Anouleth

Didn't you say in your very first post that Ike has a mediocre start?

It's not despicable to see a tragedy and want to prevent such a thing occuring again in the future, and I'll thank you to stop throwing around insults. Even though Americans supposedly grow up in a culture of violence, we don't see similar crimes occuring in other countries with the same culture. The United Kingdom watches the same movies and plays the same video games as the United States. But these kinds of tragedies are still far less common over here, even accounting for the gap in population. Or, to take a nation that has a similar problem to the United States, consider China. On the same day, there was an attack at an elementary school in China: but because guns are heavily restricted in China, the attacker used a knife. And fortunately, there were no deaths. So yes, there is evidence to suggest that the liberal gun laws in America do contribute to it's high rate of shootings, even if there are other factors involved.

So, you're saying that tragedies like this are the price that Americans pay for their right to own guns? Sounds like a, er, great deal you've got there.

Shinon misses 2HKOes on enemies in his starting chapter, so it's more than just a few Armors and bosses. Of the 8 Bandits in Chapter 3, Shinon can only ORKO 5. And funnily enough, Shinon doesn't kill Armours in Chapter 7 even with a critical hit, so yeah, I feel very justified in finding Shinon unimpressive in earlygame.

I don't know anything about the other things, but I thought it was pretty cool. Psycho Mantis in general is a fun boss battle.

Yes. Strength is the greatest virtue.

ITT: Life finally realises that all the prepromotes in this game have good growths, seven years after the game comes out. Also, Shinon really doesn't ORKO everything he sees. 9 strength is embarassingly bad for a prepromote (it's the same as Eyvel), and he needs Steel to 2HKO. Even with Steel I remember him sometimes missing ORKOes. Also, you miss what made Wolf/Sedgar good. Wolf and Sedgar were good because you could put them in any class and get a character who capped everything. Maybe if Shinon could reclass and capped all his stats, he'd be like Wolf and Sedgar: but Shinon can't reclass and doesn't cap anything. It's not like he even gains levels fast: Wolf/Sedgar reaped the benefits of a revised EXP formula that was generous to promoted units. On paper, he's statistically outright worse than Zihark, and that's before even getting into his shitty class.

If Rolf is baaaarely outdamaging Kysha, and has worse speed and worse durability and worse movement, he's a worse character. Simple as. How about we take one of the other characters that Kysha is considered to be "worse" than on the tier list (because it's not like there's a shortage), then? If Kysha gains 3 levels in time for 3-12, then Makalov needs to be an impossible level 15 to match that. Sigrun has 24SPD too, and she joins in that chapter: shame that she has more than 20 less HP than him and lower defense too. Calill, who is two full tiers above Kysha, needs to be level seventeen, which adds up to nine levels gain in two chapters in which Calill is your worst unit except for Astrid. Danved needs to be level 16. Hell, Soren needs to be promoted!

I personally find it impossible to read "Caeda" as anything other than "Kay-dah".

Coincidentally, in China there's also been an attack at an elementary school: another knife attack, with 22 children injured.

I don't care what reasons IntSys have for putting it in! Why the fuck would I? And like I said earlier, I think that if "uniqueness" is the only thing that permadeath has going for it, it shouldn't be in the game at all. Not that permadeath is even unique. Characters die permanently in other games. Even Diablo 3, which is basically as mainstream as an RPG can get, has an hardcore mode that is infinitely more punishing than Fire Emblem. And no, I'm not going to treat permadeath, or in fact, any element of Fire Emblem as being sacrosanct and above criticism, when it isn't, it's just a game mechanic, like any other. Fire Emblem is not "special". It does not get to follow special rules. It is not different from any other series. It should stand on it's own merits, not merely because it's different.

Can't Nealuchi reach S Strike just in his Part 2 chapters alone?

I question if that's really true, that it's viable. If you take a game like say, FE9, and played through it normally, sacrificing a unit every map, you would run out of units in Chapter 8. Playing loose and fast is not viable, by any means in Fire Emblem: instead, the game rewards slow, conservative play. Stuff like low-turn counts are only possible because the game is in effect, being played perfectly, with perfect tactical positioning that stretch resources, offense, durability and movement to their absolute limits. Maps in Advance Wars are only winnable by attrition because you can build more units. That's not possible in any Fire Emblem because you cannot build units. But it's interesting to note that even though you can build units in Advance Wars, you can not beat chapters just by bumrushing, any more than you can beat chapters in any other strategy game just by 1-Aing. That's actually how Rondo of Swords does it.

