Mechanics that you want

[Titamon]

The chart, you mean?

sí

[CrashGordon94]

Thought so, it was rather complicated. Still nice to see someone being creative about this though.

[Anouleth]

Fire Emblem needs less creativity, if anything. "Creativity" gave us FE9 Laguz, which didn't work very well. Then in FE10, they decided to be less creative and instead fix something that was already in the game.

[Griffen78]

I want slightly more creative tier 3 units if we get them. The tier 3s in 10 just kind of felt like tier 2s with higher caps and super crits.

Though I do not want Laguz back. Like I keep saying: A manakette (ONE MANAKETTE) that has a transformation gauge like laguz and ultimately works like one is fine, but having multiple classes like that is stupid. Especially when they are just like super versions of classes already in the game with a minor draw back .-.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Griffen78

[Momo]

Fire Emblem needs less creativity, if anything. "Creativity" gave us FE9 Laguz, which didn't work very well. Then in FE10, they decided to be less creative and instead fix something that was already in the game.

You can have creativity without it sucking, laguz was just an example of how not to do it.

[CrashGordon94]

That's not creativity, that's just poor balance.

[Othin]

That's not creativity, that's just poor balance.

Indeed. The Laguz were just like any other characters, except with no weapon choice and being unable to fight half the time.

[Snowy_One]

The irony is that they could have been easily... semi-fixed... in FE9 by just letting us choose the transform times like they ended up doing in FE10. They didn't 'need' doubled stats or anything, the old transform bonuses would have worked, they just needed a way to upgrade their melee weapons to be on-par with what their beorc counterparts wielded and some way for us to ensure that we could at least have a chance of them not wasting turns in combat forms when there may not even be enemies about.

IMO, creativity is a good thing. It's what allowed games to move from the simple turn-based RPG's of the NES to things like Skies of Arcadia and Skyrim. The problem is that it is very, very, hard to make a design choice that actually enhances the story and, even then, you run the risk of players not liking it. It's what happens in games.

Anyways, I would like... I would like the game designers force the player to be creative more often in how they play. That's why I suggested things that allowed for more characters to be deployed a while back. It's not even 'hard' really. Like, say, assault a castle with walls. There have been a few ladders set up, but the passages to them are narrow and covered with ledges, so your riders can't help. Arrow-cover is heavy, so fliers are in danger as well. Inside are a lot of soldiers, though, so you need the additional forces (if not from riders, just simply being able to move a lot of footsoldiers through) The 'solution' is to send small squads of foot-soldiers to kill the ballista and open the gate up to give you the forces you need to finish the objective.

[Anouleth]

The irony is that they could have been easily... semi-fixed... in FE9 by just letting us choose the transform times like they ended up doing in FE10. They didn't 'need' doubled stats or anything, the old transform bonuses would have worked, they just needed a way to upgrade their melee weapons to be on-par with what their beorc counterparts wielded and some way for us to ensure that we could at least have a chance of them not wasting turns in combat forms when there may not even be enemies about.

IMO, creativity is a good thing. It's what allowed games to move from the simple turn-based RPG's of the NES to things like Skies of Arcadia and Skyrim.

From what I've heard, Skyrim isn't really that creative either. It has a similar gameplay skeleton to earlier Elder Scrolls games, and to WRPGs in general. Rather than try to design a game with an entirely new gameplay structure, the focus was instead to use the same gameplay structure, but with new content and improved graphics. In fact, Skyrim removed several mechanics such as weapon durability and the class system. Rather than come up with new ideas, they removed old ideas that they didn't think worked.

Anyways, I would like... I would like the game designers force the player to be creative more often in how they play. That's why I suggested things that allowed for more characters to be deployed a while back. It's not even 'hard' really. Like, say, assault a castle with walls. There have been a few ladders set up, but the passages to them are narrow and covered with ledges, so your riders can't help. Arrow-cover is heavy, so fliers are in danger as well. Inside are a lot of soldiers, though, so you need the additional forces (if not from riders, just simply being able to move a lot of footsoldiers through) The 'solution' is to send small squads of foot-soldiers to kill the ballista and open the gate up to give you the forces you need to finish the objective.

