Mechanics that you want

[dondon151]

@dondon - The data's already in the ROM for those weapons, though. Those items just sit there unused in-game unless you "transfer" them from the bonus disc.

This is a terrible argument for classifying things as "excluded" content. For content to even exist in the game at any time, its information has to programmed beforehand. You can't make something out of nothing.

The players don't lose anything that contributes to gameplay by not having Mew or not having a Wind Sword. Heck, in RBY you only had to get 150 Pokemon for the diploma. Mew may as well have not existed.

Edited December 28, 2011 by dondon151

[Lord Glenn]

This is a terrible argument for classifying things as "excluded" content. For content to even exist in the game at any time, its information has to programmed beforehand. You can't make something out of nothing.

The players don't lose anything that contributes to gameplay by not having Mew or not having a Wind Sword. Heck, in RBY you only had to get 150 Pokemon for the diploma. Mew may as well have not existed.

As I admitted previously, the stuff that's been excluded is entirely optional to the rest of the game; my repeatedly stated point is that Nintendo has intentionally had content in the data of their games that hasn't been accessible in the game without some form outside force granting it. It's basically an older form of the now ubiquitous on-disc DLC that requires a paid unlock code to use (i.e. one of the most hated aspects by players when it comes to DLC). Nintendo hasn't necessarily made us pay for it in the past (beyond hardware (e-Reader and GCN-GBA Link Cable) and other materials (e-Cards, bonus discs that come with other titles, etc.)), but you can see what this could lead to.

Plus, look at some of the other *correct* (in the eyes of most consumers, that is) types of DLC that are out there, such as Grand Theft Auto IV's add-ons (The Ballad of Gay Tony, etc.), half of Fallout 3's add-ons (Mothership Zeta, for example) and so on. Was that content programmed into the game before it was released? As far as we're aware of, no it was not. It was created later and added in as DLC. This is in direct contrast to the fact that the Wind Sword is already in the game when it shipped and simply wasn't allocated in-game for the sake of being offered as a "download" item. Now, yes, there is the fact that prior to this generation of consoles, it would have been basically impossible to go in such a direction as the physical mediums being used wouldn't have had the means to update the game data. That doesn't mean that coding content and not using it in order to have "download" events is a good decision, however.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Lord Glenn

[dondon151]

Now, yes, there is the fact that prior to this generation of consoles, it would have been basically impossible to go in such a direction as the physical mediums being used wouldn't have had the means to update the game data. That doesn't mean that coding content and not using it in order to have "download" events is a good decision, however.

So what's your point? Bonus content is bad? Doesn't this above quote nullify your argument? This is the only way that bonus content can actually be implemented in the game, so I don't think it's fair for you to condone bonus content in GTA4 or Fallout 3 and then criticize bonus content in some Nintendo games just because of one minor nitpick.

[Lord Glenn]

I'm saying that because of technical limitations, true DLC couldn't have been done for Pokémon or Fire Emblem, barring creating multiple updates of cartridges a la Street Fighter II. I suppose that you could call the Wind Sword, etc. "bonus content," as by definition, it just further expands the existing game; however, it's still content that was intentionally coded into the game to begin with and was forced to be unlocked through ulterior methods. It's content that could have easily been accessible to players normally in the game but was left aside simply either to limit the prevalence of the content (all of the old "We're giving away 500 Mews and you have to write in to be included in a drawing for them!" cases, etc.) or to force you to continue to adopt more of Nintendo's one-and-done peripherals that barely saw any use. To me, that isn't bonus content; it's the same thing as on-disc DLC.

