FE: New Mystery of the Emblem Preview

[fatgamecat]

2010/07/15 [DS] [1] [2] [3] Fire Emblem: Shin Monshou no Nazo Hikari to Kage no Eiyuu

The next entry in the Fire Emblem series is a remake of the new content in Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem, also known as Fire Emblem 3 for SNES. The English translation of this title is Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem - Heroes of Shadow and Light. However I doubt the official English name will be so wordy. Most of the details about the game are now official, so let's get started.

The original SNES title contains 21 original chapters, which is a bit slim for a main Fire Emblem entry. Thankfully, Nintendo is adding a new story for "My Unit", a character you create and customize to your liking, including class, appearance, and background. Your personalized unit will star in the tutorial prologue, fight alongside Marth in the main story, and engage in their own side chapters throughout the game. In addition, 4 trial maps from the SNES Satellaview releases will be included. This should push the number of chapters to an acceptable level, somewhere between 30-35.

Your personalized unit will be able to talk to others in your army during intermission, although it's not clear if there are any rewards for doing so. There will be over 300 conversations available throughout the main story. This is akin to the Base Conversations of Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn. Much like FE: Shadow Dragon, the interpersonal character guide will return, plotting out how every person is related in the Fire Emblem story. There will be characters added to the game from Shadow Dragon, the Satellaview maps, in addition to completely new characters to the series.

The reclassing system will return, where you can change a characters class and alter their base stats and growth rates. Hopefully it's a bit more balanced than it was in FE:SD. Gaiden chapters featuring your personalized unit will be available provided you meet certain requirements, which probably don't involve killing off more than half your army this time around, like you had to in FE: Shadow Dragon. I'm sure the developers have heard the sentiment of disgruntled fans who didn't like the lack of character development, personality-erasing reclassing, and having to kill off most of your army to access the side chapters, and it looks like the developers are working hard to address those complaints.

Wi-Fi returns with a couple new features. You'll be able to download new maps from Nintendo, both multiplayer skirmishes and single player chapters. The DLC single player maps will include new story content, not just trial maps with no plot development. You can trade characters with other players, although I'm not sure what the details on this are. The online store will be returning, which is one of the things I really disliked about FE: Shadow Dragon. You can go online and buy very rare items and ruin the games balance and difficulty, and you have to wait for a specific time of the month to buy the item you want.

Keeping with Nintendo's philosophy of catering to a wide range of player skill levels, there are now two difficulty altering settings available. New to the series are the addition of Casual and Classic modes. In Casual mode, if a unit reaches 0 HP, they will not die permanently, while Classic mode is the typical Fire Emblem permadeath feature. There are four difficulty settings, Normal, Hard, Maniac, and Lunatic. The two difficulty mechanics are independent of one another, so you can play Casual mode on Lunatic difficulty if you choose.

I have not heard anything about a score or ranking system, so I'm guessing there isn't one. That means this games challenges are not legitimate because you can boss/arena abuse, use the online store, etc. and ruin the games difficulty. I appreciate the extra difficulty modes, but they are pointless when you can spend infinite turns on a chapter farming XP and weapon skill, or going online and buying rare, powerful items that are only available once a month. And who knows how wi-fi unit swapping will upset the balance of the game? We're far removed from the legitimate rank based challenges of older Fire Emblem titles.

Graphically, the game looks a lot like the Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon. It uses the same sprites and character art. Whether you like it or not, it seems like it's here to stay on the DS.

As you may already know, Fire Emblem and Advance Wars set the gold standard for tactical turn based strategy user interfaces. They are always extremely responsive and packed with useful features and management tools. I've seen quite a few tactical level games botch the UI and make the game a drag to play. Not so here. Expect the same polished quality that Intelligent Systems has been delivering for decades.

Import gamers may be unhappy to learn that the game may be 'DSi Enhanced', which means it will be region encoded if you try to play it on a DSi system. You'll be fine if you play it on a regular DS or DS Lite, however.