If I wanted "puzzles", I'd play Zelda. I'm not really interested in maps that have a specific solution... In my opinion, that's the exact opposite of encouraging creativity. It's forcing the player to figure out the "correct" way to play the game instead of letting the player be creative and play the game their way. What if the player doesn't want to use footsoldiers? What if they like using mounted units, or flying units? Part of the nice thing about FE is that it lets you be creative. For example, I love performing crazy rescue-drop tricks using Phantoms (which can't ordinarily pick up units). Obviously, that's not the way that the developer "intended" me to play (otherwise they wouldn't have disabled the Rescue command on them), but that just makes it all the cooler.

Or to take a more typical example, players aren't really meant to just rely on their Jeigan to steam through the game. It took creative thinking to disregard what those stupid houses tell you and use the Jeigan anyway. Creative people don't look at 2E and think "oh no how will survive" just because the game tells them they should be scared, they think "how can I slaughter all of these fools and make Ludveck my bitch". And sure, you could force the player to defend like an obedient little puppy, but I think players should have the option to be creative and turn the tables, rather than to submit to the developer's idea of how they "should" play the game.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Anouleth

[Snowy_One]

From what I've heard, Skyrim isn't really that creative either. It has a similar gameplay skeleton to earlier Elder Scrolls games, and to WRPGs in general. Rather than try to design a game with an entirely new gameplay structure, the focus was instead to use the same gameplay structure, but with new content and improved graphics. In fact, Skyrim removed several mechanics such as weapon durability and the class system. Rather than come up with new ideas, they removed old ideas that they didn't think worked.

Gameplay isn't the be-all, end-all of a good game or creativity you know. Skyrim managed to pull off a unique feel to its world and used several means to encourage the player along despite the freedom offered to them. For example, the perk system. Just raising all your stats to 100 no longer makes you capable of doing everything equally well anymore. In Oblivion a warrior with 100 lockpicking was just as good as a thief with 100, depending on the players personal skill, possibly even better. With the new perk system, a warrior is more inclined to take fighting-focused perks while a thief more stealth-focused, meaning the warrior won't (likely) end up as good at lockpicking as the thief, and the thief won't end up as good at melee combat, even if they wear the same gear, just because of the perks.

There are a bunch of other things in the game, a lot very subtle, that help out. Like, for example, when you steal a item there is a chance that the person will send bandits after you. Even if they die easy, it is meant to annoy the player and make them start to actually think about what they steal before running rampant and swiping whatever they can.

If I wanted "puzzles", I'd play Zelda. I'm not really interested in maps that have a specific solution... In my opinion, that's the exact opposite of encouraging creativity. It's forcing the player to figure out the "correct" way to play the game instead of letting the player be creative and play the game their way. What if the player doesn't want to use footsoldiers? What if they like using mounted units, or flying units?

Then they have to figure out some way to overcome the weakpoints in their strategy, forcing them to be creative, and are put in a position where a diverse army with multiple types of units instead of one overpowering kind is better. They can still play 'all riders' if they want... but it becomes a LOT harder to do so. This probably won't even be a issue unless the game makes it so that you can only afford to deploy a few units as there can only be so many mounted/fliers in the game.

Or to take a more typical example, players aren't really meant to just rely on their Jeigan to steam through the game. It took creative thinking to disregard what those stupid houses tell you and use the Jeigan anyway. Creative people don't look at 2E and think "oh no how will survive" just because the game tells them they should be scared, they think "how can I slaughter all of these fools and make Ludveck my bitch". And sure, you could force the player to defend like an obedient little puppy, but I think players should have the option to be creative and turn the tables, rather than to submit to the developer's idea of how they "should" play the game.

That's not being creative. That's looking at things through the idea of 'I want to be able to disregard things to play as efficiently as possible'. This is why tier-list players make awful consultants for game balance as well. To them, it is all about efficiency and winning. It can be helpful when determining balance, but at the end of the day, if they can simply zerg-rush someone to death, they will.

Anyways, Jeigan's are their own problem. They're made to be a crutch, but the problem is that they end up being too good throughout the game, making them top-tier characters. It takes a conscious effort to forgo training up the obviously strong unit in favor of a weaker one. That's not to mention that solving the jeigan problem is something that needs separate consideration.

Secondly, I am surprised that you can, apparently, read minds and tell me exactly what every player seems to think in a situation even players you've never met or talked too.

Also, how is it being 'creative' if your units are strong enough to simply curbstomp a chapter instead of being forced onto the defensive, then, through good and clever usage of units, manage to push out to eventually win?