Bonus content from the pre-DLC era would be something like the surprise you first got in Pokémon Gold Version after beating the Elite Four and found out that you could go to Kanto. You think you're only after 8 badges and then suddenly, you get to go after 8 more. Or, better yet, Fire Emblem itself has already had bonus content, if you think about it. FE6 had unlockable characters to use in the Trial Maps. Now, *that's* an example of bonus content in my mind. In this case, it's extra stuff tacked on to reward players for continuing to play. If there were special modes that unlocked after clearing the Hard Modes in FE7 that had the items already dispersed throughout the chapters in those modes, *then* the Bonus Disc items would be bonus content. But, Intelligent Systems didn't go that route; the items were planned to be download-only to begin with. And that's where I have an issue with this whole thing.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Lord Glenn

[Snowy_One]

DLC! New character available for trial maps! Chuck Norris!

[dondon151]

Now, *that's* an example of bonus content in my mind. In this case, it's extra stuff tacked on to reward players for continuing to play.

I don't think content that is accessible without any outside aid qualifies as bonus content. That's game content. You might as well say that the Power Plant in Pokemon RBY is bonus content.

Edited December 29, 2011 by dondon151

[Lord Glenn]

In the case of the FE6 example and my hypothetical means of including the Bonus Disc items in special modes in FE7, the outside "aid" is the player. You can't get the stuff if you, the player, don't meet certain in-game requirements. Just like how you can't get The Ballad of Gay Tony if you, the player, don't fork over $10.00 to Rockstar to download the content that they recently programmed and patched in to Grand Theft Auto IV.

--------------------

Anyway, to partially bring this back on-topic a bit, I did have a thought about something I'd like to see in FE13 (which was somewhat inspired by the April Fool's topic from a couple of years ago): Divergent Campaigns. No, I don't simply mean route splits; I mean scenarios where, at the beginning of the game (or very close to it), you make some decisions as the player (or as the main character) and those decisions set the course of the game. For those of you that are familiar with the Super Robot Taisen series, it'd be like the start of Original Generation (or the OG1 portion of Original Generations) where you pick a main character and the paths diverge from there (granted, I'm suggesting something beyond the scope of OG1, since the two paths eventually combine and then split again).

Yes, some of the titles have had this in limited aspects (FE7 with the trivial differences between Eliwood and Hector's Modes, FE8 with the choice of going with Eirika or Ephraim, etc.), but I'm meaning more like the choice between Hash or Firio (hence the April Fool's inspiration). For example, I select for the Lord to go to Kingdom X on a goodwill mission and there is no overlap between that story and what would have happened had I selected to go to Kingdom Y instead. And, on top of that, you'd still have route splits, different character recruitment, and so on. Just something else to further increase the replayability of the title.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Lord Glenn

[Othin]

I don't think content that is accessible without any outside aid qualifies as bonus content. That's game content. You might as well say that the Power Plant in Pokemon RBY is bonus content.

I find it hard to look at content that requires outside aid to access and call it content at all. It's for this reason that I've pretty much stopped caring about the main series Pokemon games in favor of the spinoffs that actually contain all the Pokemon up to their respective generation while retaining the full RPG experience of the originals (such as Pokemon Mystery Dungeon). Playing the main series games, you can't just pick up the game and do everything important; there's so much content the game emphasizes that you need to play other games to get or even be in the right physical place at the right physical time. It makes the games feel thoroughly incomplete. Mew was less of a disappointment, but that was because it was hardly a part of the series as of the first generation at all.

The Power Plant is certainly content. And it is an area you are not at all required to progress to, but one where you can find valuable things regardless, such as Zapdos. This is precisely what I would call a bonus area. It is a bonus, and it is content; it takes precisely the role any bonus content could fulfill. When I play (or more likely replay) a game and I'm looking for options to play through it a different way, this is the sort of content I'm going to care about, not things like Mew and Celebi I'm likely never going to see legitimately.

For this reason, I'm in favor of route splits and the like where you can see a different set of chapters at different times rather than just playing through the same ones with maybe a few optional ones thrown in. I'm unsure about Lord Glenn's idea, though; it seems like it might not work too well with FE's setup, although granted I have little to no experience with games that actually use the idea and well.

[dondon151]

When I play (or more likely replay) a game and I'm looking for options to play through it a different way, this is the sort of content I'm going to care about, not things like Mew and Celebi I'm likely never going to see legitimately.