Overall this looks like another solid Fire Emblem title, difficulty issues not withstanding. It should please fans who were soured on Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, and the new casual mode should bring in more sales, appeal, and fans of the series. Look forward to import impressions once I've spent some time with the game.

[Interceptor]

Christ almighty, it's MJEmirzian.

Other than the fact that this resource already makes this entire thread redundant, is it really necessary to ruin the overview with your pointless editorializing and plugging of your blog?

[fatgamecat]

Christ almighty, it's MJEmirzian.

Other than the fact that this resource already makes this entire thread redundant, is it really necessary to ruin the overview with your pointless editorializing and plugging of your blog?

Please write back when you figure out the difference between a series of news posts and a preview. I already linked to the Serenes Forest link in the preview.

You fail to back up your opinion why you think my 'editorializing' and 'plugging of my blog' is 'pointless' and 'ruins the overview'. Therefore it is trolling and completely ignorable.

[VincentASM]

It's probably unlikely that it'll feature, but I wouldn't rule out rankings completely. Bringing back a tactician style character would create a nice opportunity to implement a scoring system, in my opinion anyway.

The tradings units online business is just the Loan Units.

Edited June 22, 2010 by VincentASM

[Don Draper]

Is this the same author that wrote that horribly inaccurate Radiant Dawn walkthrough on gamefaqs?

[Interceptor]

Please write back when you figure out the difference between a series of news posts and a preview. I already linked to the Serenes Forest link in the preview.

Seeing as how I was aware of this before I posted in the first place, I'd require a time machine in order to write back to you prior to knowing the difference. Perhaps if you retro-fitted your Reality Distortion Field generator to allow for a vacation to the past, and let me borrow it, I could oblige you (and also adjust my WC bracket, and pick up some milk; no sense wasting the trip).

The difference between these two things is as obvious as it is irrelevant. My incredulity at your blatant self-promotion and dubious value-add does not imply that I don't understand distinctions, any more than my reaching for a barf bag after sampling Strawberry Sherbet ice cream with Motor Oil implies that I can't tell the difference between normal dessert, and one made nauseating by adding something that doesn't belong. I realize that was a pretty long sentence with a lot of 50-cent words, so if you didn't catch the meaning of the metaphor, just let me know.

You fail to back up your opinion why you think my 'editorializing' and 'plugging of my blog' is 'pointless' and 'ruins the overview'. Therefore it is trolling and completely ignorable.

I know my audience. I could present a certificate -- signed by Stephen Hawking, the POTUS, and Zombie Mother Theresa -- confirming my opinion was the best thing since the internal combustion engine, and as accurate as "2 + 2 = 4", and you'd still have the same response/dismissal/rationalization routine. I consider my assertion to be self-evident to the people who are as annoyed as I am by your posturing, which is basically all that matters to me in this particular instance; there is certainly no point in a line-by-line analysis, other than entertainment value.

Is this the same author that wrote that horribly inaccurate Radiant Dawn walkthrough on gamefaqs?

The very same.

[fatgamecat]

It's probably unlikely that it'll feature, but I wouldn't rule out rankings completely. Bringing back a tactician style character would create a nice opportunity to implement a scoring system, in my opinion anyway.

I'd like to see a return to the tactician and ranking, but it seems like Nintendo has other plans.

I consider my assertion to be self-evident

A common troll tactic is to state an unsubstantiated opinion then sit back and laugh while the person tries valiantly to defend themselves against it. This is exactly what you've done. All you've added now is "My argument is self evident!" to your troll bait. Sorry, not taking the bait, no matter how many times you run your post through a thesaurus.

My RD import guide is useful to a large majority of the Fire Emblem players who just want something to get through the game with. It's not written for the small number of obsessive fans who think a small tier list inaccuracy is "wildly inaccurate". And I'll remind you that the growth charts weren't even available when I was playing through the import (kind of hard to build a tier list without them), and the strategies are entirely my own, not a collaborative community effort of the sort that happens when a game is released in NA.

