Mechanics that you want

[Anouleth]

http://fire-emblem.com/shadowdragon/interview/interview3.html

"This was also our answer to people who may react and feel this game is too hard."

Thus, implying that they had other reasons for introducing reclass. In addition, almost all game options make the game easier. Capturing makes FE5 easier because it lets you recruit characters and acquire items and weapons. Shove makes FE10 easier because it lets you reposition your units.

[BrightBow]

Did you also agree with Sakamoto's "If we allow for different control schemes, we have failed as designers" stance?

This one here?

"Sakamoto: No, there is no alternate control setting in Metroid Other M. Honestly, If we felt there was any more comfortable way to play the game then what we were envisioning, then we would have certainly would have just done that. But we do feel that this is the most appropriate and most comfortable way of playing the game and I don't think we made the wrong choice. We want to emphasize that this is the best way, we stuck with a single control scheme and were very committed to that from the beginning."

http://m.ign.com/articles/1078226

Hmmm, I'm somewhat undecided here. I remember back in the day wondering why a big title like Ocarina of Times had little in the ways of configuration. Something like changing volumes of music or sound or something. I figured that more options and content always equals a better game. (This time I'm not using dondons quote from page 20 like above. I was really thinking that back then.) But after I got playing more and more games something what made Oot stand out was that it was really well designed in pretty much any aspect. The balance between volumes was one of those many things were people put lots of thought in to make sure it comes as close as possible to nothing less but perfection.

I think if a design is done well enough then I guess a user doesn't need to be given the option to meddle with it but only few could probably make such a claim.

However I remember for example the game "Starfox Assault". The game has 3 entirely different control schemes. I don't remember the details but the third scheme has something the default one lacks: The ability to move and shot at the same time. Once I changed the control settings away from the default ones the game became a LOT better.

I'm glad this games designers didn't think they had to prove their faith to the default controls by making them the only one available because as far as I was concerned they really messed those up but at least allowed me to fix it.

However I think with something like a Wii game then you should try to give the other controller configurations (Remote, Remote&Nunchuck, Classic Controller) a special amount of weight because they are all so different and user might have personal preferences. So if possible make them all usable but I think I do see where he is coming from and sympathize with his point.

In addition Sakamoto said that he thinks the Nunchuk is good for the core audiences but also that he wants to show their commitment to the remote only controls scheme.

In that case I would say just, make all controller configurations an option, make the remote only the default and allow only to change those settings from the main menu before loading a save. Those core audiences would probably jump right into the game instead of meddling with the configuration first and if the game tells them to take off the Nunchuk they will probably do so and start playing without it. If it works for them, they will stick with it. If not they will look for options to change it and if that happens it's probably a good think that it exists.

To sum it up, I think that Sakamoto's view on design is in this particular case is not incompatible with the wishes of alternate control schemes. They could be implemented while still having most players use the control scheme they had the most faith in on the virtue of them not looking the alternatives up unless it becomes too problematic.

Edit:

It's not the same at all. Weapon ability and the weapon triangle are crucial mechanics to these games, and screwing around with them can be very detrimental to the game.

Reclassing, on the other hand, I see to be similar to bonus experience in the Tellius games. Don't want to use BEXP? Don't use it. Let people who do, use it. Same with the arenas. And you don't seem to have any problem with the arenas.

Just because they're (reclass and weapon ability) both gameplay mechanics does not mean you can compare the two. Screwing with the former is very detrimental to the game's gameplay, with the latter, it is not.

I believe he means to beat it efficiently. All of the players that play for efficiency either have no quarrels with the system, or love it. You can still beat it without the reclass system.

As far as I can see reclass and weapon ability are elementary the same thing: Options you can decide to use or not. So where and how do you draw the line between those two things? What defines a "crucial game mechanic"?

Edited October 15, 2011 by BrightBow

[CrashGordon94]

Sorry to be a bit off topic, but I was wondering how many of you guys support a map like in FE2 and FE8 with repeatable battles and stuff like that? Looks like we could be getting something like that from the video, so I was wondering what your thoughts were.

I'm not looking forward to it but it won't kill the game for me.

[BrightBow]

Sorry to be a bit off topic, but I was wondering how many of you guys support a map like in FE2 and FE8 with repeatable battles and stuff like that? Looks like we could be getting something like that from the video, so I was wondering what your thoughts were.

I wouldn't mind revisiting that style. But if they do I would like to have them bring back the visitable towns where you can walk around in. Maybe also use this as an opportunity to talk with the gang something gaiden didn't allow and I would like to have different ways to get the characters background then using support conversations (since I'm not found of them gameplaywise.) so that would seem like an nice opportunity to me.