Then I find it exceedingly strange that you've "stopped caring" about the Pokemon main series, because even with the version exclusives and the event Pokemon, there are still myriad options for one to play through the game in different ways.

For this reason, I'm in favor of route splits and the like where you can see a different set of chapters at different times rather than just playing through the same ones with maybe a few optional ones thrown in. I'm unsure about Lord Glenn's idea, though; it seems like it might not work too well with FE's setup, although granted I have little to no experience with games that actually use the idea and well.

I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me if your only issue is that I should use different words to represent the same notions. Replace every instance of the word "bonus" in my posts with "special" or something.

[Othin]

Then I find it exceedingly strange that you've "stopped caring" about the Pokemon main series, because even with the version exclusives and the event Pokemon, there are still myriad options for one to play through the game in different ways.

I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me if your only issue is that I should use different words to represent the same notions. Replace every instance of the word "bonus" in my posts with "special" or something.

Oh, those games certainly have that going for them. But so do plenty of other games that actually feel complete, that I can play through and feasibly get what I could reasonably consider 100% completion.

Wording is not the disagreement. I disagree with your very notion that there is any merit in withholding content designed before the game's release only to release it later. Any bonus, anything special, anything else it could possibly be called, making it a bonus with ingame requirements has every gain (for the player) making it a bonus with out-of-game requirements could have, only it's much more accessible and does not make the game feel incomplete.

[Lord Glenn]

I'm unsure about Lord Glenn's idea, though; it seems like it might not work too well with FE's setup, although granted I have little to no experience with games that actually use the idea and well.

The idea would be that at the beginning of the game (either as soon as you start a new game or maybe after the Prologue), you get a choice between 2+ options (depending on the story, world, etc. and how many scenarios Intelligent Systems could and wanted to code). Each option translates to a different line on a flowchart and, ideally, none of the lines would connect. Let's say that as the story starts, Krom has to be a guard for a convoy of goods going to a neighboring kingdom and that he has his choice of which convoy to go with: Convoy A going to Kingdom A, Convoy B going to Kingdom B, and so on. If he were to pick Convoy A, he goes with the convoy to Kingdom A and the convoy gets ambushed by a gang of bandits. From there, he makes it to the kingdom and meets the princess, falling in love at first sight. He decides to do whatever she wants to win his favor, which involves going off and doing 30 more chapters. If he were to go Kingdom B, however, he might get to that kingdom only to find that they're not friendly with his country now and he gets thrown in the dungeon. A sympathetic thief manages to break him out and the two have to outrun the troops back to Krom's home kingdom. (And, again, more plot stuff would continue for 30+ chapters after this.)

It should work perfectly fine with FE's general setup, as it's mainly just different stories based on a different decision that the player makes. It even opens up the possibilities of having a larger list of characters (on the order of Radiant Dawn's perhaps) where the characters would be grouped into sets. Set A only shows up on Path A (to Kingdom A), Set B to Kingdom B, etc. and you'd have a set for characters that show up in all paths. (You'd also have a Venn Diagram-esque case where the intersection of two sets (Set A intersect Set B) would produce a few characters that show up in both Path A and Path B, but were you to intersect that resultant set with, say, Set C, you'd get nothing.)

[Book of Ereshkigal]

I would love that. I don't think they'd actually do that sort of thing.

I hope that-if we have any sort of manakete/transforming peeps- that they make like mystery of the emblem. Use the stone, stay transformed for a few turns.

Edited December 29, 2011 by L95

[bottlegnomes]

I would love that. I don't think they'd actually do that sort of thing.

I hope that-if we have any sort of manakete/transforming peeps- that they make like mystery of the emblem. Use the stone, stay transformed for a few turns.

Also like FE3, having access to a number of different stones would be nice as well.