Edited June 22, 2010 by mjemirzian

[Kinata]

Yay, it's the two friends Interceptor and mjemirzian again! Fight, fight, fight, fight!

I think Interceptor is criticizing your preview just because he doesn't like you. I think it was a pretty good summary and analysis of the known info about this game.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Kinata

[grandjackal]

Yay, it's the two friends Interceptor and mjemirzian again! Fight, fight, fight, fight!

I think Interceptor is criticizing your preview just because he doesn't like you. I think it was a pretty good summary and analysis of the known info about this game.

Of already looked-over information that we've known of for a while and have had plenty of time to form our own opinions about, making his long-winded analysis unnecessary?

He's free to his analysis, but we already have a topic, we have known this information for a good while, it seems pointless to make a whole new topic just because someone has their own opinion on it. Especially since he has said nothing we don't already know/wrong (The wrong part being that these games have no challenge without rankings, reason being you can boss/arena abuse, since no one's forcing you to do that. Besides that, all ranks did were actually dumb down the gameplay. There's a nice difference between a game being challenging and a game making you play dumb).

[Interceptor]

I'd like to see a return to the tactician and ranking, but it seems like Nintendo has other plans.

I hope that they never again waste development/design resources on such a convoluted, self-contradictory system as "ranking". Players are more than capable of creating their own arbitrary challenge criteria, Intelligent Systems does not need to do it for us. I am fine with nothing more than a turn count overview during the credits, just for convenience's sake.

A common troll tactic is to state an unsubstantiated opinion then sit back and laugh while the person tries valiantly to defend themselves against it. This is exactly what you've done. All you've added now is "My argument is self evident!" to your troll bait. Sorry, not taking the bait, no matter how many times you run your post through a thesaurus.

All that I did was ask a (rhetorical) question. Naturally, you take issue with my characterization of your "preview", since it's not favorable to you, but you're entitled to do that. I don't particularly care whether you respond, or do not.

At any rate, you neatly truncated the rest of my quote, which detailed who exactly my assertion would be self-evident to. There is no implication that it's obvious to everyone, except in your Reader's Digest version that removed all meaningful context. I don't expect everyone to catch what I was throwing: that's why I worded it the way that I did. It's not necessary to "back up" my opinions to your satisfaction, because those who am I speaking don't need an explanation of what I mean.

My RD import guide is useful to a large majority of the Fire Emblem players who just want something to get through the game with. It's not written for the small number of obsessive fans who think a small tier list inaccuracy is "wildly inaccurate". And I'll remind you that the growth charts weren't even available when I was playing through the import (kind of hard to build a tier list without them), and the strategies are entirely my own, not a collaborative community effort of the sort that happens when a game is released in NA.

Certainly, unless the player was wondering why the end boss keeps reviving.

The niche that your guide would help, effectively no longer exists. That you keep it up, untouched, is a monument to your own ego more than anything else.

I think Interceptor is criticizing your preview just because he doesn't like you. I think it was a pretty good summary and analysis of the known info about this game.

I am clearly criticizing his editorializing and his shameless self-promotion, and not the factual content of his summary. How can you read anything here that I've posted, and come to the conclusion that I'm taking issue with the specific information that he regurgitated?

[fatgamecat]

It's not necessary to "back up" my opinions to your satisfaction

Your post was directed at me in a failed attempt to troll a reaction out of me with completely unsubstantiated pejoratives. Now the transparent excuses are coming out. Few can help from snickering or eye rolling when you claim you don't care if I reply or not.

Certainly, unless the player was wondering why the end boss keeps reviving. The niche that your guide would help, effectively no longer exists.