[Anouleth]

Gameplay isn't the be-all, end-all of a good game or creativity you know. Skyrim managed to pull off a unique feel to its world and used several means to encourage the player along despite the freedom offered to them. For example, the perk system. Just raising all your stats to 100 no longer makes you capable of doing everything equally well anymore. In Oblivion a warrior with 100 lockpicking was just as good as a thief with 100, depending on the players personal skill, possibly even better. With the new perk system, a warrior is more inclined to take fighting-focused perks while a thief more stealth-focused, meaning the warrior won't (likely) end up as good at lockpicking as the thief, and the thief won't end up as good at melee combat, even if they wear the same gear, just because of the perks.

There are a bunch of other things in the game, a lot very subtle, that help out. Like, for example, when you steal a item there is a chance that the person will send bandits after you. Even if they die easy, it is meant to annoy the player and make them start to actually think about what they steal before running rampant and swiping whatever they can.

What's the point? My point is that Skyrim's success isn't really based around creativity. What was the main selling point, the main part of all their marketing? Dragons. Which is hardly a very creative element at all. Fighting dragons is almost cliche. And I don't say that in a bad way or in a negative way. I'd rather fight a dragon than some "new" monster that they thought up in a burst of creativity.

Then they have to figure out some way to overcome the weakpoints in their strategy, forcing them to be creative, and are put in a position where a diverse army with multiple types of units instead of one overpowering kind is better. They can still play 'all riders' if they want... but it becomes a LOT harder to do so. This probably won't even be a issue unless the game makes it so that you can only afford to deploy a few units as there can only be so many mounted/fliers in the game.

And I think that's a bad thing. I liked how in FFTA, you could make a team entirely of Thieves, or White Mages, or whatever. You should have the same option in FE. I think it would be awesome to go around with a team entirely of Snipers, or Bishops, or Falcoknights. And I don't think that the game should necessarily try to hose individual classes. Like, there isn't a chapte rin FFTA where White Mages just "suck". There are hard chapters and easy chapters, which is how it should be. Part of the reason I love FE10 so much is because the game doesn't suddenly hose a particular unit type (except Fiona). I find I have to use a wide range of characters to get the results I want, from magic users to Paladins to Trueblades.

That's not being creative. That's looking at things through the idea of 'I want to be able to disregard things to play as efficiently as possible'.

Of course it's being creative. The game specifically tells you to not use Jeigans. It requires a creative person to disregard that orthodoxy and play the game their way rather than the way the developers seem to want. Just because you hate efficient play doesn't mean you should pretend that players don't come up with creative and interesting strategies in order to be efficient.

This is why tier-list players make awful consultants for game balance as well. To them, it is all about efficiency and winning. It can be helpful when determining balance, but at the end of the day, if they can simply zerg-rush someone to death, they will.

No, they make the best consultants, because they can understand the difference between something that's genuinely gamebreaking (like FE11 Warp, or Seth) and something that isn't really gamebreaking.

And how a person plays the game is kind of irrelevant.

Anyways, Jeigan's are their own problem. They're made to be a crutch, but the problem is that they end up being too good throughout the game, making them top-tier characters. It takes a conscious effort to forgo training up the obviously strong unit in favor of a weaker one. That's not to mention that solving the jeigan problem is something that needs separate consideration.

Well, I was just using an example of how creative thinking opened up a way to break the game. The game shouldn't be so easily broken, however.

Another good example is how players use Ilyana to transfer items from the DB to the GMs. That was pretty creative, I think.

Secondly, I am surprised that you can, apparently, read minds and tell me exactly what every player seems to think in a situation even players you've never met or talked too.

Well, I was just thinking of an example from these very boards: KoT trying to Rout chapter 2-E in Hard Mode.

Also, how is it being 'creative' if your units are strong enough to simply curbstomp a chapter instead of being forced onto the defensive, then, through good and clever usage of units, manage to push out to eventually win?

Except that in 2-E hard mode, your units aren't strong enough to simply curbstomp.

In addition, how is it being creative if you're FORCED to play defensively? This is what I don't get. You bang on and on about creativity, and then in the very next sentence you talk about forcing the player to do things. 2-E is a great chapter because even though it can be hectic, if the player is good, they can play the chapter offensively. They don't "have" to play defensively if they're intelligent and creative enough. It's not that the units are good. It's that the brain behind them is intelligent.