Also something that bothered me with the execution how the rewards was rather unreliable. Grinding was akward for me because of the fair of loosing more then I got out of it, a problem Gaiden lacked because of weapons having with unlimited uses as well as no money.

Edited October 15, 2011 by BrightBow

[Epic Fail]

You know what, I hope they scrap this game altogether, just so people can stop bitching about reclassing.

[Celice]

No, the real answer would be to kill off the ones "bitching."

[Othin]

It's not the same at all. Weapon ability and the weapon triangle are crucial mechanics to these games, and screwing around with them can be very detrimental to the game.

Reclassing, on the other hand, I see to be similar to bonus experience in the Tellius games. Don't want to use BEXP? Don't use it. Let people who do, use it. Same with the arenas. And you don't seem to have any problem with the arenas.

Just because they're (reclass and weapon ability) both gameplay mechanics does not mean you can compare the two. Screwing with the former is very detrimental to the game's gameplay, with the latter, it is not.

You say it's not the same, but you fail to provide any reasoning or evidence for how or why they're not the same.

And without evidence, Mr. Wright, the court is getting tired of hearing your case.

[Phoenix Wright]

Did both of you merely read my first sentence and respond?

[BrightBow]

All you made was a claim that they are different and deciding that they are different without any reasoning. But if you don't want to follow Othins request maybe you could answer my question from above:

As far as I can see reclass and weapon ability are elementary the same thing: Options you can decide to use or not. So where and how do you draw the line between those two things? What defines a "crucial game mechanic"?

Edited October 16, 2011 by BrightBow

[Phoenix Wright]

Weapon ability and the weapon triangle are crucial mechanics to these games, and screwing around with them can be very detrimental to the game.

Reclassing, on the other hand, I see to be similar to bonus experience in the Tellius games. Don't want to use BEXP? Don't use it. Let people who do, use it. Same with the arenas. And you don't seem to have any problem with the arenas.

Just because they're (reclass and weapon ability) both gameplay mechanics does not mean you can compare the two. Screwing with the former is very detrimental to the game's gameplay, with the latter, it is not.

So babble is what this was. I see. I was pondering why the hell I would say this after I said "They aren't the same at all."

[BrightBow]

So babble is what this was. I see. I was pondering why the hell I would say this after I said "They aren't the same at all."

*sigh* ...fine. I saw what your wrote:

Weapon ability and the weapon triangle are crucial mechanics to these games, and screwing around with them can be very detrimental to the game.

You claim that Weapon ability and the weapon triangle are crucial mechanincs and that screwing around with them can be very detrimental to the game.

Reclassing, on the other hand, I see to be similar to bonus experience in the Tellius games. Don't want to use BEXP? Don't use it. Let people who do, use it.

You make a comparison with the mechanic reclassing, comparing it with a bunch of other mechanics, saying that they have in common that you don't have to use them.

Just because they're (reclass and weapon ability) both gameplay mechanics does not mean you can compare the two.

You claim you can't compare them.

Screwing with the former is very detrimental to the game's gameplay, with the latter, it is not.

You claim that your first category of mechanics are detrimental to the game's gameplay while the latter is not.

Unless you think that you are forced that to have your Paladins use Axes in FE6-7 you said nothing that makes a distinction between your two categories that backs up your claim that your two categories are any different or your claim that your post already answered my previous question.

So again: What defines a "crucial game mechanic" in your opinion? And where is the difference between the contents in your two categories that justifies them being in different categories?

Edited October 16, 2011 by BrightBow

[Othin]

So babble is what this was. I see. I was pondering why the hell I would say this after I said "They aren't the same at all."

Paragraph 1: They're different; don't compare them.

Paragraph 2: Reclassing is optional.

Paragraph 3: They're different; don't compare them.

There's no "why" in there that distinguishes the two, only repetition of your unsupported claim and of an undisputed point. If you want to suggest that using available weapon types is somehow less optional than using available reclassing, then show why your arguments about why reclassing is optional somehow don't apply to weapon selection.

[Phoenix Wright]

"Same with arenas. And you don't [seem] to have problems with arenas."

You can choose to visit an arena. You can choose to allocate BEXP. You can choose to reclass a unit.

If we take restrictions off of these things, only the arena would be game-breaking, nothing else will.

If we take restrictions off of weapon abilities, it will destroy the game.

That is what I mean by a crucial game mechanic. Not that I needed to spell it out for you, because you should have been able to understand on your own.

