Mechanics that you want

[Rewjeo]

I feel like I suggested that earlier in the topic. Like back when the HHM/H5 debate was happening. Anyways, I agree with higher difficulties really changing the game to make it more challenging. I find this buffed enemies thing rather boring, and while removal of things like Warp is, good, it won't change how I play. Different funds, fatigue, etc. will.

[Anouleth]

I feel like I suggested that earlier in the topic. Like back when the HHM/H5 debate was happening. Anyways, I agree with higher difficulties really changing the game to make it more challenging. I find this buffed enemies thing rather boring, and while removal of things like Warp is, good, it won't change how I play.

You say that, but if you try to play H3 on FE12 the same way as you play any other FE12 difficulty, you will die. So when you say that it won't change how you play, you are provably wrong. While it's true that FE12 does increase the number of enemies as well, I think that comes under the definition of "buffed enemies" by buffing themin quantity as well as quality.

People keep on saying this. They say that difficulties that only buff the enemies aren't interesting. Or that they don't "really" change the game, or that you can just use the same strategy. But none of these things are true. If these difficulties aren't interesting, why do people play them? And of course you can't use the same strategies or play the game in the same way.

I can play it both ways, anyway: I would much prefer that a game actually became more difficult by throwing more challenging situations at me and forcing me to improve my strategies rather than simply prohibiting the good strategies.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Anouleth

[Colonel M]

If anything, I don't really know any Hard Modes, except maybe FE9 and FE8, that you can consistently use the exact same strategies over and over. Maybe HHM for most chapters, but there's still a little variation there in some of the chapters like Cog of Destiny. I have to agree with Anouleth otherwise - just play H3 and I dare you to tell me you can use the same strategy (unless you're applying it from Lunatic -> Maniac, which is still pretty hard). Remember those Dragons? They don't have 2 range in Maniac, so...

[Rewjeo]

You say that, but if you try to play H3 on FE12 the same way as you play any other FE12 difficulty, you will die. So when you say that it won't change how you play, you are provably wrong. While it's true that FE12 does increase the number of enemies as well, I think that comes under the definition of "buffed enemies" by buffing themin quantity as well as quality.

The not changing my playstyle part was about the Warp, not harder enemies. Of course I have to play differently on H3 compared to H1, but removing Warp only really means I can't skip part of the game. I wouldn't want to do that to begin with.

People keep on saying this. They say that difficulties that only buff the enemies aren't interesting. Or that they don't "really" change the game, or that you can just use the same strategy. But none of these things are true. If these difficulties aren't interesting, why do people play them? And of course you can't use the same strategies or play the game in the same way.

The thing is, to a lot of us, it is really uninteresting. If these difficulties are interesting, why do some people not play them?

I can play it both ways, anyway: I would much prefer that a game actually became more difficult by throwing more challenging situations at me and forcing me to improve my strategies rather than simply prohibiting the good strategies.

This seems to be a fairly unanimous viewpoint.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Rewjeo

[dondon151]

The not changing my playstyle part was about the Warp, not harder enemies. Of course I have to play differently on H3 compared to H1, but removing Warp only really means I can't skip part of the game. I wouldn't want to do that to begin with.

That's great for you, but I'd abuse anything that I can get my hands on. Even a player who chooses to use Warp in a subpar manner would be making the game significantly easier on himself. You don't judge a game's difficulty by thinking, "oh, the player might not use this and make the game harder for himself; let's leave it in anyway." I wonder why so many people have this flawed opinion?

The thing is, to a lot of us, it is really uninteresting. If these difficulties are interesting, why do some people not play them?

Because it's too hard? Because some people don't play Fire Emblem to challenge themselves?

[Rewjeo]

That's great for you, but I'd abuse anything that I can get my hands on. Even a player who chooses to use Warp in a subpar manner would be making the game significantly easier on himself. You don't judge a game's difficulty by thinking, "oh, the player might not use this and make the game harder for himself; let's leave it in anyway." I wonder why so many people have this flawed opinion?

Originally I actually said removal of Warp was good overall, but for me personally was not the kind of thing I'd focus on for increasing difficulty.

Because it's too hard? Because some people don't play Fire Emblem to challenge themselves?

I was asking that because such an answer exists, just like there are plenty of answers to the inverse question. Also, the inverse question really generalizes what people are saying. "If these difficulties aren't interesting, why do people play them?" assumes that people are saying that these difficulties are objectively and unarguably uninteresting. There are plenty of people (myself included) who avoid playing them because they are, to those people, uninteresting. Honestly, debating this seems really pointless since we all seem agreed on this matter.