[Refa]

In addition, how is it being creative if you're FORCED to play defensively? This is what I don't get. You bang on and on about creativity, and then in the very next sentence you talk about forcing the player to do things. 2-E is a great chapter because even though it can be hectic, if the player is good, they can play the chapter offensively. They don't "have" to play defensively if they're intelligent and creative enough. It's not that the units are good. It's that the brain behind them is intelligent.

Snowy is being very creative in veiling his passive agressive hate of people who play efficiently by complaining about how Jeigans ruin everything and (wanting to) limit the ways in which popular units in efficient playstyles (cavaliers, pegasus knights) can be used on certain maps for no other reason than, well, like I said above.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Refa

[Othin]

Seems to me that much of this is a twisted version of the good intent to make it so that foot units have some relevant advantages over mounted units so as to keep the latter from entirely (or almost entirely) eclipsing the former.

[Snowy_One]

What's the point? My point is that Skyrim's success isn't really based around creativity. What was the main selling point, the main part of all their marketing? Dragons. Which is hardly a very creative element at all. Fighting dragons is almost cliche. And I don't say that in a bad way or in a negative way. I'd rather fight a dragon than some "new" monster that they thought up in a burst of creativity.

The main 'selling point' of Skyrim is its immersible world and gameplay, ease of access for newcomers, and levels of depth for people willing to sink in tons of hours. Every facet of the game was carefully handled (though some not as well as others) to provide a world that felt alive and realistic as well as being robust enough to handle the multitude of choices a player could make. That is NOT a small feat and requires a lot of creative thinking just in figuring out how to design things. Like, say, the 90% pickpocket success. Do you know WHY that is even there? Why they capped it off there instead of allowing for full-on 100% success?

And I think that's a bad thing. I liked how in FFTA, you could make a team entirely of Thieves, or White Mages, or whatever. You should have the same option in FE. I think it would be awesome to go around with a team entirely of Snipers, or Bishops, or Falcoknights. And I don't think that the game should necessarily try to hose individual classes. Like, there isn't a chapte rin FFTA where White Mages just "suck". There are hard chapters and easy chapters, which is how it should be. Part of the reason I love FE10 so much is because the game doesn't suddenly hose a particular unit type (except Fiona). I find I have to use a wide range of characters to get the results I want, from magic users to Paladins to Trueblades.

So then why are you against the notion of the game being set up so that the easiest way to handle a level involves using a diverse assortment of units, some of which that may have been overlooked had the field simply been left blank instead of carefully constructed?

Of course it's being creative. The game specifically tells you to not use Jeigans. It requires a creative person to disregard that orthodoxy and play the game their way rather than the way the developers seem to want. Just because you hate efficient play doesn't mean you should pretend that players don't come up with creative and interesting strategies in order to be efficient.

I 'hate' efficient play because it is the same thing as saying 'there is a absolute goal. We need to achieve that goal, so let's remove anything that isn't needed, like human thought and judgment, and replace it with strict rulings that are largely uncompromising'. It's the same as thinking 'robots acquire targets faster than humans, so let's make our missle-targeting systems robotic... even though they would, at best, have trouble determining if a target was threatening or not'.

In FE, this means distilling things down to a simple goal of 'beat the game as fast as humanly possible'... which... is not... HOW PEOPLE PLAY DAMNIT! A unit may be very weak overall, but get shot up the tier lists because they can breeze through the early-game in a snap with a low TC while a unit who is stronger, but slower to get going drops on the list even though he would be better. That aside...

I'm not saying there is no creativity in playing effeciently, but all that is geared towards one goal; fast game completion. It is not the only kind out there and it should NEVER be the only kind out there. Simple as that.

No, they make the best consultants, because they can understand the difference between something that's genuinely gamebreaking (like FE11 Warp, or Seth) and something that isn't really gamebreaking.

Okay then... Solve this from a tiering perspective.

In the previous game of series X, a fighting game, units with a fast, low punch dominated, especially character Y as they could take their low punch and combo it into a special attack. You need to balance it out so that people can play slower/longer characters while keeping the direct nerfs to a minimum. Additionally, character Y is overpowered only because of this said combination and already has costly special attacks normally. Increasing costs would make the character useless and making the low-punch a special-type move would render the move entirely useless.

Balance the character with minimal nerfs and not making the character useless overall. (and yes, something like this has actually happened).

And how a person plays the game is kind of irrelevant.