I'm not presumptuous at all. Fire Emblem has had consistently mediocre sales: even as the video game market has expanded many times over with population increases, sales of Fire Emblem have barely budged at all. I supposed I should clarify: I don't have a problem with permadeath per se. What I have a problem with is how long IntSys dragged their heels over putting in casual mode, and for crappy pseudoreasons, no less. And I would prefer for classic mode to be a full-blown hardcore mode. I suppose, because I think it's fun. Although maybe I'm not the right person to ask, because I got into the series with FE8.

Because they're misguided about why people play Fire Emblem. Because they're happy to stay in their rut rather than change it (it required outside pressure from Nintendo to get them to even add in Casual Mode). Because they think that permadeath makes their game "special", and by extension, makes them "special". Because they think they're too good to have to make games that people actually want to play. It was other people in this thread that said that the game would be easy without permadeath.

How is keeping permadeath innovation? Is doing the exact same thing for 13 games innovation? It's fine to innovate. It's fine to try different ideas: but if they turn out to be bad, you discard them. But IntSys has been trying this for thirteen fucking games, and they still don't have a good explanation for it. You are demanding that Fire Emblem stay the same, in it's rut. I am demanding that Fire Emblem evolve, because no, it's not perfect, even if you seem to think it is, and it seems that the only reason anyone can come up with to defend permadeath is because "it's how we've done it for the past thirteen games and golly gee whiz we couldn't possibly be expected to think of a new way to make the game difficult, and to be honest this is the only thing anyone can remember about our otherwise utterly forgettable and mediocre franchise." At this point, I would like to see Fire Emblem get rid of permadeath, just to make the developers come up with a new idea, because this shit is getting old. I'm not a big fan of shooters.

Well, thank you for warning me away from this horrible sounding game, then.

Uh, only all of them? Or, since you're clearly getting at "what SRPGs have no permadeath and also have an unnecessarily high level of difficulty", I'll say Rondo of Swords. Just because a game is easier than Fire Emblem, doesn't mean it doesn't require strategy. And why is it so awful to make toys for children? Why do you say "child toys", as if it's something dirty? Why is it better to make "art" than it is to make children's toys? I don't know what that game is, but a game with bad gameplay is a bad game. And I question if permadeath really does give a "deeper player-character relationship", or whether that is worth having. I couldn't say that I have a "deeper" relationship with Tanith than I do with say, Vivi, or Wrex. What would that even mean? So the only reason to have permadeath, is to be "different"? You too, do not seem able to actually give a reason why permadeath makes the game better. Not that I'm surprised. If even the developers can't come up with a good excuse, how can you be expected to? Ok, let me alter my original statement: "permadeath is was holding the series back". Happy? Although really, I don't see the point in a classic mode. I would be happy with a hardcore mode, where you couldn't savescum and death was permanent, because such a mode actually captures what everyone actually likes about permadeath, but classic mode seems like a pointless middle ground.

No, it doesn't. I've written already about how everyone uses the word "strategy" wrong when talking about Fire Emblem. I also question if permadeath actually enhances the strategic aspects of Fire Emblem. I would assume that a player is less likely to try and plan for the long term if she believes that her units might die. She's more likely, then, to prioritise short-term gain. I've already mentioned that this is one possible benefit to permadeath: but in practice, I think it doesn't work and is unnecessary. The player does not need motivation to try out different strategies. He does that on his own. "meaningful" I don't want my games to have meaning, I want them to be good. I assume you're talking about your use of the word "meaningful", then. Sure, and I'm happy for IntSys to design games around a lack of permadeath instead. Pfft... that's so not true. Strategy in Fire Emblem is very easy. Most Fire Emblems, in fact, get easier towards the end of the game, as long as you don't let everyone die. Whereas, the earlygame is usually much more difficult. It's why everyone recommends Marcus now. So yes, it's beating individual battles that is hard in Fire Emblem: not long-term strategy. Long-term strategy, in fact, is so easy that you can literally beat the game without training any units. It's true! I'm not suggesting that we travel back in time and remove permadeath from every game, just that new games shouldn't have it. It's fine that IntSys made mistakes in the past. It's fine that they made those mistakes on 13 games in a row. But they have to learn from that mistake eventually. My point is that permadeath is not the series' cornerstone. IntSys might think it is, but they are wrong: just as Sakamoto was wrong.