You two are claiming that I have not used reasoning to back up my point of view. Neither of you are reading my posts. I have said, time and time again, that keeping the reclass system the way it is is the most efficient way for us gamers, as well as the developers, to go about this. Why is this? Well, if it were any different, coders will have to add code to remove reclassing from Classic mode. This is retarded. For the gamer, we are restricted to selecting Casual mode. All you people have to do is ignore that this mechanic exists, like arenas and BEXP.

I am arguing the contrary; neither of you have applied any thought to this. Neither of you have proposed any reasonable argument, only silly "compromises" that work similar to that of the Democratic and Republican compromise a few months back: you get what you want (Republican), and we are left angry (Democrat). Evidence, like I have said before, does not exist here. It takes only logical thinking, which I think you two are not applying to your thought processes.

[Rewjeo]

The weapon choice is something that is sort of in your face the whole game, and allowing classes to use so many weapon types could seriously trivialize the game, not to mention blurring the lines between classes, giving us essentially mounted, foot, and armor. Reclassing doesn't do that, arena abuse comes at the cost of time and risk.

[BrightBow]

This is retarded. For the gamer, we are restricted to selecting Casual mode. All you people have to do is ignore that this mechanic exists, like arenas and BEXP.

Any argument against the reclass system is moot because you have to the choice to use it or not. It's like complaining about Casual mode because your units come back--choose Classic!

What is your problem with Casual mode? The fact that unit's don't die is the only difference. By your own logic you don't loose a damn thing we don't loose by being restricted to casual mode. You just need to ignore your dead units.

You don't have to use them. Nothing forces you to do so. But at least I think options being available actually matters.

Neither of you are reading my posts.

I took myself the time for it. Not sure about you. Don't do it, though. It's not worth it. Waste of a night. Your personal taste is better then my personal taste, I get it.

Edited October 16, 2011 by BrightBow

[Phoenix Wright]

<_<

This "discussion" is more annoying for me to argue than for the readers to read.

I'm going to shut-up (which means you and Othin will shut-up) for the sake of all of us.

EDIT: And I'm disappointed I didn't make this decision sooner.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Rewjeo]

What is your problem with Casual mode? The fact that unit's don't die is the only difference. By your own logic you don't loose a damn thing we don't loose by being restricted to casual mode. You just need to ignore your dead units.

You don't have to use them. Nothing forces you to do so. But at least I think options being available actually matters.

So if IS just put a "Reclass is available/Reclass is not available" at the start of the game, like with Classic/Casual, then you'd be happy? That would work for me.

[BwdYeti]

Yeah I would be perfectly fine with that

So, indeed, coders would have to add in coding just to make you happy. In contrast, they won't have to do anything and all you need to do is ignore it.

> assume IS already added something to FE13, and that it would be work to have it removed

Like Celice has posted time and time again, FE 3DS is in its latest stages of development, so if the mechanic is in the game, they'd definitely have to delay the game to do what Othin suggested. As far as I know, we have no proof whether the reclass system exists or not, so I do not think you are in a position to say it does not exist.

> say we don't know whether it's ingame or not

I have said, time and time again, that keeping the reclass system the way it is is the most efficient way for us gamers, as well as the developers, to go about this. Why is this? Well, if it were any different, coders will have to add code to remove reclassing from Classic mode. This is retarded.

>continue assuming it's ingame already

:/

[Marthur]

"This was also our answer to people who may react and feel this game is too hard."

Thus, implying that they had other reasons for introducing reclass. In addition, almost all game options make the game easier. Capturing makes FE5 easier because it lets you recruit characters and acquire items and weapons. Shove makes FE10 easier because it lets you reposition your units.

I read it as "that was one of our solution to make the game easier." One of the other being the random units joining you if too many characters died, and probably other things.

And in any case, he's giving a different reason as well, which is making the game more fun for people who want to take on some sort of challenges (all-girl playthrough, etc).

[BwdYeti]

Given the context it really does look more like that

'bluh bluh save points'

"We included that feature to ease play for beginners."

'also reclassing'

"This was also our answer to people who may react and feel this game is too hard."

Reclassing is also a way to make it easier, like save points

[UserShadow7989]

On the argument of 'why not change it to casual-only and pretend the units that are KOed are dead', the death of certain units affect the story in small, subtle ways. Dialogue the character might have said is removed or replaced, events that would happen if it were alive don't or events that wouldn't if it were alive happen do. Some people who want reclass don't want to lose the novelty of this, as it's one of the many things that sets Fire Emblem apart from others.

For that matter, if one could play Casual mode and just 'pretend those units who died stay dead', then why keep Classic mode? Reclass's inclusion in or exclusion from the game does not affect the story elements; it is purely a gameplay mechanic, and is in no way vital to the experience, nor is it unavoidable.