[Celice]

The idea would be that at the beginning of the game (either as soon as you start a new game or maybe after the Prologue), you get a choice between 2+ options (depending on the story, world, etc. and how many scenarios Intelligent Systems could and wanted to code). Each option translates to a different line on a flowchart and, ideally, none of the lines would connect. Let's say that as the story starts, Krom has to be a guard for a convoy of goods going to a neighboring kingdom and that he has his choice of which convoy to go with: Convoy A going to Kingdom A, Convoy B going to Kingdom B, and so on. If he were to pick Convoy A, he goes with the convoy to Kingdom A and the convoy gets ambushed by a gang of bandits. From there, he makes it to the kingdom and meets the princess, falling in love at first sight. He decides to do whatever she wants to win his favor, which involves going off and doing 30 more chapters. If he were to go Kingdom B, however, he might get to that kingdom only to find that they're not friendly with his country now and he gets thrown in the dungeon. A sympathetic thief manages to break him out and the two have to outrun the troops back to Krom's home kingdom. (And, again, more plot stuff would continue for 30+ chapters after this.)

It should work perfectly fine with FE's general setup, as it's mainly just different stories based on a different decision that the player makes. It even opens up the possibilities of having a larger list of characters (on the order of Radiant Dawn's perhaps) where the characters would be grouped into sets. Set A only shows up on Path A (to Kingdom A), Set B to Kingdom B, etc. and you'd have a set for characters that show up in all paths. (You'd also have a Venn Diagram-esque case where the intersection of two sets (Set A intersect Set B) would produce a few characters that show up in both Path A and Path B, but were you to intersect that resultant set with, say, Set C, you'd get nothing.)

In case any of you find this concept interesting, Der Langrisser does this on the SNES, and is also an SRPG. I don't know about the other Langrisser games featuring modular story modes, but Der Langrisser certainly does. And a bunch of other games, as already mentioned.

[General Banzai]

I'm not fond of this whole "branching paths" thing. It feels like, in order for it to work, the actual plot of the story itself would have to be generic enough so that whatever choice you make doesn't impact the overall arc of the story.

FESS I think pulled this sort of thing off the best way it could have been done; in making it so that no matter who you chose to go with (Eirika or Ephraim), both routes were done anyways, it's just that you only SAW the route that you went with. So, it's not like Carcino didn't revolt simply because you went with Ephraim instead of Eirika; it just happened off-screen. The main difference between the two routes as far as the story was concerned was more in the realm of character; you're given two different main characters with two different perceptions of the events surrounding them, as well as two different views of the main villain.

Unless FEA can pull off a kind of decision like that (instead of an arbitrary "Go to Kingdom A" or "Go to Kingdom B"), it feels like the overall story in general would suffer.

[Lord Glenn]

I'm meaning *separate* stories though. In that, if you go with Path A, it's a unique storyline that doesn't have anything to do with Paths B, C, D, E, etc., barring some character overlaps; it wouldn't just be a large, multifaceted route split. Each route would have its own story, character lists, etc. So, if Krom fights a summoned Demon Dragon in Path A as the final boss, Path B might have him fighting a Goddess as the final boss. Does that make sense?

Obviously, crafting a set of paths that consists of more than one story would take a ton of development effort, which is why anything beyond two paths seems unrealistic (unless they'd be patched in with DLC later!), barring significantly shorter game lengths (~20 chapters or so, I'd wager). But, still, it'd at least offer reasons to play the game for more than just gameplay or challenge beyond the first time through.

[Rewjeo]

I think the point is that it WOULD impact the overall arc of the story. The story would change completely depending on the choice(s) you made. For instance, as said above, one of the routes makes the story about Krom trying to win over the heart of a princess while the other sparks a conflict between nations. If you chose A, B would never happen because Krom would never have done anything to incite the conflict, while if you chose B, A would never happen because he never would have met the princess.

As much as I would like this, I don't think IS could pull it off very well. I mean, people always talk about how short FE8 is at 22 chapters. Overall, you've got 28 main story chapters plus one skirmish map you never see during the main game and you have the Ruins and Tower. Now if you've got two completely separate stories as well as the likely inclusion of Tower/Ruin like features? Because, quite frankly, it seems far more likely that IS would go the route of having the same content total as one game rather than having multiple full length games packed into one. After all, that's what seems to happen in almost every single game with branching paths.

