's clear the devs wanted Fire Emblem to be played ironman style, there's a reason that never happened - if you make a bunch of characters with unique names and faces, players will get attached to them and want to keep them alive.

9 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

It never needed to exist.

It´s just a worse reset.

It's a reset that doesn't cost a large chunk of time, which is a big deal to a lot of players. Not everyone has time to retry a map which can easily take an hour. IMO, if Casual Mode wasn't going to exist, mid-map saves (which notably appeared in both of the last two Fire Emblems before we got casual mode... and in FE4) definitely should.

 

Regarding XCOM vs Fire Emblem, agreed that despite their similarities, they do some very different things and it's not hard to find someone who likes one and not the other, for a slew of reasons.

5 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I'm all for more options and modes of play, even when it's an option I will never select. But I think a lot about how three of my close personal friends got their start on casual mode Awakening. None of them picked up any fire emblem game since. Yet the one friend that got his start borrowing my copy of Path of Radiance - and Radiant Dawn after he finished? He gave Three Houses a shot and stuck it out to the end. Wants to try out FE7 on the Switch once he has time. Just wants to re-experience that magic of that first playthrough. And every buddy I let try out Sacred Stones/FE7 back in middle school was obsessed and repeatedly asking to loan it for the years that I still knew them. I think Classic mode just leaves a stronger impression and understanding of Fire Emblem as a strategy game more than "Just another rpg". And since a lot of those friends that lapsed after Awakening still play and love Xcom, permadeath might actually be the difference. 

I definitely have some opposite anecdotal experience here - I have friends who started with Awakening/Fates/3H who had previously ignored the series because of being intimidated by permadeath, and are now big fans. And while I can't prove it, I suspect this experience is quite common.

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Integrity said:

fire emblem's always been poorly (if at all) designed with regards to permadeath, and casual mode is both based and cool, but i don't think there's any way to say it 'should' have come about sooner. should fire emblem have gone with permadeath in the first place? maybe, maybe not, but there isn't really a 'logical' place for casual to have been implemented for the first time, so why not when it was? the op mentions 7, but that's about as arbitrary as any other place and was also in a culture of very different game design focus, so i don't see why it would have been any more or less reasonable than anytime else.

The implication seems to be that it's because it was first released internationally, Japanese players are just more hard core than international players. Which is probably not true. Japan no doubt has plenty of casual gamers and all of these conversations and marketing decisions apply just as much to Japan.

6 hours ago, CyberZord said:

No, Casual Mode was introduced at the right time. I believe Awakening was the first game to feature Casual as an option, but I'm not 100% sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong. Fire Emblem wouldn't be what it is today if a Casual Mode was incorporated earlier on, and the franchise wouldn't have survived without a Casual option, so I feel like Awakening was the right game to establish an "Easy mode" for new players looking to get into the series without feeling overwhelmed. 

As long as Casual doesn't replace Classic I feel like both modes can coexist without there being any real issues.

Phoenix Mode however, now that's a mode that shouldn't have existed in the first place. 

Now this is an absolutely genius idea. I would totally be down for a Retreat Mode, even though I'd probably still reset/rewind for any injured characters. It would serve as the perfect transition between Casual and Classic, so I'd welcome an Intermediate mode with open arms. 

I would say gatekeeping, but that hardly answers exactly why Casual gets some flak. Plus, I don't believe fans of any game franchise would want to exclude any potential new players from becoming fans themselves. My best guess would be that Casual mode doesn't provide the "true experience" where any mistake on the battlefield could cost you a character's life. Since Casual takes away the threat of permadeath (Something that defines Fire Emblem), there's far less need to strategize and know when to make a play and when to hold back. 

I'm a bit surprised that no one has corrected you on this (though someone else did mention it), but New Mystery was the first game with Casual, not Awakening.

5 hours ago, Lightcosmo said:

RD battle saves disagree. Literally saves that can be used any time during the players turn. Like, how is that not just as bad if not worse?