Actually, I think it's amusing that leaving it unupdated annoys people such as yourself more than anything. Now if only someone had pointed that omission out to me nicely. You and other hardcore FE fans are the niche, not the vast majority of FE players who found it helpful as a general purpose guide to beating the game - 404,631 total hits on gamefaqs as of today. And if you were wondering, my guides have a total hitcount of 1,296,440. Keep chugging that haterade.

I'm seeing a lot of failure to grasp basic game design concepts like scoring/ranking systems and legitimacy of a games challenge here. I suggest reading the SRPG 101 article on my site and learning about what you're trying to discuss. I'm here to inform and help, after all!

Edited June 22, 2010 by mjemirzian

[Interceptor]

Your post was directed at me in a failed attempt to troll a reaction out of me with completely unsubstantiated pejoratives. Now the transparent excuses are coming out. Few can help from snickering or eye rolling when you claim you don't care if I reply or not.

Respond belligerently, sarcastically, condescendingly, or not at all; it's dust in the wind to me. I'm afraid that this song's not about you. But regardless of anything that I say, I suspect that confirmation bias combines with your ego to prevent you from accepting it, so there's little point in my making a big deal out of your alternate reality.

Actually, I think it's amusing that leaving it unupdated annoys people such as yourself more than anything. [...] 404,631 total hits on gamefaqs as of today. And if you were wondering, my guides have a total hitcount of 1,296,440. Keep chugging that haterade.

That you keep it up' date=' untouched, is a monument to your own ego more than anything else.[/quote']

It's nice that the two of us basically agree on this point, even though it's probably an accident on your part.

I'm seeing a lot of failure to grasp basic game design concepts like scoring/ranking systems and legitimacy of a games challenge here. I suggest reading the SRPG 101 article on my site and learning about what you're trying to discuss.

This is why I declined to expand on my point for you, because it's ultimately as productive as a heart-to-heart with a small child on the subject of chocolate cake for breakfast. There are only two people who touched upon the issue of ranking systems, and you've just dismissed them out of hand without even addressing a single component of the lamest argument. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about it, you'll need to try again.

I'm here to inform and help, after all!

That's funny, since as near as I can tell, you're here to push traffic to your blog.

I know, I know: my harsh attitude here is no doubt preventing your adoring fans from burying the thread with praise for your piercing commentary, and regurgitation of old information that already exists elsewhere. I apologize for that, with a sincerity that's equal to your modesty.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Interceptor

[Rewjeo]

Well, from a story perspective, the rankings in FE7 make perfect sense. Having money left over after a war is very good. Having your army relatively full is helpful so that you aren't weak after a war. Winning quickly is helpful in a war. Killing enemies with as few of your own makes sense, although Funds and Tactics also really enforce this. EXP makes sense so your whole army is effective. Now, from a gameplay perspective, these are mostly limiting, but it DOES make sense, at least in FE7 and this, as far as story goes.

[fatgamecat]

Respond belligerently, sarcastically, condescendingly, or not at all; it's dust in the wind to me. I'm afraid that this song's not about you. But regardless of anything that I say, I suspect that confirmation bias combines with your ego to prevent you from accepting it, so there's little point in my making a big deal out of your alternate reality.

Now down to inappropriate pop psychology and further backing away from your failed trolling attempt.

This is why I declined to expand on my point for you, because it's ultimately as productive as a heart-to-heart with a small child on the subject of chocolate cake for breakfast. There are only two people who touched upon the issue of ranking systems, and you've just dismissed them out of hand without even addressing a single component of the lamest argument. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about it, you'll need to try again.

I wrote that article precisely so I don't have to explain the facts every time someone clueless states something wrong about game design. But go ahead, don't read it and stay ignorant. Trying to compare me referring to a nearly 3,000 word article explaining game design facts to you tossing out unsubstantiated pejoratives is ridiculous, though, which makes your puerile insults even more hilarious.

That's funny, since as near as I can tell, you're here to push traffic to your blog.