[dondon151]

Originally I actually said removal of Warp was good overall, but for me personally was not the kind of thing I'd focus on for increasing difficulty.

If this is for you "personally," I don't see how that is relevant to anything that we've been talking about. Best keep that to yourself, hmm?

I was asking that because such an answer exists, just like there are plenty of answers to the inverse question. Also, the inverse question really generalizes what people are saying. "If these difficulties aren't interesting, why do people play them?" assumes that people are saying that these difficulties are objectively and unarguably uninteresting. There are plenty of people (myself included) who avoid playing them because they are, to those people, uninteresting. Honestly, debating this seems really pointless since we all seem agreed on this matter.

The thing is that the inverse doesn't imply the exact opposite.

People play hard modes because it's harder, and for them, difficulty equates to interest. So Anouleth's rhetorical question, "if these difficulties aren't interesting, why do people play them?" suggests that the difficulties are interesting because they are more difficult, and thus, people play them. It suggests that people play hard modes only because they are interesting. (granted, I am giving a very broad definition to the word "interesting").

Now, your inverted question, "if these difficulties are interesting, why do some people not play them?" does not suggest that the difficulties are not interesting. We know for a fact that a lot of people stay away from hard modes because it is simply too hard or too thinking-intensive for them. So it's impossible for you to suggest that people don't play hard modes only because they are uninteresting because we know for a fact that there are people who don't play them for other reasons.

[Rewjeo]

If this is for you "personally," I don't see how that is relevant to anything that we've been talking about. Best keep that to yourself, hmm?

So what makes me enjoy a game is not relevant to discussion about how to make a game more enjoyable? Especially when I'm pretty sure a lot of people share that opinion?

Regarding the whole inversion question thing, if people playing it because they want the challenge means they find it interesting, then doesn't people not playing it because they don't want the challenge mean they find the difficulty uninteresting? That would mean my inversion actually does imply the exact opposite. Also, since both questions assume something that is true (people playing/not playing the higher difficulties) they have managed to bring us to the astonishing conclusion that some people find H5 interesting and others don't. I'm so proud of us for managing to do that! It's not like we had already figured that much out based on what people have said in this topic.

Of course, at this point we're just debating where interesting and uninteresting can be applied. I suspect, if this got drawn back into the realm of real life applications, it would be pointed out that many of those people that find the current methods of increased difficulty uninteresting would find any method of increasing difficulty uninteresting because they just don't want a greater challenge, period, and changing how that is done won't make these people want to play the hard modes any more. To which I would respond that that wouldn't change the fact that more people would be interested in this new hard mode and already some of the people who like the current hard modes have voiced their support of other methods of making hard modes, meaning the people already satisfied would be more satisfied.

How exactly did we end up debating even when we agree on something?

Edit: It would seem to me that we're using "interesting" as a synonym for "fun" here. I feel like "fun" is a better word for this situation.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Rewjeo

[Aethereal]

Regarding the whole inversion question thing, if people playing it because they want the challenge means they find it interesting, then doesn't people not playing it because they don't want the challenge mean they find the difficulty uninteresting?

I know you sort of acknowledge it, but these people are irrelevant to the topic of what is a good hard mode. If you don't want to play a hard mode, you aren't the person that a game designer should be trying to interest when making a hard mode.

The people that are saying that increased stats are "uninteresting" are generally being unclear. Obviously there are other things that can go into a good hard mode then just upping enemy stats, but this idea that it doesn't make you "play differently" is silly. Why are more difficult enemies not interesting? How do they not change the way you play? I'm positive plenty of people can provide videos of them doing things in easy mode/normal mode of any fire emblem from 6 on that you couldn't do at the most difficult mode, and probably even vice versa. The games do play very differently between hard and normal.

[Rewjeo]

I know you sort of acknowledge it, but these people are irrelevant to the topic of what is a good hard mode. If you don't want to play a hard mode, you aren't the person that a game designer should be trying to interest when making a hard mode.

But that doesn't mean IS shouldn't try to make a hard mode that people like me (not just me) would enjoy, especially when, at least so far, no one seems opposed to that kind of hard mode.

The people that are saying that increased stats are "uninteresting" are generally being unclear. Obviously there are other things that can go into a good hard mode then just upping enemy stats, but this idea that it doesn't make you "play differently" is silly. Why are more difficult enemies not interesting? How do they not change the way you play? I'm positive plenty of people can provide videos of them doing things in easy mode/normal mode of any fire emblem from 6 on that you couldn't do at the most difficult mode, and probably even vice versa. The games do play very differently between hard and normal.

