Snowy_One Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 On another note I think it'd be cool if someone had a personal skill that let them attack with an internalized Dark Magic spell at the cost of their own health, like a cross between Final Fantasy's Souleater command and the Vortex skill of FE9. Unit X dumps 38/39 of their HP into Soul-Beater! Gains +19 MT for one attack! KAPOW! Hit the enemy weakspot for massive damage! Girly priest-healer uses Mend! Unit X is back to full health! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Well, it would have to be weaker, of course. And I meant an actual spell, not an attack boost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Why shouldn't they? What's wrong with having a mode for those who want to play with the classic permadeath mechanic and, at the same time, catering to those who want to play without it? Nothing really, it just feels like it's missing the point to me. Why should FE cater to them? How about money for IS. I think that's a good idea. Please show me the statistics were casual mode will bring in significantly more money in for Fire Emblem. I love when people complain about stuff like this. It's like when people were complaining about battle saves ruining FE, or reclass. Personally, I like the option, though I probably won't use it. As for them trying older games, I don't see how that's a problem. If people get into the series enough, thanks to this option, to try the older games and actually deal with permadeath then that's good. If they decide not to play them because they don't have casual mode then so what? It's like someone complaining about FE3 adding a combat window and movement ranges, thus making FE1 and 2 difficult to play from newer players' point of view, which a lot of us view them as. Not really? The combat window is just an improved interface, while Casual Mode, you know, changes the game. I'm probably overreacting to casual mode, as it doesn't really ruin my personal experience, but it just doesn't feel very FE to me. How many people are there that would not play Fire Emblem because there is no casual mode? Chances are that the number of people who would play FE anyways but pick casual mode far exceeds the previous number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It's not like they'll remove classic mode. More adjustable/optional things are better than less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) What does it matter if some people might play FE and only ever like casual mode? It's only a problem if those people might have turned out to like FE with permadeath in effect, but who would have that potential permanently ruined because of starting with a game with Casual Mode as an option. And that hardly seems like it would be a high number of people for whom that might actually happen. And then let's compare to the number of people who would be initially put off by playing an FE game with forced permadeath, but would be able to ease into the series by starting with Casual Mode and after easing into it, appreciate the full series when they might not have before. This number seems like it would be higher. Edited January 12, 2012 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It's not like they'll remove classic mode. More adjustable/optional things are better than less Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlegnomes Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Not really? The combat window is just an improved interface, while Casual Mode, you know, changes the game. I'm probably overreacting to casual mode, as it doesn't really ruin my personal experience, but it just doesn't feel very FE to me. How many people are there that would not play Fire Emblem because there is no casual mode? Chances are that the number of people who would play FE anyways but pick casual mode far exceeds the previous number. Both make the game easier and make it easier for people to get into the series. And yes, yes you are. I'm willing to bet it's the other way around (more people try the series thanks to casual mode than people who would have played it anyway and just choose casual mode). Again, this is exactly like when people said battle saves would ruin FE. Did they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 And another thing, I don't know if I've already said this or not but even if it "taints" them so they never try Classic, it's not a problem. They're just playing the game differently than you, it's not a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Because "Casual Mode" is the easy way out. It doesn't impact my personal experience in any way because I won't use it. However, permadeath is one of the defining features of FE, and casual mode sort of ruins that. Yet FE12 was a great game. So much for being "ruined". FE has always been a daunting series with it's permadeath mechanics, and given the choice, new players would obviously want to take the easy way out. They'll never find out why permadeath works well, and it will probably color their view of the past installments of the series in a negative light, because THOSE games are UNPLAYABLELY hard (exageratted reaction), with their forced permadeath. I know for sure if I had the choice of "easy way out" or FE, I would've picked easy way out any time and never realized why FE is such a great series in the first place. I remember that when I first played Fire Emblem 8, I played on Normal, and I abused the tower and did all sorts of things that make the game "easier". Yet as I became better at the game, I adjusted my playstyle to offer more challenge. I stopped using the tower, and I played on Hard Mode, and so on. People do this, and they will do it with Casual Mode just as with Easy Mode. Imagine if when Easy Mode was introduced back in FE7, there were Japanese gamers who predicted the downfall of FE, and that American gamers would never bother to learn how to play "properly". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Easy Mode wasn't in FE7, did you mean to say FE8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Clearly he means Lyn Mode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Oh, right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Easy Mode wasn't in FE7, did you mean to say FE8? Oh, well, then I mean FE8 I guess? I just assumed that FE7 had it first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Oh, I get it then. On another note, it'd be cool if Dime Thunder made a return of some kind, I was thinking there could be a B Rank "Dime" spell for each magic type, functioning as an equivilant to Braves. Of course they'd need pretty poor stats for this to be balanced though... Edited January 12, 2012 by Kirby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Great, make everything even more cookie-cutter and identical. A spell like that for one magic type is good. A spell like it for all (or most) magic types is not. The series needs less parallels between its weapon types and more wacky ideas unique to one or two of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Heh, I like parallels myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I felt that way for a while. Eventually I realized that when most relevant things are parallel, it only serves to make a system of attributes as bland and unimportant as it could possibly be. Let's look at FE9/10's elemental magic triangle. Unless you're getting an effective bonus or getting weapon triangle control against an enemy mage, chances are, you're never going to give a shit whether you're using fire, thunder, or wind magic. The difference between the weapon types ceases to matter more than a sometimes-relevant game of rock-paper-scissors. RPGs, especially ones like Fire Emblem, can do so much more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) But I don't like the sounds of that, I'm happy with parallels. Edited January 12, 2012 by Kirby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 But I don't like the sounds of that, I'm happy with parallels. Please explain why you prefer less relevant choices and less possibilities to more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Because those "possibilities" sound crap to me, Might/Hit/Crit/Weight divisions are a lot better to me than that crap you're probably gonna bring up from Berwick Saga or stuff like FE11 not having Longswords and Heavy Spears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 That's not an explanation. Tiny Mt/Hit/Wt differences don't mean shit. Bigger differences can be good, like the ones in FE4, but that only goes so far on its own, and FE4 had its own obvious issues there. FE11 lacking Longswords and Heavy Spears wasn't that interesting on its own. FE6 and FE10 did better in that area, making each of the effective weapons unique to just one weapon type instead of two, but it's still just effective weapons. Weapon types can do so much more to differentiate themselves, to make the difference between them actually matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arvilino Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I agree there should be greater differences between the weapon types. The problem with FE4 is that they stacked the sword category with all the special effects. Of the rest of the weapon types(ignoring the Holy weapons) only Resire, Knight Killer and the Killer Bow were anything out of the ordinary. Probably mostly because the vast majority of the party use Swords(and 3 holy bloods are devoted to them) but still the other categories are very lack luster even with the number of users in regard. Edited January 12, 2012 by arvilino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I think it's fine to stack special effects on swords if lances and axes remain as powerful as they are. But we don't really want lances and axes to remain as powerful as they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 That, and those extra options swords got allowed them to match the abilities of the other weapons anyway. In FE4, the difference between a standard sword and a standard lance is 6 Mt and 9 Wt. That's a pretty big difference; even if the sword is usually better, the lance's Mt advantage is enough that it's useful regardless at its own times, and not by some tiny margin. However, blades can match that same Mt with just a drop in accuracy while remaining light; for the characters that can use them, they don't leave lances as much of a good option. So while the system wasn't too great in practice, it had its good points we can learn from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlegnomes Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Please explain why you prefer less relevant choices and less possibilities to more. *fewer and *fewer /being a dick Anyway, for balance purposes, it would make sense to have them all have a similar tome like that. They can still have differences in overall type, but to have one with a brave weapon while the others get nothing is just bad balance. That said, I'm personally for differentiation, while still remaining balanced. Look at something like the FE5 magic swords. All of them were pretty good. The wind sword was great for units with good magic, but low speed, and also good for boosting avoid. The fire sword was good for doing more damage or for units with low magic. The thunder sword was good for hitting enemies with high avoid. Granted it's not perfect, but they all have their own niche and are reasonably balanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.