Radiant Dawn was my first game in the series and I'm not sure I would have been able to finish it without abusing battle saves literally every turn (and then, for a time, save states in older games). And I think that's the core reason some people don't like Casual Mode. We were all scrubs at one point, but we engaged (pun not intended, but welcomed) with the series in a certain way and that intensity really connected with us. If I hadn't played Radiant Dawn horribly on my first try and played casual mode where things are far more relaxed then I probably wouldn't feel the way I do about the series now. And I like how I feel about the series, and I want other people to share that feeling and like it too. But, of course, not everyone will even if you force them to play classic for years on end. That's why I suggest an intermediate and a push to graduate people into Classic. Someone also mentioned other incentives like plot stuff, which I would be fully on board for. These reasons are also why I think iron man should be a dedicated mode too. The argument that you can just not reset could equally apply to casual. You could just choose to never use a unit again if they die in casual. What's the difference? Well, that control being taken out of your hands and things being a lot more serious as a result.

 

Open question for you gaming historians. Was Fire Emblem the first game to ever feature what we could describe as Perma Death?

[link16hit]

sooner casual mode huh? Yeah probably but make it ranking. I played Casual Fates but with classic death in mind (battle save).

FE1/FE3/FE4/FE11/FE12 have Aum/Valkyrie staff, which can revive a character. The latter can be repaired and in Gen2 you can be over 20+ character in a map
FE2 have easy mode and revive spring
FE4 have battle save because of big map. (FE4 did it first, not FE10)
FE5 have elite mode which double EXP rate and have a lot of character...

 

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Open question for you gaming historians. Was Fire Emblem the first game to ever feature what we could describe as Perma Death?

FE was a derivation of the Wars games (advance wars) from IS. so Wars did it first?

[lenticular]

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Open question for you gaming historians. Was Fire Emblem the first game to ever feature what we could describe as Perma Death?

The original Rogue, from 1980, is the first one I can think of. Or if you venture outside of video games, I think that Dungeons & Dragons has had it since its inception (1974).

[Capt. Fargus]

12 hours ago, Lightcosmo said:

Thinking about it, is Casual mode even as "safe" as something like RD Easy/Normal turn saves?

As for the topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with it being around, if players want to use it, let them. It's as simple as: if you don't want to, don't, and if you do, go ahead.

What's the reason for those not wanting it anyways?

Just look at the Dark Souls and Elden Ring fans and how they act

”But Captain, I had to git gud to finish it. Why shouldn’t everybody else?”

Well, I say the more people enjoy a game however they can, the better it is all around. And if they wanna test thenselfs with a harder run when they think they’re ready, thats fine too

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, link16hit said:

sooner casual mode huh? Yeah probably but make it ranking. I played Casual Fates but with classic death in mind (battle save).

FE1/FE3/FE4/FE11/FE12 have Aum/Valkyrie staff, which can revive a character. The latter can be repaired and in Gen2 you can be over 20+ character in a map
FE2 have easy mode and revive spring
FE4 have battle save because of big map. (FE4 did it first, not FE10)
FE5 have elite mode which double EXP rate and have a lot of character...

 

FE was a derivation of the Wars games (advance wars) from IS. so Wars did it first?

Well from what later Advance Wars I played, there aren't unique characters on the battlefield for Perma Death to apply.

3 hours ago, lenticular said:

The original Rogue, from 1980, is the first one I can think of. Or if you venture outside of video games, I think that Dungeons & Dragons has had it since its inception (1974).

How did it work in Rogue?

[Integrity]

exactly how you'd think - if your guy died, he died, and you had to start a whole new game file

 

sword of aragon, a pc strategy game from the late 80s sometime, had permadeath on named units, to at least name one, if rogue being a one character game isn't quite what you meant

e: in addition to other SSI games, i'm faintly sure the original might and magic had permadeath, or at least certain deaths were permanent, and that came out in 1986.

e2: actually fuck how did i forget wizardry (1981), the game that spawned the entire jrpg industry

Edited July 25, 2023 by Integrity