How Effective Are Fire Emblem Mechanics?

[Hawk King]

If permadeath isn't the cornerstone of the series than what is? It is certainly a major gameplay mechanic to the series, and it is how alot of people identify the series. Personally, I like permadeath. It is what sets FE apart from FFTA, Disgaea, and others.

Reagardless, FE 12 and 13 have casual modes and im 100% certain that every FE after them will also have a casual mode so why complain about permadeath? You say you want IntSys to move on from permadeath to make the series better, well guess what, they did. And instead of making the brash choice of removing it entirely, they gave the player the choice of whether they want it or not.

[BrightBow]

"meaningful"

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

How do "meaningful" elements somehow don't contribute to a good game? Do you want more random elements which serve no purpose?

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.

And the reason it gets easier is because people savescum their way to the end rather then accepting losses. Plus, once you are through the game once, you know all the secrets and where all the stuff is, so it gets even easier. It's too bad that harder difficulties ignore that when scaling enemies up.

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!

Sure you can do that. But you are again assuming that people are just gonna restart until they get the desired results.

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.

And I was pointing out that the mechanic didn't just exist. It wasn't a mistake. The games were all designed around it.

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

Removing this mechanic would change Fire Emblem little less then how "Other M" changed Metroid. Sure, it might make for a better game but it wouldn't be recognizable as a Fire Emblem.

At least, that's my take. But what is the cornerstone in your opinion then?

What does a game named Fire Emblem need to be designed around in order to keep being a Fire Emblem game?

I mean, you already said that the game has not much strategy. So what does this leave? What is it that you see in this series that you spend time on a fan forum?

Edited December 13, 2012 by BrightBow

[Constable Reggie]

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

Sorry, but this right here stuck out like a huge sore thumb. It's this kind of reasoning that has everyone mocking the idea of video games as an art form, because they're simply "video games", they're no better than child toys. I keep bringing it back up, but Spec Ops: the Line truly is one of the best games made in 2012, but it's by no means "good" on a purely technical level. If you went and played it, said it was utter shit because the pure gameplay was mediocre, then I'm not sure what more to say.

That's not to say that all video games need to have meaning, but Fire Emblem was built and focused on having a deeper player-character relationship than other srpgs, ie a game meant to have meaning. It's not something you take away just so the gameplay or story can be slightly better.

But the most horrifying thing that comes from this statement is that this is the mindset that kills innovation. This is the mindset that developers see and say "we have to play it safe". This is the mindset that Nintendo sees and tries to make IS cave on a core FE mechanic so that new players don't have to deal with such a higher barrier, so that it can simply sell more. Gone are innovative ideas because they possibly risk alienating the general playerbase, and in are more Call of Duty clones are increasingly similar sequels because "Hey, Call of Duty games/our last game was good, let's just make games really similar to them so that they sell!".

Edited December 13, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Lord Raven]

Some people will find it an art form, some people will just find them fun. Honestly, I don't think we should try to debate which is which; sometimes you can see art and sometimes you just do it to have fun or compete. You can obviously see where Anouleth's priorities lie (which happens to also be where mine lie).

[Constable Reggie]

Sure, but when you demand that innovative ideas be trashed just so that the game can be somewhat more "fun" on a purely technical level, that's when it starts to irk me. Was Duke Nukem Forever better off when it compromised on what made Duke Nukem for more modern day shooter mechanics that the general fanbase find fun? What about when FF 13 decided essentially strip away all open world exploration, because on a technical level, it could make for a more compelling experience?

Edited December 13, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Anouleth]

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

Uh, only all of them? Or, since you're clearly getting at "what SRPGs have no permadeath and also have an unnecessarily high level of difficulty", I'll say Rondo of Swords.

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.

Just because a game is easier than Fire Emblem, doesn't mean it doesn't require strategy.

Sorry, but this right here stuck out like a huge sore thumb. It's this kind of reasoning that has everyone mocking the idea of video games as an art form, because they're simply "video games", they're no better than child toys.