Different people look at a game from different angles. People more interested in story are more likely to take 'sub-optimal' characters or limit characters to certain abilities that fit with their notion of who the character is. People who power-play tend to exploit sidequests, mini-games, and optional material to become disproportionately strong. Tier players prefer characters with low cost to payout ratio and are more likely to experiment with abilities in unique ways with the goal of more efficient play. Hard-core players neglect lesser characters, while casuals are more likely to follow simpler playstyles and obvious set-ups. All of these people want their playstyle to be addressed and they will see the game from that playstyle. How a designer sees a game and how a player sees a game are two radically different things as well. So yes, it DOES matter. A LOT! It's one of the most important pieces of data. A casual player is more interested in 'unusual' quests and visible progress while a long-time player is more interested in rewards and speed in a MMO, and you can't ignore either of them or how they respond. Heck, two otherwise-identical players of a different faction in a game can see it from a totally different perspective and want different things. Details matter!

Well, I was just using an example of how creative thinking opened up a way to break the game. The game shouldn't be so easily broken, however.

Another good example is how players use Ilyana to transfer items from the DB to the GMs. That was pretty creative, I think.

Not really. It's only 'creative' if you didn't know that she switches sides and keeps any items she had. You probably won't realize it on PT1 (since you don't know if or when she switches), but after that it is a somewhat obvious conclusion. She doesn't even need to be leveled for it really. Thani was more creative as it allowed for Micaiah to remain relevant despite lower speed thanks to its high stats and bonuses.

In addition, how is it being creative if you're FORCED to play defensively? This is what I don't get. You bang on and on about creativity, and then in the very next sentence you talk about forcing the player to do things. 2-E is a great chapter because even though it can be hectic, if the player is good, they can play the chapter offensively. They don't "have" to play defensively if they're intelligent and creative enough. It's not that the units are good. It's that the brain behind them is intelligent.

In AC:B I recently did a mission where I had to defend a fort without taking damage. The rules were simple. I have to close three gates and (for 100%) I can't take any damage. There were multiple ways to accomplish this. I could try to evade the main army and go only for the guards protecting the gates, but that left me open to attack and I could get swarmed easily. I could fight smaller groups, but the soldiers were never-ending and every fight held the risk of me getting hurt. I could call in allies to clear the field/fight alongside me, but I can't control them and clearing the field has a long CD. There were other options as well... and which I took depended largely on how I wanted to play. I don't even know what the 'best' choice was supposed to be, but I don't think it was my answer (fighting small groups) as the mission took 14 retries for me to beat without damage.

Still, I was put in a position where I was forced to defend, given multiple ways to accomplish that goal, and guess what? It encouraged being creative and stimulated critical thinking as well.

[Lord Raven]

I 'hate' efficient play because it is the same thing as saying 'there is a absolute goal. We need to achieve that goal, so let's remove anything that isn't needed, like human thought and judgment, and replace it with strict rulings that are largely uncompromising'. It's the same as thinking 'robots acquire targets faster than humans, so let's make our missle-targeting systems robotic... even though they would, at best, have trouble determining if a target was threatening or not'.

That is wrong. From a tiering perspective the entire purpose of "efficiency" has leaked into what you are describing. From a gameplay perspective, it basically means "don't bullshit around unless something is useful." You can use whoever the fuck you want in efficiency, so long as you're not dicking around needlessly getting a clear and you're making a strategy that is relativity reliable. You are confusing efficiency and LTC.

[Anouleth]

The main 'selling point' of Skyrim is its immersible world and gameplay, ease of access for newcomers, and levels of depth for people willing to sink in tons of hours.

Which is exactly the same selling point as Oblivion and Morrowind.

Every facet of the game was carefully handled (though some not as well as others) to provide a world that felt alive and realistic as well as being robust enough to handle the multitude of choices a player could make. That is NOT a small feat and requires a lot of creative thinking just in figuring out how to design things. Like, say, the 90% pickpocket success. Do you know WHY that is even there? Why they capped it off there instead of allowing for full-on 100% success?

No doubt, because they've been making these games for years and they have a keen, intuitive grasp of what works and what doesn't. Nothing to do with creativity. I doubt that one of the developers woke up up in the middle of the night crying "man I just had the greatest idea for a failure rate for pickpocketing!"

I 'hate' efficient play because it is the same thing as saying 'there is a absolute goal. We need to achieve that goal, so let's remove anything that isn't needed, like human thought and judgment, and replace it with strict rulings that are largely uncompromising'.

