How Effective Are Fire Emblem Mechanics?

[Renall]

One obvious thing FE can do that it already does is have gaiden chapters if certain characters are alive, or even if certain characters are dead. The problem is not falling into Shadow Dragon's trap where you feel obligated to kill a character off so you can go to Gaiden Whatever-X. Maybe have some "mandatory Gaiden" chapters that feature plot-important events happening, but those events differ depending on whether the subject is dead or alive?

Kind of like "If Fin is alive, he does some awesome thing here. If he's dead, something happens that is different and it relates to some memory of Fin that Leaf has that allows him to persevere."

Otherwise it becomes "reset to keep people alive so you can see all the stuff" or "intentionally off people to get more chapters." Neither of which is a desirable mechanic (yes, I'm aware both are optional of course).

[dondon151]

i see where renall is coming from. having made half of a fire emblem hack, i got to see for myself how annoying permadeath is to implement as a plot element. stuff like having to rewrite conversations contingent on whether x, y, etc. character is alive is a pain in the butt, so i just take the easy route and make units retreat permanently (which has become a more common occurrence in recent games).

[Constable Reggie]

@Renall

Thanks for the extremely well-written post that gives a nice contrasting point of view on the permadeath mechanic.

The permadeath mechanic *may* inhibit the creativity of the plot, but it's emphasis was on player to unit relation. The player gets to know the unit, they watch the unit grow, but there's always in the back of their mind the fact that this unit can die at any time. It harbors a connection, one to a character that is a human being, that isn't normally found in other srpgs. Did you reset after your generic Dragoon died because you cared for him, or because he was simply important from a pure gameplay point of view? Fire Emblem changes this, by causing a reset because of the player-character relationship. If permadeath were removed, people would simply reset for the same reason you reset in FFT. There's no longer, from an emotional point of a view, a reason to care for those units. This is what Fire Emblem is at it's core. There's several other games that may have *better* plots, but there's no real emotional connection to the characters based on your control.

Everything that Fire Emblem does from a story point of view emphasizes this. Support/Base convos, boss dialogues, minor character-specific plot elements, were added to give the player a deeper connection to the units. If you let a character die, you no longer get to experience what they experience, and it makes it all the more painful knowing that it's because of you. It was your fault. The story isn't as important as this mechanic. Take permadeath away from this, and the emotional connection between you and the unit is gone. Gone is the control over whether he lives or dies. Gone is the feeling of remorse for letting a unit die. How many times did you simply use Merlinus as bait or a distraction in Fe7, knowing he'd be back in the next chapter and the next since he just "retreats", knowing that he is a character that never dies? Did you ever have the feeling that you needed to protect him, because he meant something important to you?

Edited December 12, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Renall]

Everything that Fire Emblem does from a story point of view emphasizes this. Support/Base convos, boss dialogues, minor character-specific plot elements, were added to give the player a deeper connection to the units. If you let a character die, you no longer get to experience what they experience, and it makes it all the more painful knowing that it's because of you. It was your fault. The story isn't as important as this mechanic. Take permadeath away from this, and the emotional connection between you and the unit is gone. Gone is the control over whether he lives or dies. Gone is the feeling of remorse for letting a unit die. How many times did you simply use Merlinus as bait or a distraction in Fe7, knowing he'd be back in the next chapter and the next since he just "retreats", knowing that he is a character that never dies? Did you ever have the feeling that you needed to protect him, because he meant something important to you?

As a counterpoint, however, it's the very strength of this connection that invariably triggers so many FE players to reset if anybody dies. The fear of permanent loss is too strong, causing people to refuse to accept that outcome. If that's going to be the attitude employed, then there might as well be a Hardcore mode where any unit death causes a loss, because that essentially is how many people treat the mechanic. I wouldn't exactly dispute your claim as to how it might affect gameplay on Casual (certainly sacrifice units are a more common strategy in SRPGs where that is viable due to lack of permadeath), but I would dispute whether the mechanics you're describing which set up player connection to their units successfully act in the manner you describe them functioning. This is obviously getting away from my point about the story, but I would briefly drag it back in by saying that I don't think a game needs to compromise on its story and its mechanics. Tactics Ogre actually gives you a special and optional story battle only if you screwed up enough to recruit a given character and then get her killed. It's a fairly interesting chapter, but it's also not something you'd kill her off just to see, because then you can't get the ending that only happens when that character is alive. It becomes a choice, not a chore. In FE I would argue that the importance of characters is so heavily emphasized that only a handful of players will accept that loss.