[bottlegnomes]

I'm not fond of this whole "branching paths" thing. It feels like, in order for it to work, the actual plot of the story itself would have to be generic enough so that whatever choice you make doesn't impact the overall arc of the story.

FESS I think pulled this sort of thing off the best way it could have been done; in making it so that no matter who you chose to go with (Eirika or Ephraim), both routes were done anyways, it's just that you only SAW the route that you went with. So, it's not like Carcino didn't revolt simply because you went with Ephraim instead of Eirika; it just happened off-screen. The main difference between the two routes as far as the story was concerned was more in the realm of character; you're given two different main characters with two different perceptions of the events surrounding them, as well as two different views of the main villain.

Unless FEA can pull off a kind of decision like that (instead of an arbitrary "Go to Kingdom A" or "Go to Kingdom B"), it feels like the overall story in general would suffer.

Or there could just be two completely different stories. Like having two games in one, where the MC going to one of these places triggers the events of the story, so the other story doesn't happen at all because of the lack of the MC's actions in that area.

[Othin]

Or there could just be two completely different stories. Like having two games in one, where the MC going to one of these places triggers the events of the story, so the other story doesn't happen at all because of the lack of the MC's actions in that area.

And yet if the games don't interact, what's the point? It sounds like asking for two or more games for the price of one, and as Rewjo noted, that's also going to be two or more games with the content of one, split so that each one only has like a third of the content it might have otherwise. And that's kinda pitiful.

Also, if the main character going to one place instead of another prevents one villain from doing anything, but allows a completely different villain to do something completely different, that would most likely cause some story issues.

[bottlegnomes]

And yet if the games don't interact, what's the point? It sounds like asking for two or more games for the price of one, and as Rewjo noted, that's also going to be two or more games with the content of one, split so that each one only has like a third of the content it might have otherwise. And that's kinda pitiful.

Also, if the main character going to one place instead of another prevents one villain from doing anything, but allows a completely different villain to do something completely different, that would most likely cause some story issues.

Why does MotE have book one and book two when they aren't related any more than FE9 and 10? Stupid question, don't actually answer that.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that's what Lord Glenn is asking for, not glorified route splits. I never said it was likely. Rather, going along Lord Glenn's idea, I'd like to see something like where you're a mercenary troop (again) and a war starts and you get to choose which side you fight for, and can possibly switch sides. That'd affect the characters you recruit, the battles you fight, and the outcomes of everything. It'd also potentially allow some exploration of the motivations of each side, for how it could benefit the story.

As for story issues, there are dragons in these games. It really wouldn't be hard to explain away with like a line or two of dialogue. Whether it'd be a stupid explanation or not is a different matter.

Edited December 29, 2011 by bottlegnomes

[Lord Glenn]

And yet if the games don't interact, what's the point? It sounds like asking for two or more games for the price of one, and as Rewjo noted, that's also going to be two or more games with the content of one, split so that each one only has like a third of the content it might have otherwise. And that's kinda pitiful.

Also, if the main character going to one place instead of another prevents one villain from doing anything, but allows a completely different villain to do something completely different, that would most likely cause some story issues.

The world, characters, etc. wouldn't "change" between storylines, necessarily. If you go Path A but Path B still has an uprising against a dictator, that event could still feasibly happen; it's just that you wouldn't have been present at the uprising (and possibly contributed to it), since you were elsewhere on the map at the time. Intelligent Systems would end up generating extra content during development (more maps than normal, more characters than normal (gotta have some differences between the characters in the stories), the alternative story paths, etc.), but isn't that a better means of fostering further playing time than endless grind sessions in World Map Skirmishes or an Arena/Tower on the map? I know that I'd rather be able to start a new game and get a different "story" of events than repeatedly fight battles that don't mean anything just to max out my units' levels and stats.