But it's not an absolute goal. We choose it as a goal because it's a goal that encourages creativity, and because generally, characters with good offense/movement/durability also save lots of turns, making it a good rule of thumb. For example, technically FE10 Edward saves like 20 turns just in 1-P. But obviously he doesn't deserve Top Tier just on that basis.

It's the same as thinking 'robots acquire targets faster than humans, so let's make our missle-targeting systems robotic... even though they would, at best, have trouble determining if a target was threatening or not'.

Humans have difficulty doing that too. And sometimes they see a target that isn't threatening and just shoot them anyway. Maybe a robot wouldn't have committed the My Lai massacre, or shot Jean Charles de Menezes. Would a robot have committed torture in Abu Ghraib?

In FE, this means distilling things down to a simple goal of 'beat the game as fast as humanly possible'... which... is not... HOW PEOPLE PLAY DAMNIT!

Lots of people play that way. Speedruns are hardly a new thing. And Speedruns are not exactly the

A unit may be very weak in Snowy's opinion overall, but get shot up the tier lists because they can breeze through the early-game in a snap with a low TC while a unit who is stronger in Snowy's opinion, but slower to get going drops on the list even though he would be better in Snowy's opinion. That aside...

Corrected the instances where you presented opinion as fact.

So basically, you dislike efficiency because characters you think are better are considered worse, and characters you think are worse are considered better. You really should try harder to deal with other people disagreeing with you.

I'm not saying there is no creativity in playing effeciently, but all that is geared towards one goal; fast game completion. It is not the only kind out there and it should NEVER be the only kind out there. Simple as that.

Sure. And that's why people don't always apply creativity towards efficiency. After all, efficiency in general has been, well, kind of picked clean from a creative perspective. There's not really much room for improvement. That KoT example is perfect, for instance. Trying to rout the chapters instead of just complete them is a pretty interesting idea, I think. A lot of efficient strategies are just pretty boring (like move forward and kill boss on turn 2. Super boring! Barely any opportunity to be creative at all).

Okay then... Solve this from a tiering perspective.

In the previous game of series X, a fighting game, units with a fast, low punch dominated, especially character Y as they could take their low punch and combo it into a special attack. You need to balance it out so that people can play slower/longer characters while keeping the direct nerfs to a minimum. Additionally, character Y is overpowered only because of this said combination and already has costly special attacks normally. Increasing costs would make the character useless and making the low-punch a special-type move would render the move entirely useless.

Balance the character with minimal nerfs and not making the character useless overall. (and yes, something like this has actually happened).

No idea what you're talking about, sorry.

Different people look at a game from different angles. People more interested in story are more likely to take 'sub-optimal' characters or limit characters to certain abilities that fit with their notion of who the character is. People who power-play tend to exploit sidequests, mini-games, and optional material to become disproportionately strong. Tier players prefer characters with low cost to payout ratio and are more likely to experiment with abilities in unique ways with the goal of more efficient play. Hard-core players neglect lesser characters, while casuals are more likely to follow simpler playstyles and obvious set-ups. All of these people want their playstyle to be addressed and they will see the game from that playstyle. How a designer sees a game and how a player sees a game are two radically different things as well. So yes, it DOES matter. A LOT! It's one of the most important pieces of data. A casual player is more interested in 'unusual' quests and visible progress while a long-time player is more interested in rewards and speed in a MMO, and you can't ignore either of them or how they respond. Heck, two otherwise-identical players of a different faction in a game can see it from a totally different perspective and want different things. Details matter!

Sure, but the question is about balance. As in, "does this unit trivialise the game", or "is this character broken". Not about sidequests or different playstyles or anything. It doesn't matter whether the player is a "casual" or a "hardcore". The game should not be unnecessarily easy or unnecessarily hard. Balancing RPGs in general is much easier, because if the game is too hard, the player can always grind a little bit. But there's a limit to that because if the grinding is too excessive, or if the optional content is really really boring, then the player will just stop playing.

And I don't see why being an efficient player makes you unable to understand all this. If anything, the efficient player is better because they're unlikely to take grinding for granted, or because unlike many casuals, they consider the entire game instead of just the endgame, or because they're less likely to take their personal experience as gospel.

Not really. It's only 'creative' if you didn't know that she switches sides and keeps any items she had. You probably won't realize it on PT1 (since you don't know if or when she switches), but after that it is a somewhat obvious conclusion. She doesn't even need to be leveled for it really. Thani was more creative as it allowed for Micaiah to remain relevant despite lower speed thanks to its high stats and bonuses.