Wrong. I thought the various news articles about the game were scattered around and messy so I wrote a consolidated preview to help anyone who hadn't been keeping up. Just giving back to the community for free as always.

[Narga_Rocks]

Well, from a story perspective, the rankings in FE7 make perfect sense. Having money left over after a war is very good. Having your army relatively full is helpful so that you aren't weak after a war. Winning quickly is helpful in a war. Killing enemies with as few of your own makes sense, although Funds and Tactics also really enforce this. EXP makes sense so your whole army is effective. Now, from a gameplay perspective, these are mostly limiting, but it DOES make sense, at least in FE7 and this, as far as story goes.

The funds can work if you need that money after the war, though I haven't read/played the game so I can't comment on whether the game actually alludes to that. As for exp, if you can win without taking scrubs to level 16, isn't that for the better? 8 units at 20/10 are also generally better than 8 units at 20/7 + 8+ units at level 16 instead of base. Or whatever is needed to get to 5 star experience.

[Anouleth]

Now down to inappropriate pop psychology and further backing away from your failed trolling attempt.

I'd say that if he was trolling, he succeeded admirably. But it's important to keep in mind that Interceptor is always this abrasive - he is certainly not trolling.

In addition, confirmation bias is not 'pop psychology'. It's a real, measurable, and universal fact that people will interpret new information such that it fits with existing knowledge.

I wrote that article precisely so I don't have to explain the facts every time someone clueless states something wrong about game design. But go ahead, don't read it and stay ignorant. Trying to compare me referring to a nearly 3,000 word article explaining game design facts to you tossing out unsubstantiated pejoratives is ridiculous, though, which makes your puerile insults even more hilarious.

I hardly see why your theorytarding about what IS is likely to include or not in FENME constitutes 'game design facts'. Are you going to be Marth_Koopa 2.0, and assert that everything that corresponds with your viewpoint is FACT and everything that fails to cohere with your viewpoint is OPINION?

Wrong. I thought the various news articles about the game were scattered around and messy so I wrote a consolidated preview to help anyone who hadn't been keeping up. Just giving back to the community for free as always.

How selfless. I can barely resist nominating you for a Nobel Peace Prize, for your invaluable services in duplicating what has already been covered on this very site.

[fatgamecat]

As for exp, if you can win without taking scrubs to level 16, isn't that for the better? 8 units at 20/10 are also generally better than 8 units at 20/7 + 8+ units at level 16 instead of base. Or whatever is needed to get to 5 star experience.

I'd like to see the return of the FE 6 and 7 scoring system where you have more than speed to factor into your strategy. I'd guess that more experience means a larger army to keep the peace once the game is over? I'm not much for tying game mechanics into a games plot.

I'd say that if he was trolling, he succeeded admirably. But it's important to keep in mind that Interceptor is always this abrasive - he is certainly not trolling.

Making unsubstantiated insults and expecting a long defensive reply from the target is the most common and base form of trolling.

I hardly see why your theorytarding about what IS is likely to include or not in FENME constitutes 'game design facts'. Are you going to be Marth_Koopa 2.0, and assert that everything that corresponds with your viewpoint is FACT and everything that fails to cohere with your viewpoint is OPINION?

Wow, what a creatively insulting word, 'theorytarding'. I feel like I'm back on the wild west of FESS and gamefaqs. Yes facts about game design do exist and the article covers some of them. I would suggest you read it, but it seems like you're more interested in flaming people and being as ignorant as possible.

Edited June 23, 2010 by mjemirzian

[Narga_Rocks]

Making unsubstantiated insults and expecting a long defensive reply from the target is the most common and base form of trolling.

Um, I don't think he actually wants you to create a two page defence to your position. I don't think he wants anything more than to have fun with this whole thing. Would he like an "I'm sorry I didn't mention you need to KO Ashera with Ike"? Maybe. But I can guarantee you that he doesn't want a two page defence/article on why not mentioning that is justified.