I should also note, the topic title is "Mechanics that you want" not "Mechanics that you think are likely to occur".

Edited December 29, 2011 by Lord Glenn

[Othin]

Why does MotE have book one and book two when they aren't related any more than FE9 and 10? Stupid question, don't actually answer that.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that's what Lord Glenn is asking for, not glorified route splits. I never said it was likely. Rather, going along Lord Glenn's idea, I'd like to see something like where you're a mercenary troop (again) and a war starts and you get to choose which side you fight for, and can possibly switch sides. That'd affect the characters you recruit, the battles you fight, and the outcomes of everything. It'd also potentially allow some exploration of the motivations of each side, for how it could benefit the story.

As for story issues, there are dragons in these games. It really wouldn't be hard to explain away with like a line or two of dialogue. Whether it'd be a stupid explanation or not is a different matter.

Developers remaking a previous game is an entirely different matter.

Fire Emblem is a fantasy series. That does not mean its stories can be complete nonsense; it means they have to make sense in a world substantially different from our own. Such a story would still be greatly limited in how it could make sense and be interesting.

The world, characters, etc. wouldn't "change" between storylines, necessarily. If you go Path A but Path B still has an uprising against a dictator, that event could still feasibly happen; it's just that you wouldn't have been present at the uprising (and possibly contributed to it), since you were elsewhere on the map at the time. Intelligent Systems would end up generating extra content during development (more maps than normal, more characters than normal (gotta have some differences between the characters in the stories), the alternative story paths, etc.), but isn't that a better means of fostering further playing time than endless grind sessions in World Map Skirmishes or an Arena/Tower on the map? I know that I'd rather be able to start a new game and get a different "story" of events than repeatedly fight battles that don't mean anything just to max out my units' levels and stats.

I should also note, the topic title is "Mechanics that you want" not "Mechanics that you think are likely to occur".

Well okay, that's a different matter, which really does sound like an FE8-style route split just taking up more of the game. Which seems overly limited compared to several smaller route splits throughout the game, and it still requires the game to have far more content in order for each possible story to have a sufficient amount.

I have no concern with likelihood. I'm concerned about feasibility.

[bottlegnomes]

Developers remaking a previous game is an entirely different matter.

No shit. That's why I said it was a stupid question and to not actually answer it.

Fire Emblem is a fantasy series. That does not mean its stories can be complete nonsense; it means they have to make sense in a world substantially different from our own. Such a story would still be greatly limited in how it could make sense and be interesting.

It wouldn't have to be any stupider than the driving force in FE8, which you love. Put simply, FE8's is "herp derp I'm gonna sell my soul to an evil demon because my daddy's dead and something bad might happen to my kingdom. Don't worry though; I'll be able to control him because I'm a teenage boy with a weak will."

If the MC goes to kingdom A he could find a dragon egg on the way there and that would affect the rest of the game. If he goes to kingdom B he could help a rebel, either knowingly or unknowingly, which would cause a huge revolution. Either way, the kingdom he doesn't go to doesn't have that event happen and the story doesn't progress because that plot important event never happened. Like I said, not hard.

Lord Glenn's way works perfectly well too, and you acknowledge that. I really don't see how explaining two diverging stories, through either way, would be a problem.

I have no concern with likelihood. I'm concerned about feasibility.

Again, this is things we'd like, not things that are likely, or even remotely possible, just things we'd like. I don't see how feasibility is a problem in a topic of this nature.

Edited December 29, 2011 by bottlegnomes

[General Banzai]

Oh, yeah, I'd like two (or more) completely different games for the price of one, too. I'm sure nearly everyone would.

So, uh, next discussion topic?

[bottlegnomes]

Oh, yeah, I'd like two (or more) completely different games for the price of one, too. I'm sure nearly everyone would.

So, uh, next discussion topic?

A lord so broken (s)he makes Seth and Sigurd's lovechild look like Sophia?