You seem to be mistaking the developer's creativity with the player's creativity. I couldn't care less if the developers are "creative". What's more important is that the player has an opportunity to be creative. And that includes stuff like seeing that Ilyana switches sides and thinking "hmm, maybe I could use her to transfer items that will be more useful with Ike than with Micaiah". Which is why you have players loading her up with items and even promoting her so she can carry more skills. Ordinarily, a player would never do that.

In AC:B I recently did a mission where I had to defend a fort without taking damage. The rules were simple. I have to close three gates and (for 100%) I can't take any damage. There were multiple ways to accomplish this. I could try to evade the main army and go only for the guards protecting the gates, but that left me open to attack and I could get swarmed easily. I could fight smaller groups, but the soldiers were never-ending and every fight held the risk of me getting hurt. I could call in allies to clear the field/fight alongside me, but I can't control them and clearing the field has a long CD. There were other options as well... and which I took depended largely on how I wanted to play. I don't even know what the 'best' choice was supposed to be, but I don't think it was my answer (fighting small groups) as the mission took 14 retries for me to beat without damage.

Still, I was put in a position where I was forced to defend, given multiple ways to accomplish that goal, and guess what? It encouraged being creative and stimulated critical thinking as well.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a hard chapter. 2-E is a hard chapter. I'm sure that many players had difficulty with it and did try to turtle... or took many retries. I don't get your point.

[Paperblade]

wait do people actually think playing 2-E out is hard

[Refa]

Can we stop bashing Skyrim? I'm sure Snowy didn't do the best job describing it, but the game doesn't need to be an evolutionary step to have creativity. After all, it is a story based game by nature (well, maybe not as story focused as say FFX, but you get the idea), and obviously they had to have SOME creativity to make the story. Also I'm sure there was a lot of refinement, but you do sort of need some sort of imagination for the cool new ideas and concepts that Skyrim presents.

Also this is an FE thread.

[Anouleth]

wait do people actually think playing 2-E out is hard

Even if it's hard for people who do nothing but play Fire Emblem to understand, Fire Emblem is a difficult series in general.

Can we stop bashing Skyrim? I'm sure Snowy didn't do the best job describing it, but the game doesn't need to be an evolutionary step to have creativity.

I'm not bashing Skyrim.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Anouleth

[Paperblade]

Even if it's hard for people who do nothing but play Fire Emblem to understand, Fire Emblem is a difficult series in general.

Uh, I'm saying that I didn't find it difficult relative to other chapters.

[eclipse]

And I think that's a bad thing. I liked how in FFTA, you could make a team entirely of Thieves, or White Mages, or whatever. You should have the same option in FE. I think it would be awesome to go around with a team entirely of Snipers, or Bishops, or Falcoknights. And I don't think that the game should necessarily try to hose individual classes. Like, there isn't a chapte rin FFTA where White Mages just "suck". There are hard chapters and easy chapters, which is how it should be. Part of the reason I love FE10 so much is because the game doesn't suddenly hose a particular unit type (except Fiona). I find I have to use a wide range of characters to get the results I want, from magic users to Paladins to Trueblades.

So, what's your opinion on the DS games, given that if you wanted to, you can have a team full of Paladins?

[CrashGordon94]

Well, there's just one problem with that... The limits mean you can do that with some classes (Cav/Pally) but not others (Dark Mage/Sorceror). Obviously I picked two extreme examples but that's just to illustrate the point.

[eclipse]

I think I understand why it was made that way, and I really wish we could have a few more class B mages, BUT. . .it's an example of customization that's available in a FE game.

[General Banzai]

Customization is ass, and so is emphasis on gameplay over story, or even considering gameplay separate from story, when the best video games all manage to effortlessly merge the two components together.

Video games, of course, have potential; but industry standards, a community of critics where only supposed "joke" critics actually criticize, and an exclusionary elitist homogenous consumer base combine to murder than potential and leave video games more in the realm of "product" than "art". The assery in this thread only supports my conclusion; and one finds similar assery in the fanbase of nearly every video game series.

Edited January 25, 2012 by General Banzai

[dondon151]

Video games, of course, have potential; but industry standards, a community of critics where only supposed "joke" critics actually criticize, and an exclusionary elitist homogenous consumer base combine to murder than potential and leave video games more in the realm of "product" than "art". The assery in this thread only supports my conclusion; and one finds similar assery in the fanbase of nearly every video game series.

Takes one to know one.