I believe the intention in the original design was that fallen units would be left by the wayside and replaced by new recruits, but in practice I know of very few people who actually play games in the series that way and it seems IS does as well if they're adding a Casual mode to mitigate that feature.

That isn't to say that you're wrong, but I think the emergent reactions of the playerbase are more defining of the mechanic than its original intention, and IS seems to agree. That being the case, I'd prefer that the story accept that and regret that the continued presence of permadeath prevents them from making those sorts of alterations (since a person could be playing on Classic). I don't object to permadeath as an inherent idea, but since there's no surprise content inherent in coping with failure I do not feel any incentive to accept the mechanic as it was originally intended and will generally just reset or play Casual. Give me content that arises out of my failures, and my attitude would change dramatically.

[Rehab]

That's what I was going for awhile back when I had an idea something like supports that "go beyond death." Maybe if a character had a maxed support with another unit that died, the former could get a permanent or long-term affect, potentially specific to the support or character, and/or end up having different dialogue in future conversation.

Just to throw out some ideas, maybe a character that responded to the death by becoming tense and hardened on the surface could get a sizable MT boost but take a hit/avoid% drop, or break weapons at twice the speed. Something great for throwing at an enemy or so you want dead really quickly, but would make them worse at crowd control without support.

A character that became more cautious after seeing a friend's death might get a substantial avoid boost, or move back a square after being attacked during enemy phase, but take a bit of a hit to MT. Or maybe get an avoid boost proportional in strength to the damage they'd receive, but after a certain damage threshold do something like skip attacking during the enemy phase (eh on this one) or have a kind of reverse-ambush/vantage, where they'd always wait for an enemy to present an opening before attacking (less eh IMO, but opinions etc). Maybe suitable for a crowd-controlling dodge tank.

If a character had a certain personality or certain kind of relationship with a dying comrade, or saw them die under some horrible, gruesome condition, maybe they could build up a colder kind of anger, near the point of sadism towards the enemy- take a drop in MT, but debuff an enemy somehow with each blow landed, and/or get a boost to a special kind of crit percentage that became stronger and/or more likely the more damage they did/the more enemies they killed.

Or, if a character was traumatized to the point of suicidal tendencies, maybe they could loudly taunt the enemy during battle, or do whatever to otherwise make the enemy units more likely to focus on bringing that character down. Maybe have a kind of threat generation mechanic like in some other RPGs, where the more damage they do the more likely an enemy is to prioritize them, eventually growing to the point where an enemy would prioritize them even if that enemy is out of range and has a chance to attack somebody else. I think something like that would be pretty strong on its own, but maybe it could also be combined with elements of the above if the character had lost more than one person.

Just some ideas off the top there, not necessarily balanced immediately but proof of concept. And it's barely scratching the surface on how the plot could be played around with.

There's also the approach Mass Effect took, where characters that have plot relevance can still die, but might have their plot functions filled by a replacement NPC. (Or not.) It was particularly interesting to me that in at least one case in Mass Effect, there were better consequences for making a certain choice if one hadn't kept some certain playable somebodies alive the whole series. (I have the Tuchanka ME3 mission in particular in mind here)

Fire Emblem is fundamentally broken.

Shadow Dragon had the right idea but it's like putting band-aid over lacerations.

Let us in on it, what do you have in mind?

Edited December 13, 2012 by Rehab

[Tamanoir]

I may not have begin the chapter just for it... but you definitely lost something if it was defeated

(a Level for him, and, more importantly,a place to stock your items). But he was more considered as a useful concept that as a true person.

There's definitely a difference between Permadeath and Casual gameplay.

It can allow you to play less defensively, and try more risky aproach.

I just played to Chapter 10x and killed renforcement with Nacarre and Ogma until they lose. I would have ended the chapter far sooner otherwise.

In fact, in Casual Thiefs, Healres and other suppports characters are treated like Merlinus (You don't want them to "retreat" if you still have items to take.),

While Front Line Fighters are more expandables. (They're already strong enough, and if they lose, that's no big deal...)

It's true that one part of the link with the characters is lost, but it makes the game less frustrating.