If you have problems with it not making sense, there are ways to make it make sense. Make it a case by case basis, limiting any given character to classes that make sense for them. Make it so they can still use their 'main' weapon in other classes, just treating their weapon level as two lower if the class they're currently in doesn't use that weapon. Possibly unlock more classes for that character to change to by going through certain events/supports (for example, a character attempting to learn magic in a support gives them access to magic classes). Completing the game once gives you the option to reclass anyone to anything from the get go.

Alternately: Make reclass an option that can be turned on and off at the start, COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the choice of Casual Mode/Classic Mode and any other similar choices that may exist. No fuss, no muss.

Back on topic, here's a list of some things I hope to see return in future installments:

-Rescuing, Shoving, Canto

-Skills (FE 10)

-Full Supports (FE 9)

-Capture

-Base Conversations

-Forging

-Multiple Difficulty Levels

-Multiple Story Routes

-Casual Mode (never used it, but having the option would be nice for newer players/people who do)

[paladin21]

If there are split paths that merge afterwards (like in SS), I hope that you don't get the same characters in each path, and that the story remains coherent. In SS, depending on the route, Lyon appears fighting the evil within the stone or taking his own decisions. Whenever he was alone or with one of the twins, that made sense, but when someone else was involved, it was harder to believe that two different scens would happen.

Also, if there were different routes for different lords, I'd like to be able to get to play all of them on a single run, after having beaten all routes separatedly, but with some new gaiden chapters, which would unlock if you did something in the other routes (for single route, it would be assumed that you didn't achieve those goals).

[Othin]

If there are split paths that merge afterwards (like in SS), I hope that you don't get the same characters in each path, and that the story remains coherent. In SS, depending on the route, Lyon appears fighting the evil within the stone or taking his own decisions. Whenever he was alone or with one of the twins, that made sense, but when someone else was involved, it was harder to believe that two different scens would happen.

Also, if there were different routes for different lords, I'd like to be able to get to play all of them on a single run, after having beaten all routes separatedly, but with some new gaiden chapters, which would unlock if you did something in the other routes (for single route, it would be assumed that you didn't achieve those goals).

That's no mistake, but rather a demonstration of the two stories that FE8 has rolled into its one. Not the two twins' stories, but the two versions of Lyon's story.

Lyon: Before I ever touched the Dark Stone... I had a vision. A vision of the future of Magvel. I saw myself standing with two roads stretched out before me. One led to the Demon King, devouring both my body and soul. The other showed me the power to fight the Demon King's dominion. And I, well.. ...Gaa...urgh.

Ephraim: Lyon!

Lyon: Then I acquired the Dark Stone. The Demon King began to eat my soul and corrupt my flesh. I almost vanished beneath the Demon King's mantle. The I remembered you... My mind blazed into wakefulness. All at once, my mind shouted out, "I will not be devoured!" Just as I was about to lose myself to the Demon King. I was able to drive him back. The Demon King's desires are simple--foul, but uncomplicated. He wants nothing but the destruction, conquest, and subjugation of man. These shallow desires are nothing to the dreams of the human heart. And of the two roads I had seen, I chose the latter.

Ephraim: .....

Lyon: But I didn't want to appear before you here in the role of Lyon. Lyon, the piteous victim... The Demon King, the fiendish villain... It was all an act--high drama for you all, to suit this grand occasion. That's right, Ephraim. I'm the Demon King... The Demon King is me.

There's much more to explore with this that Banzai and I intended to show in our FE8 story analysis, and this really isn't the place to discuss it; perhaps we should make a thread in the FE8 board if you or anyone else wants to discuss it more. The gist of our conclusion is that FE8's story splits with the routes before FE8 even begins and first becomes apparent in Ch14; the real split is which of the "two roads" Lyon took when possessed by the Demon King. It's fascinating how well and how purposefully the evidence is distributed between the two routes; it's honestly the best example of storytelling I've seen in an FE game.

Of course, it would become far less meaningful in another game if the idea was simply repeated there. And yeah, having the same characters somehow appear in different places at the same time depending on the route was definitely a poor choice.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yeah I would be perfectly fine with that

> assume IS already added something to FE13, and that it would be work to have it removed

> say we don't know whether it's ingame or not

>continue assuming it's ingame already

:/

Well...duh. If we assumed the opposite, the four or five pages of BS wouldn't exist.

EDIT: Because the game is in its latest stages of development, we can assume either it does exist, or it does not exist and IS's position on it will not be changed later. Therefore, if we all assume it doesn't exist, there would no point in having a discussion of how reclassing should work in FE 3DS.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[CrashGordon94]

Stop the argument! NOW!