It's hard to define why something is or isn't fun, but basically I don't find thinking about how to overcome stupidly powerful enemies fun. I mean, I played some chapters in FE5 and thought "Wow, this is really fun!" I played the first few chapters of H5 and thought "Wow, this is really boring." Until FE12 showed up, it was debated which of the two was the hardest FE, so difficulty isn't a particularly notable factor. What made one more interesting than the other was WHY it was difficult. I found the equipment, fatigue, money, etc. aspects of FE5 very fun to try and get around. I found H5's buffed enemies (and some certain bosses in particular...) frustrating and fairly repetitive. I certainly had to change my playstyle, but I didn't feel like I was adapting it to new situations.

I guess that's probably it- with FE5, it didn't feel like the same process over and over again. I was having my party and equipment jumbled around and money had to be managed in a new way. Playing H5 was different from H1, but it never made me adapt. I think FE5 here had the advantage of having unique features while FE11 in many ways went back to FE1 as far as mechanics go.

This is probably why I tend to fall on the harder-but-not-hardest side of FEs. These allow me to mess with my party so that I am playing in ways that make me think differently compared to earlier playthroughs. This is also probably why I finish so few playthroughs compared to the number I start...

Also, I find the whole "the enemy is you but just better" thing boring across pretty much all games. It just feels "fake" to me.

[Snowy_One]

Also, I find the whole "the enemy is you but just better" thing boring across pretty much all games. It just feels "fake" to me.

I understand where you are coming from (I think). While it can be interesting to have the enemies be the same as the player, it also limits what the enemy can and cannot do. While it is possible to make enemies challenging due to being the same as the player, it also means that they can never grow past that mark. Enemy specific skills, abilities, classes, and all that can increase the challenge immensely if done right.

[Rewjeo]

Enemy specific things can be fun and challenging, I agree. My problem is having enemy archers be Gordin+.

[dondon151]

Also, I find the whole "the enemy is you but just better" thing boring across pretty much all games. It just feels "fake" to me.

Oh yeah, too bad strategy game cartridges can't have a little strategically adept gnome playing the enemy side against you so that developers don't have to stack enemy stats to compensate for the limitations of AI.

I'm just going to point out that for the case of H5 in particular, with the exception of HP, enemies aren't generally that much better than player units.

Edited December 20, 2011 by dondon151

[Othin]

Oh yeah, too bad strategy game cartridges can't have a little strategically adept gnome playing the enemy side against you so that developers don't have to stack enemy stats to compensate for the limitations of AI.

I'm just going to point out that for the case of H5 in particular, with the exception of HP, enemies aren't generally that much better than player units.

There are other solutions. Tactical skills, sub-bosses, varying objectives, etc.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Othin

[dondon151]

There are other solutions. Tactical skills, sub-bosses, varying objectives, etc.

Just because there are other solutions doesn't mean that this one has to be eschewed. It gets to be bullshit past a certain point but there's nothing wrong with having enemies that are better than player units but still manageable.

[Colonel M]

Is someone just mad that the enemies have better stats than the player units? If I had a dollar for every time I wanted to direct someone to the Wine section...

[Dark Sage]

There are other solutions. Tactical skills, sub-bosses, varying objectives, etc.

Nobody is objecting to those. What dondon is objecting to is the idea that you can't somehow have both powerful enemies and sub-bosses, varying objectives, missions that require a lot of tactical skill, etc. And I agree with him because you don't need get rid of buffed enemies in order to have those solutions.

[Othin]

I've played little of H5 and Lunatic (and FE11/12 in general), but it seems to me that when enemies are so powerful as to match or surpass your own units (or close), it severely limits your options. I can't imagine reasonably fighting enemies like that with them also having skills like Wrath or Shooter. Indeed, the point of my suggestion of sub-bosses is that there should be a few enemies per map stronger than your own characters, but not so many as to force reliance on luck abuse, excessively slow progress, warp skips, or other such things.

I don't know to what extent this is true for the hardest difficulties of the DS games, but it's those extreme forms of the application that I take opposition to. Enemies should be able to put up a fight, but they shouldn't have such raw power as to limit players to such often less preferred strategies, and that ability should not be all they have.

[dondon151]

Indeed, the point of my suggestion of sub-bosses is that there should be a few enemies per map stronger than your own characters, but not so many as to force reliance on luck abuse, excessively slow progress, warp skips, or other such things.

None of those are required!

There is a fundamental difference between the way the DS FEs and the other FEs handle enemy formations. In other FE games you'd very often have a handful of good units primed to mow down legions of enemies on enemy phases. Enemy density is pretty high in those games, and sometimes completing a chapter objective feels like spraying machine gun fire all over the place. This is no doubt exacerbated by the existence of rout objectives. In the DS FE games, the enemy formations are a lot less dense, and especially on the harder difficulties, each individual enemy requires some sort of plan to defeat. Completing a chapter objective feels more like taking out specific targets using a sniper rifle. In the latter case, I'd say it's fine for enemies to be stronger relative to player units, since you're facing fewer of them at a time.