[Anouleth]

@Renall

You have a good point, but isn't it possible that permadeath influences people to let their characters live because they have an importance plot-wise? For example: Fin, on a FE4 second gen/FE5 setting. You know he's important to Leaf, and you know about his objective and how loyal he was to his father. Maybe seeing him guide his liege's son and help him, thus fulfilling his oath, would be a motive to let him stay alive for the duration of the game. All we need is to give him more plot importance and see how well he fares out so we can care about him.

I doubt it. Permadeath exists, albeit in a more limited form, in other games, after all. Would you reset if your best units in FFTA died (because characters can rarely, die permanently there)? Almost certainly.

What I would think would be a better approach to permanent death is perhaps some kind of mechanic where you can directly sacrifice the lives of your units to get rare items or bonuses, or secret chapters or units. What choice would you make? And how would this work in terms of morality? Would a player justify his sacrifices as being for the greater good of winning? Would he refuse to sacrifice certain units that he has an attachment to, or would he be willing to give up anyone's life in exchange for power? This way, the choice between life and death is more than "can I be bothered to reset and play through the chapter to keep this character alive".

Another alternative is to prevent the player from reloading older saves entirely. The player is forced to continue without deceased characters. If the player reaches a point where they cannot continue (say, if the number of units is forced under a certain level), they have an opportunity to surrender and receive a bad ending. For me, this wouldbe what a real "classic" mode should be like.

It's hard to invest on a story where all the characters can die because they can't be plot important if they're dead already, I know it. But I still think they need more work on character development, even if it turns out as a wasted effort (for those who don't care about letting characters survive or isn't interested on them). Something that makes the characters have an impact on the plot, even if it's slightly. Something that gives them importance.

Why does that matter? Many of my favourite characters have minimal plot importance, like Treck, Makalov, or Igrene. I don't see any reason to suggest that characters become more important to the player just because they're more important to the plot.

[Comet]

This was no problem in Gaiden because there was no money and items had infinite uses. Staying alive was the only concern in random encounters.

-The skills in FE9 and 10 were pretty much pointless for the most part, because most of them were random chance.

Well, isn't EVERYTHING in fire emblem random? Hitting, criticals, you name it.

[Constable Reggie]

@Renall

See, the difference between the forced reset and optional reset is that it gives the player the choice to not reset and continue on. It's not something mandated by the game to do, even if on a purely technical it's basically the same. It's the game telling you "you let one of your characters die, someone you've watch grow and interact with other characters, but he's not important to the overall story, so there's no need for you to restart.", instead of immediately game over-ing you (doing this would also break the connection between player-character, since they're no longer characters, but tools that must be protected at the mandate of the game). It doesn't force you to restart, and it doesn't force you to continue, it gives you that choice. A small difference like that is what makes Fire Emblem so great.

If you read the interview regarding Heroes of Light and Shadow, the developers talk about the tension from permadeath still being the core, and most important mechanic of Fire Emblem.

"Nintendo suggested that 'to make the game enjoyable for as many people as possible, wouldn't it be better if you could revive your fallen units in the following chapter?' My first reaction to this was 'if we made such an alteration, Fire Emblem would cease to be Fire Emblem'." - Masahiro Higuchi

This is something that developers refused to compromise on. IS fought tooth and nail to keep the permadeath system, even up til Fe12. Why would they keep doing that if they thought that it didn't matter anymore to the fanbase? The reason they added the casual mode wasn't as a reaction to the idea that the original intention was dead or anything, it was only added as a difficulty curve smoothener(?) for new players. Again, this is talked about in the Fe12 interview.

Fire Emblem was never really about the story. Could Fire Emblem, if eliminating the permadeath system, make the plot much more intricate (I'd personally like to see if they could do this from non-super important person's point of view)? Sure, but you lose something so much more important, and Fire Emblem simply becomes like Final Fantasy. You lose the tension throughout the game from the knowledge that your characters aren't invincible like in other typical rpgs.

@Rehab

That idea sounds pretty cool, as long as the effects aren't purely positive. Turning character deaths into striaght buffs is basically reverting Fire Emblem back to Shadow Dragon, which is not something that should happen. However, this sounds incredibly risky. I personally think it should be tried though, since the concept still sounds really cool. Similarly, Renall's idea of gaiden chapters (I personally think chapters like this shouldn't be forced, though) that change depending on certain character deaths sounds like a cool concept, but again, it needs to be really careful in the implementation. IS shouldn't be incentivizing killing off your characters for superficial reasons (one of the problems I had with Fe5 was that Eyrios was only recruitable if you killed off Olwen. You could also skip 11x, but that means you also skip Fred), because then it becomes "oh, what will happen if I kill off this person?". They cease to become people you care about and want to watch grow and survive, and simply become tools to an end again. I personally can't think of a way they could do that right now, maybe you guys can think of something.