Then, wouldn't you have people supporting units just to sacrifice them later? I think you should be allowed to sacrifice anyone: but the characters you've invested in will give the biggest bonuses for sacrificing! I personally quite like the idea of recruiting people just to sacrifice them. Isn't that what being evil is all about? And even characters you haven't invested in might be useful anyway, as replacements for the characters you did invest in. My idea was that at the end of each chapter, you are offered the opportunity to sacrifice one of your units, chosen at random. So the NPC evil necromancer would offer you the choice if you wanted to sacrifice, say, Edward, and you could say either yes or no. And sometimes, the choice would be very tempting! And other times, the choice might not be so attractive. Such is the way with temptation in real life. Some people find it easier to be good or evil than others. A player who might think of himself as good might suddenly get a great offer, of a valuable item for a unit he doesn't care about. People who play games in which there is a "morality choice" often plan on which "route" they'll take... but morality doesn't work like that. You might hope to keep everyone alive, but find that power is too tempting. Or you might care nothing for the lives of your soldiers, but find that keeping everyone alive works better than throwing away allies. And depending on the choices you make, events later on would change. A player that sacrificed units would gain an evil reputation, and a player who chose not to sacrifice units, but even to kill the necromancer (thus removing the temptation) would gain a good reputation, and attract different allies (and enemies). And it's good, because it reworks permadeath, from a serious penalty thrust upon the player for bad play, to a willing tradeoff. Who wants to be the kind of commander that lets his allies die for no good reason? Noone. But I can think of a few people who want to be the evil commander, who climbs to the top on the pile of the corpses of his companions (who foolishly placed their trust in him), who tosses his faithful allies into the pit and does not look back, who understands that people die in war, who is more feared by his own soldiers than by the enemy? Developers sometimes are wrong about their own games! Aonuma thought he could improve Zelda by putting trains in it. Sakamoto thought that people played Metroid because they cared about Samus' emotions. And I think that in this case, the developers are wrong. That's nothing against them. Very intelligent people are frequently wrong. Even the best people make mistakes: and the developers of Fire Emblem should be credited for what they've done well. What they haven't done well is permadeath, a mechanic they stubbornly refuse to update or change, because they feel it makes Fire Emblem "different". What they are really saying, is that they think they are better than all the other RPG developers, because Fire Emblem has this supposedly unique mechanic. It doesn't, it just means that they have refused to learn or advance while everyone else has left them behind. I don't want Fire Emblem to be unique or different or special, I want it to be good.

But no player would ever do that. Why would any player willingly let a preventable mistake kill one of their characters, unless they're completely sick of replaying the chapter over and over again? People say that it's awful that FE11 incentivises letting units die: but they expect the player to let units die anyway. They're wrong. For me, this is the sure sign that permadeath is holding the series back. Even the game developers cannot come up with a good reason to defend it, instead resorting to some lame wishy-washy bullshit about how "Fire Emblem just won't be the same". Yeah, it won't be the same: it will be better. RPGs can be difficult even without the element of permadeath.

Huh, wait, there was one in 10A? I don't remember getting it if there was one... I know there was one in the old patch, but I assumed it was removed. And it wasn't in either of the chests (they contain money and a Training Lance), and I don't remember the Augury mentioning it, so unless it's a reward for keeping all the NPCs alive, I don't know where it is.

Are we going to get more promotion items like... soon? Because so far in Chapter 14 I've only seen one of each except the Whip, and some of my units are starting to cap their level...

I doubt it. Permadeath exists, albeit in a more limited form, in other games, after all. Would you reset if your best units in FFTA died (because characters can rarely, die permanently there)? Almost certainly. What I would think would be a better approach to permanent death is perhaps some kind of mechanic where you can directly sacrifice the lives of your units to get rare items or bonuses, or secret chapters or units. What choice would you make? And how would this work in terms of morality? Would a player justify his sacrifices as being for the greater good of winning? Would he refuse to sacrifice certain units that he has an attachment to, or would he be willing to give up anyone's life in exchange for power? This way, the choice between life and death is more than "can I be bothered to reset and play through the chapter to keep this character alive". Another alternative is to prevent the player from reloading older saves entirely. The player is forced to continue without deceased characters. If the player reaches a point where they cannot continue (say, if the number of units is forced under a certain level), they have an opportunity to surrender and receive a bad ending. For me, this wouldbe what a real "classic" mode should be like. Why does that matter? Many of my favourite characters have minimal plot importance, like Treck, Makalov, or Igrene. I don't see any reason to suggest that characters become more important to the player just because they're more important to the plot.

That's only really true for Levin, though, since he's the only father with a holy weapon. And of the seven possible pairings for Levin, three of them let you use Holsety, and his most obvious pairings are both among them (Fury and Sylvia). And why should you be forced to take the best route? Some people like to use Levin!Patty. You really aren't. Even with Azel as a father, Lakche and Skasaher are still decent units, and Azel is a pretty mediocre father anyway so it's not like you're losing out on any great pairings involving him.