If your definition of trolling requires the troller to "expect" or want a long defence, then I highly doubt that definition makes Int a troll in this instance.

[Rodykitty]

I have not heard anything about a score or ranking system, so I'm guessing there isn't one. That means this games challenges are not legitimate because you can boss/arena abuse, use the online store, etc. and ruin the games difficulty. I appreciate the extra difficulty modes, but they are pointless when you can spend infinite turns on a chapter farming XP and weapon skill, or going online and buying rare, powerful items that are only available once a month. And who knows how wi-fi unit swapping will upset the balance of the game? We're far removed from the legitimate rank based challenges of older Fire Emblem titles.

I've seen this exact same argument on NeoGAF, and I am still fully against the attitude presented here.

Just avoid using stuff you think is broken. H5 in FEDS is still harder than most games and had ways of letting you keep it hard. WiFi is easier to ignore than to actually use, forging can be ignored if it's too powerful for you, and nobody takes you seriously if you arena abuse (and reinforcements abuse was already nerfed in FEDS), unless it's for the purpose of WiFi. It's a lot easier to suggest not using these things than to rant that it de-legitimizes the game, because only Beserker Blader won't take these suggestions seriously.

You don't need a scoring system, you just need self control.

Most games also have some method of "de-legitimizing it", regardless of innate difficulty, because often times gamers are better than the game and come up with ways of using something that wasn't meant to result in being so powerful. There are also easy games that can be made challenging through coming up with challenges. If there's something you think makes an otherwise difficult game easy, then you can just ignore doing that, then you can talk about your experiences not doing this particular thing.

[fatgamecat]

You don't need a scoring system, you just need self control.

You're making excuses for developers, which is just going to encourage them to forget about legitimacy. Legitimate developer provided challenges and scoring systems form the basis of organized competition. Many types of games would fail to function competitively if the legitimacy of difficulty or scoring system were removed. Player defined challenges can be a fun way to salvage an otherwise broken or easy game, and I've done plenty of them myself, but they aren't comparable to a challenge hard coded into each copy of the game set as the official set of rules.

A game doesn't need a scoring system for its challenge to be legitimate, as long as there's no way to reduce the amount of skill needed to complete it. That clearly isn't happening in this game with the multiple avenues of abuse available.

[Narga_Rocks]

You're making excuses for developers, which is just going to encourage them to forget about legitimacy. Legitimate developer provided challenges and scoring systems form the basis of organized competition. Many types of games would fail to function competitively if the legitimacy of difficulty or scoring system were removed. Player defined challenges can be a fun way to salvage an otherwise broken or easy game, and I've done plenty of them myself, but they aren't comparable to a challenge hard coded into each copy of the game set as the official set of rules.

A game doesn't need a scoring system for its challenge to be legitimate, as long as there's no way to reduce the amount of skill needed to complete it. That clearly isn't happening in this game with the multiple avenues of abuse available.

But you don't have to meet the developer's arbitrary rankings, either. There is no real reason to try to s rank fe6. Besides, they give you your turncount. Two people can compare how they did by comparing who won in fewer turns. Or who got closer to s ranking. Actually, if both s rank fe6 (not that hard), how do you compare who played better? But you can compare turncounts to determine that. It's less likely both players hit a specific turn number than both players s ranked.

If you are only interested in "beating the game" for things like fe10, I don't see why the developers tossing in some arbitrary ranking system suddenly makes you start playing without arena/boss abuse. For some of our fe6 and fe7 tier lists, it actually ends up completely ignoring the ranking system and yet the debates (mostly) work out okay.

[Anouleth]

Making unsubstantiated insults and expecting a long defensive reply from the target is the most common and base form of trolling.

I wouldn't know, since unlike you I can't read Interceptor's mind and figure out that his insults are really an elaborate attempt to provoke a long reply. The fact is that people exist out that who just aren't very nice people, and not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

(I like your combination of the word 'unsubstantiated' and 'insults'. It carries the charming implication that what a real man does when arguing on the internet is rigorously fact-check and reference his insults.)