edit: @Anouleth

The idea of sacrificing units for rare stuff also sounds pretty cool, but again, it needs to be implemented smartly. They can't just give you the option of sacrificing anyone, since you'll just let someone you never used die. Similarly, you can't just put a chapter limit for characters, since that's also pretty easy to get by. What I think should be added as a barrier is something like a minimal support conversation AND level limit. So then it really gives you the moral dilemma of "do you kill off this character that you've watch grown and interact with others, someone important to you, for the benefit of the rest of the team"? There's probably better ways to refine this, but there has to be a way to limit the sacrifices to only characters you've truly invested in. Another alternative is the game not even telling you about the sacrifice until right beforehand, and basically asking you if you would sacrifice one of your invested characters (how they'd do this I don't know, but it should not be just any random person) for game benefits. An example would be say, in a defense chapter littered with loads of difficult enemies (that give hardly any exp), you can have someone go off and divert all the long ranged magic users and ballistae, or something like that. You guys could probably come up with better examples.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Rehab]

Well, it's generally not random whether a unit counterattacks, if they're attacked and are in range to do so. Attack range, movement range and damage aren't random, either. In some cases, particularly in FE4, a skill doesn't have a particular chance of activating, like landing a hit, avoiding or critting, it's guaranteed to activate in its respective situation the same way a unit is guaranteed to attack when you order them to attack.

[Anouleth]

See, the difference between the forced reset and optional reset is that it gives the player the choice to not reset and continue on.

But no player would ever do that. Why would any player willingly let a preventable mistake kill one of their characters, unless they're completely sick of replaying the chapter over and over again? People say that it's awful that FE11 incentivises letting units die: but they expect the player to let units die anyway.

It's not something mandated by the game to do, even if on a purely technical it's basically the same. It's the game telling you "you let one of your characters die, someone you've watch grow and interact with other characters, but he's not important to the overall story, so there's no need for you to restart.", instead of immediately game over-ing you (doing this would also break the connection between player-character, since they're no longer characters, but tools that must be protected at the mandate of the game). It doesn't force you to restart, and it doesn't force you to continue, it gives you that choice. A small difference like that is what makes Fire Emblem so great.

If you read the interview regarding Heroes of Light and Shadow, the developers talk about the tension from permadeath still being the core, and most important mechanic of Fire Emblem.

They're wrong.

"Nintendo suggested that 'to make the game enjoyable for as many people as possible, wouldn't it be better if you could revive your fallen units in the following chapter?' My first reaction to this was 'if we made such an alteration, Fire Emblem would cease to be Fire Emblem'." - Masahiro Higuchi

This is something that developers refused to compromise on. IS fought tooth and nail to keep the permadeath system, even up til Fe12. Why would they keep doing that if they thought that it didn't matter anymore to the fanbase? The reason they added the casual mode wasn't as a reaction to the idea that the original intention was dead or anything, it was only added as a difficulty curve smoothener(?) for new players. Again, this is talked about in the Fe12 interview.

For me, this is the sure sign that permadeath is holding the series back. Even the game developers cannot come up with a good reason to defend it, instead resorting to some lame wishy-washy bullshit about how "Fire Emblem just won't be the same". Yeah, it won't be the same: it will be better.

Fire Emblem was never really about the story. Could Fire Emblem, if eliminating the permadeath system, make the plot much more intricate (I'd personally like to see if they could do this from non-super important person's point of view)? Sure, but you lose something so much more important, and Fire Emblem simply becomes like Final Fantasy. You lose the tension throughout the game from the knowledge that your characters aren't invincible like in other typical rpgs.

RPGs can be difficult even without the element of permadeath.

[Constable Reggie]

It seems to me that you're arguing permadeath from a purely gameplay point of view. It's not about that. Permadeath isn't there just to make the game more difficult. And to argue that the developers, the people who's very lives are to work on the games, are wrong about their games, is laughable.

[Gone2Ground]

The very basics of the gameplay are solid; some franchises have been using their own basic mechanics for at least as long (Rock-Paper-Scissors in FE meets the Rock-Paper-Scissors in Pokemon, or for a wierder version meets the move side-to-side and jump-on-head of Mario)

However, each game does need something new. Personally, I've always sort of dreamt of a modified Fatigue system where the characters get weaker the more fights they have been in so far (Reset at end of chapter), punishing you for relying on one character or dragging the turncount out too long, while rewarding innovative low-turn-count strategies that use multiple characters.