FE12 H3 is a great example of this. The developers added in enemies and programmed some enemy AI to purposefully create traps that the player either has to deal with or avoid. Some of them are kind of bullshit, but most of them will cause you think, "aha, I see what they did there!"

Edited December 21, 2011 by dondon151

[Vicious Sal]

None of those are required!

There is a fundamental difference between the way the DS FEs and the other FEs handle enemy formations. In other FE games you'd very often have a handful of good units primed to mow down legions of enemies on enemy phases. Enemy density is pretty high in those games, and sometimes completing a chapter objective feels like spraying machine gun fire all over the place. This is no doubt exacerbated by the existence of rout objectives. In the DS FE games, the enemy formations are a lot less dense, and especially on the harder difficulties, each individual enemy requires some sort of plan to defeat. Completing a chapter objective feels more like taking out specific targets using a sniper rifle. In the latter case, I'd say it's fine for enemies to be stronger relative to player units, since you're facing fewer of them at a time.

FE12 H3 is a great example of this. The developers added in enemies and programmed some enemy AI to purposefully create traps that the player either has to deal with or avoid. Some of them are kind of bullshit, but most of them will cause you think, "aha, I see what they did there!"

That hit the spot. I loved how at places like The desert enemies were seperate "groups" that were scattered all around the map. This "group", although scattered, was triggered and you stepped into ones range, and suddenly somehwere else you'd get attacked as well. That was prtty sweet. Lunatic is sweet anyway. And I love that enemies now have forges, I stil don't get why begnion wouldn't have a forge available against your army. I mean, come on, big empire, buff your weapons. =/ I hope that returns.

[Rewjeo]

It doesn't bother me if enemies are tough to kill. It doesn't bother me if they're stronger than your units. It just depends on HOW they're stronger than your units. Enemy cavaliers being Abel with 5-10 extra level ups and an absurd forge isn't fun. That, across all games, just feels fake to me. There are plenty of other ways even of making enemy units stronger than yours, and plenty of ways beyond that to make the game difficult.

Also, regarding the whole gnome in a cartridge thing, I heard IBM has made a computer chip that can learn. So maybe one day we will have brilliant AI that learns how to counter your strategies.

[dondon151]

I've said before that enemies are not generally stronger than player units (especially true for casual players) on the hardest difficulties.

There are plenty of other ways even of making enemy units stronger than yours,

I don't think so. There are only 3 ways to increase a unit's atk: increase his str, increase the MT of his weapon, or give an invisible +atk bonus. There are only 3 ways to increase a unit's physical durability: increase his def, increase his HP, or increase his avo.

The inclusion of weapon forges among enemy units is to try to make sure that the player doesn't get complacent and use his 6RKO'd player unit to plow them down. Now obviously this didn't work out quite so well in practice (what with Barst reaching some fairly high durability numbers), but when you consider the lack of enemy density in the DS FE games (something you have not addressed yet), this is really as perfect a solution as you can get.

Also, regarding the whole gnome in a cartridge thing, I heard IBM has made a computer chip that can learn. So maybe one day we will have brilliant AI that learns how to counter your strategies.

This is not really the point. Imagine how dull such a game would be. FE is not really a game that can be adequately played between 2 people capable of thought; it would be an eternal game of cat and mouse, with each player waiting for the other to make a first move, and making such a move is generally a mistake. With the unforgiving mechanic of permanent death, such a game would be objectively not fun.

Edited December 21, 2011 by dondon151

[Vorena]

It would be interesting to have weak enemies by pass a stronger unit of yours when they can just walk by your strong unit and go after the weaker one on the map even if its not in there range. Sort of like how thieves do not care combat is going on, they will go straight after the treasure chests or leave the map. Certain AI will target the weakest members they can attack and ignore enemies that would kill them.

Say you have 4 paladins and a cavalier going after you on the plains. The paladins will target the nearest unit to attack when in range, but the cavalier will ignore this strong unit and keep going after your weaker units unless you prioritize killing it off.

[dondon151]

I actually think the best idea for the enemies is to just not attack you at all. That would make every map frustratingly difficult to complete because they would keep getting in your way and you'd have to waste time clearing them out.

[arvilino]

^This. for example the Battle Before Dawn in FE7. If the majority of enemies just blocked your path and Jaffars and never attack unless they are in range of Zephiel it would probably become impossible to win.

Edited December 21, 2011 by arvilino