Wow, what a creatively insulting word, 'theorytarding'. I feel like I'm back on the wild west of FESS and gamefaqs. Yes facts about game design do exist and the article covers some of them. I would suggest you read it, but it seems like you're more interested in flaming people and being as ignorant as possible.

It is theorytarding. 'Theorytarding' is an ugly word, but it has a real meaning - it refers to sitting around and discussing 'theories' without producing any evidence or testing these theories. And what is in your article that isn't just information I could find on SF or just your opinions is theorytarding bout what you 'expect' to be in FE3-DS. The funny part is that you even admit that you don't know what you're talking about in regards to a ranking system:

I have not heard anything about a score or ranking system, so I'm guessing there isn't one.

[Arch]

Wow, what a creatively insulting word, 'theorytarding'. I feel like I'm back on the wild west of FESS and gamefaqs. Yes facts about game design do exist and the article covers some of them. I would suggest you read it, but it seems like you're more interested in flaming people and being as ignorant as possible.

I feel like I need to jump in here, the use of the word 'facts' really jumps out at me, you regard your opinion as fact. It is an opinion that a lack of a ranking system makes the difficulty not 'legitimate,' that is not a fact. Learn to recognize the difference between fact and opinion before you start arguing about anything, you clearly lack this skill.

Edited June 23, 2010 by General Archibald

[Celice]

I pop in and Fire Emblem fans are still like this, yes?

Damn :(

[fatgamecat]

For the very slow posters on the thread, I'm referring to my SRPG 101 article, not the preview I posted here. I'm linking to it because apparently they are incapable of finding it on their own.

In order for the score or result of a game to be legitimate, its rules must be standardized. There should be no way to reduce the amount of skill needed to score or pass the test without adversely affecting the score/result. The most common ways that a games rules become non-standardized are through pre-order/collectors edition in-game bonuses, DLC, optional stat grinding, and save/reload abuse. Any game that violates this rule is no longer a valid test of skill and should not be considered legitimate as a test of skill. There are two types of challenges in video games. Developer provided challenges, where the game reacts to the players actions such as rewarding a higher score or making the game more difficult, and player provided challenges, where the game does not react to the players actions either way. 'Choosing not to grind' in a game that doesn't punish grinding is a player defined challenge and thus isn't considered legitimate within the confines of the games rules. Stating "just don't use X" does not magically legitimize a games difficulty. A game doesn't need a scoring system for its challenge to be legitimate, as long as there's no way to reduce the amount of skill needed to complete it.

It is an opinion that a lack of a ranking system makes the difficulty not 'legitimate,' that is not a fact.

I never claimed that, in fact I stated the exact opposite in my last post on this thread. Stop poking your finger at strawmen, using obnoxious formatting, learn some reading comprehension (a skill you clearly lack), and get a clue about game design facts, please.

But you don't have to meet the developer's arbitrary rankings, either. There is no real reason to try to s rank fe6. Besides, they give you your turncount. Two people can compare how they did by comparing who won in fewer turns. Or who got closer to s ranking. Actually, if both s rank fe6 (not that hard), how do you compare who played better? But you can compare turncounts to determine that. It's less likely both players hit a specific turn number than both players s ranked.

The game rules (including rankings) aren't arbitrary, they are built into the game, standardized across every copy of the game, and balanced around the game as it's developed. There's no real reason to do anything game related, it's up to the players motivation, but I think that players would be more interested in trying a developer defined challenge than a player defined one that tells you not to use this and that game feature. It's fine to look at factors like turns taken. In some cases like Fire Emblem 5 SSS rank or Advance Wars, the legitimate challenge goes close to the limit of the most efficient play through possible, so if you get perfect scores there, there isn't much further you can go beyond that point anyway.

Edited June 23, 2010 by mjemirzian