But let's face it - one of FE's main draws is story and character development, so as long as that doesn't become crap, we'll still play it (If it's not a broken-ass game)

Edited December 13, 2012 by Gone2Ground

[Anouleth]

The idea of sacrificing units for rare stuff also sounds pretty cool, but again, it needs to be implemented smartly. They can't just give you the option of sacrificing anyone, since you'll just let someone you never used die. Similarly, you can't just put a chapter limit for characters, since that's also pretty easy to get by. What I think should be added as a barrier is something like a minimal support conversation AND level limit. So then it really gives you the moral dilemma of "do you kill off this character that you've watch grown and interact with others, someone important to you, for the benefit of the rest of the team"?

Then, wouldn't you have people supporting units just to sacrifice them later? I think you should be allowed to sacrifice anyone: but the characters you've invested in will give the biggest bonuses for sacrificing! I personally quite like the idea of recruiting people just to sacrifice them. Isn't that what being evil is all about? And even characters you haven't invested in might be useful anyway, as replacements for the characters you did invest in.

My idea was that at the end of each chapter, you are offered the opportunity to sacrifice one of your units, chosen at random. So the NPC evil necromancer would offer you the choice if you wanted to sacrifice, say, Edward, and you could say either yes or no. And sometimes, the choice would be very tempting! And other times, the choice might not be so attractive. Such is the way with temptation in real life. Some people find it easier to be good or evil than others. A player who might think of himself as good might suddenly get a great offer, of a valuable item for a unit he doesn't care about. People who play games in which there is a "morality choice" often plan on which "route" they'll take... but morality doesn't work like that. You might hope to keep everyone alive, but find that power is too tempting. Or you might care nothing for the lives of your soldiers, but find that keeping everyone alive works better than throwing away allies. And depending on the choices you make, events later on would change. A player that sacrificed units would gain an evil reputation, and a player who chose not to sacrifice units, but even to kill the necromancer (thus removing the temptation) would gain a good reputation, and attract different allies (and enemies).

And it's good, because it reworks permadeath, from a serious penalty thrust upon the player for bad play, to a willing tradeoff. Who wants to be the kind of commander that lets his allies die for no good reason? Noone. But I can think of a few people who want to be the evil commander, who climbs to the top on the pile of the corpses of his companions (who foolishly placed their trust in him), who tosses his faithful allies into the pit and does not look back, who understands that people die in war, who is more feared by his own soldiers than by the enemy?

It seems to me that you're arguing permadeath from a purely gameplay point of view. It's not about that. Permadeath isn't there just to make the game more difficult. And to argue that the developers, the people who's very lives are to work on the games, are wrong about their games, is laughable.

Developers sometimes are wrong about their own games! Aonuma thought he could improve Zelda by putting trains in it. Sakamoto thought that people played Metroid because they cared about Samus' emotions. And I think that in this case, the developers are wrong. That's nothing against them. Very intelligent people are frequently wrong. Even the best people make mistakes: and the developers of Fire Emblem should be credited for what they've done well. What they haven't done well is permadeath, a mechanic they stubbornly refuse to update or change, because they feel it makes Fire Emblem "different". What they are really saying, is that they think they are better than all the other RPG developers, because Fire Emblem has this supposedly unique mechanic. It doesn't, it just means that they have refused to learn or advance while everyone else has left them behind. I don't want Fire Emblem to be unique or different or special, I want it to be good.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Anouleth

[Refa]

"don't fix it if it ain't broke" is one way to look at it

"innovation requires taking risks" is the philosophy i prefer to follow

Hear hear.

I also tend to look more fondly games that tried something new (e.g FE4) even when they aren't as polished (or even well designed) as games that have refined the same not bad formula (e.g. FE7); that's just me though.

What I would think would be a better approach to permanent death is perhaps some kind of mechanic where you can directly sacrifice the lives of your units to get rare items or bonuses, or secret chapters or units. What choice would you make? And how would this work in terms of morality? Would a player justify his sacrifices as being for the greater good of winning? Would he refuse to sacrifice certain units that he has an attachment to, or would he be willing to give up anyone's life in exchange for power? This way, the choice between life and death is more than "can I be bothered to reset and play through the chapter to keep this character alive".

Tactics Ogre had a spell (Snapdragon is what it was called IIRC) where you could turn party members into weapons. I'd do it.

Incidentally, the Ogre series is pretty good about the whole morality thing as a whole, from what I've seen of it.

[NinjaMonkey]

Personally, I've always sort of dreamt of a modified Fatigue system where the characters get weaker the more fights they have been in so far (Reset at end of chapter), punishing you for relying on one character or dragging the turncount out too long, while rewarding innovative low-turn-count strategies that use multiple characters.

So, in other words, you want to see FE games that punish people are who new to the series/people who aren't all that good at FE, while rewarding elite players at the same time?

Yeah, that's real fair...

Edited December 13, 2012 by NinjaMonkey

[Dark Sage]

While I understand the difficulty in writing a story and adapting permadeath to it, I still think permadeath is a necessary part of Fire Emblem. It serves as a punishment for mistakes yes, but generally permadeath forces the player to think more carefully about his actions and strategize more effectively instead of simply bumrushing everything with no regard for unit safety. Fire Emblem is, after all, a strategy game and the inclusion of permadeath greatly enhances the strategic aspects of Fire Emblem.

Plus just because a lot of us here reset when we lose a unit doesn't mean that everyone does. In which case, it forces the player to adapt more to the game and make the most out of his unit reserves. Therefore, the player needs to craft strategies that preserve these units to beat the game. This is also good for strategy.

In general permadeath is a pretty meaningful mechanic, whether you reset when a unit dies or whether you keep on playing. I say its a pretty necessary and nice mechanic and in fact, I would prefer it if more SRPGs used the mechanic.

EDIT: Derp, misused a word.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Tyrant Sage

[Life]

So, in other words, you want to see FE games that punish people are who new to the series/people who aren't all that good at FE, while rewarding elite players at the same time?

Yeah, that's real fair...

No, he wants to punish arena grinding.

[Just call me AL]

So, in other words, you want to see FE games that punish people are who new to the series/people who aren't all that good at FE, while rewarding elite players at the same time?

Yeah, that's real fair...

I honestly don't see where you're going with this. I mean, doesn't anyone who starts off fresh want to get better as they go along?

[dondon151]

Stuff about permadeath

oh yes, i totally agree. permadeath's difficulty to be incorporated in a plot is not a reason for why it should be eschewed as a gameplay mechanic. it's just a pain in the butt.

[Icon of Sin]

Personally, I've always sort of dreamt of a modified Fatigue system where the characters get weaker the more fights they have been in so far (Reset at end of chapter), punishing you for relying on one character or dragging the turncount out too long, while rewarding innovative low-turn-count strategies that use multiple characters.

FE5 Blume had this idea. Your stats (IIRC, Strength, Magic, Skill, Speed, Defense and Movement) were lowered by 1 when you went over the fatigue point and would lower more after each (I think 10) points of fatigue.

[BrightBow]

Developers sometimes are wrong about their own games! Aonuma thought he could improve Zelda by putting trains in it. Sakamoto thought that people played Metroid because they cared about Samus' emotions. And I think that in this case, the developers are wrong. That's nothing against them. Very intelligent people are frequently wrong. Even the best people make mistakes: and the developers of Fire Emblem should be credited for what they've done well. What they haven't done well is permadeath, a mechanic they stubbornly refuse to update or change, because they feel it makes Fire Emblem "different". What they are really saying, is that they think they are better than all the other RPG developers, because Fire Emblem has this supposedly unique mechanic. It doesn't, it just means that they have refused to learn or advance while everyone else has left them behind. I don't want Fire Emblem to be unique or different or special, I want it to be good.

Honestly, Permadeath is pretty important in the series. All those games so far are designed around it. Those games would simply break.

Without Permadeath, you are unbeatable because the enemy is frankly no match for you. This series is not like Advance Wars where the enemy is usually an even match. Here, the enemy be able to take down 2 or 3 allies at best.

But you can still loose because in Fire Emblem it's not beating the battle that's difficult but winning the war.

Everything you get can be used in the following battles. But that also means, that everything you do loose is lost for good.

You get to the next map but you might not reach the end. That's how any game in the series so far has been.

If it was removed, then all those games would need to be fundamentally redesigned. I think that the difference between those map designs should be clear for everyone who played Advance Wars. The maps would need to be redesigned so that you have an actual chance of loosing the map. That they can actually kill all your allies.

A Fire Emblem without Permadeath would need to consist of maps that are more like the BS Fire Emblem scenario or the FE12 pseudo-DLC maps.

And frankly, that would result in an entirely different game.

It's kinda funny that you mention "Other M". As far as I can tell, the biggest complaint against that game is that it removed exploration and made the game entirely linear. In other words: they removed the series' cornerstone. And as far as I'm concerned, that's just what you advocate here.

Edited December 13, 2012 by BrightBow

[Tamanoir]

Except, FE will never be like Tactics Ogre or FFT (at leat FFTA).

In FE, every character is unique. If they were random units with no name, you'll sacrifive them anyway...

Like, you'll more easily kill evry ennemy who haven't names or description. Each character has his own life and motive to fight.

If they implemented random nameless faceless units, permadeath will become meaningless. There stats are also different.

And there was way to prevent death in some FE. In FE, you can technically revive every dead character as long as you have the money, you know.

I think the usable weapons is a more defining characteristic, even if it have mainly gameplay importance.

EDIT : In fact, I am more for making units more uniques with skills and unique weapons...

Edited December 13, 2012 by TendaSlime

[Anouleth]

While I understand the difficulty in writing a story and adapting permadeath to it, I still think permadeath is a necessary part of Fire Emblem. It serves as a punishment for mistakes yes, but generally permadeath forces the player to think more carefully about his actions and strategize more effectively instead of simply bumrushing everything with no regard for unit safety. Fire Emblem is, after all, a strategy game and the inclusion of permadeath greatly enhances the strategic aspects of Fire Emblem.

No, it doesn't. I've written already about how everyone uses the word "strategy" wrong when talking about Fire Emblem.

I also question if permadeath actually enhances the strategic aspects of Fire Emblem. I would assume that a player is less likely to try and plan for the long term if she believes that her units might die. She's more likely, then, to prioritise short-term gain.

Plus just because a lot of us here reset when we lose a unit doesn't mean that everyone does. In which case, it forces the player to adapt more to the game and make the most out of his unit reserves. Therefore, the player needs to craft strategies that preserve these units to beat the game. This is also good for strategy.

I've already mentioned that this is one possible benefit to permadeath: but in practice, I think it doesn't work and is unnecessary. The player does not need motivation to try out different strategies. He does that on his own.

In general permadeath is a pretty meaningful mechanic,

"meaningful"

I don't want my games to have meaning, I want them to be good.

EDIT: Derp, misused a word.

I assume you're talking about your use of the word "meaningful", then.

Honestly, Permadeath is pretty important in the series. All those games so far are designed around it. Those games would simply break.

Sure, and I'm happy for IntSys to design games around a lack of permadeath instead.

Without Permadeath, you are unbeatable because the enemy is frankly no match for you. This series is not like Advance Wars where the enemy is usually an even match. Here, the enemy be able to take down 2 or 3 allies at best.

But you can still loose because in Fire Emblem it's not beating the battle that's difficult but winning the war.

Pfft... that's so not true. Strategy in Fire Emblem is very easy. Most Fire Emblems, in fact, get easier towards the end of the game, as long as you don't let everyone die. Whereas, the earlygame is usually much more difficult. It's why everyone recommends Marcus now.

So yes, it's beating individual battles that is hard in Fire Emblem: not long-term strategy. Long-term strategy, in fact, is so easy that you can literally beat the game without training any units. It's true!

If it was removed, then all those games would need to be fundamentally redesigned.

I'm not suggesting that we travel back in time and remove permadeath from every game, just that new games shouldn't have it. It's fine that IntSys made mistakes in the past. It's fine that they made those mistakes on 13 games in a row. But they have to learn from that mistake eventually.

It's kinda funny that you mention "Other M". As far as I can tell, the biggest complaint against that game is that it removed exploration and made the game entirely linear. In other words: they removed the series' cornerstone. And as far as I'm concerned, that's just what you advocate here.

My point is that permadeath is not the series' cornerstone. IntSys might think it is, but they are wrong: just as Sakamoto was wrong.

[arvilino]

Which SRPGs have no permadeath and require "strategy" anyway Anouleth?

Because these games would have to be so difficult and require significant planning that it would be harder to complete a mission/chapter/map in it than it would be to not lose a single character in one chapter in Fire Emblem.

Edited December 13, 2012 by arvilino