And why is it so awful to make toys for children? Why do you say "child toys", as if it's something dirty? Why is it better to make "art" than it is to make children's toys?

I keep bringing it back up, but Spec Ops: the Line truly is probably one of the best games made in 2012, but it's by no means "good" on a purely technical level. If you went and played it, said it was shit because the pure gameplay was mediocre, then I'm not sure what more to say.

I don't know what that game is, but a game with bad gameplay is a bad game.

That's not to say that all video games need to have meaning, but Fire Emblem was built and focused on having a deeper player-character relationship than other srpgs, ie a game meant to have meaning. It's not something you take away just so the gameplay or story can be slightly better.

And I question if permadeath really does give a "deeper player-character relationship", or whether that is worth having. I couldn't say that I have a "deeper" relationship with Tanith than I do with say, Vivi, or Wrex. What would that even mean?

If permadeath isn't the cornerstone of the series than what is? It is certainly a major gameplay mechanic to the series, and it is how alot of people identify the series. Personally, I like permadeath. It is what sets FE apart from FFTA, Disgaea, and others.

So the only reason to have permadeath, is to be "different"? You too, do not seem able to actually give a reason why permadeath makes the game better. Not that I'm surprised. If even the developers can't come up with a good excuse, how can you be expected to?

Reagardless, FE 12 and 13 have casual modes and im 100% certain that every FE after them will also have a casual mode so why complain about permadeath? You say you want IntSys to move on from permadeath to make the series better, well guess what, they did. And instead of making the brash choice of removing it entirely, they gave the player the choice of whether they want it or not.

Ok, let me alter my original statement: "permadeath is was holding the series back". Happy?

Although really, I don't see the point in a classic mode. I would be happy with a hardcore mode, where you couldn't savescum and death was permanent, because such a mode actually captures what everyone actually likes about permadeath, but classic mode seems like a pointless middle ground.

[Constable Reggie]

I don't know what that game is, but a game with bad gameplay is a bad game.

This right here is where I stop taking you seriously. Any person with half a brain who's played Spec Ops would probably argue against this to the death. This is pretty much akin to the reason why permadeath should stay in the game.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Anouleth]

This right here is where I stop taking you seriously. Any person with half a brain who's played Spec Ops would probably argue against this to the death. This is pretty much akin to the reason why permadeath should stay in the game.

Well, thank you for warning me away from this horrible sounding game, then.

[Constable Reggie]

Someone who demands the destruction of innovation and different ideas for simply "better" gameplay probably isn't deserving of playing such an amazing game. Let me recommend Medal of Honor: Warfighter for you, since it's right up your alley.

[Anouleth]

Someone who demands the destruction of innovation and different ideas for simply "better" gameplay probably isn't deserving of playing such an amazing game.

How is keeping permadeath innovation? Is doing the exact same thing for 13 games innovation? It's fine to innovate. It's fine to try different ideas: but if they turn out to be bad, you discard them. But IntSys has been trying this for thirteen fucking games, and they still don't have a good explanation for it. You are demanding that Fire Emblem stay the same, in it's rut. I am demanding that Fire Emblem evolve, because no, it's not perfect, even if you seem to think it is, and it seems that the only reason anyone can come up with to defend permadeath is because "it's how we've done it for the past thirteen games and golly gee whiz we couldn't possibly be expected to think of a new way to make the game difficult, and to be honest this is the only thing anyone can remember about our otherwise utterly forgettable and mediocre franchise."

At this point, I would like to see Fire Emblem get rid of permadeath, just to make the developers come up with a new idea, because this shit is getting old.

Let me recommend Medal of Honor: Warfighter for you, since it's right up your alley.

I'm not a big fan of shooters.

[Constable Reggie]

How is keeping permadeath innovation? Is doing the exact same thing for 13 games innovation? It's fine to innovate. It's fine to try different ideas: but if they turn out to be bad, you discard them. But IntSys has been trying this for thirteen fucking games, and they still don't have a good explanation for it. You are demanding that Fire Emblem stay the same, in it's rut. I am demanding that Fire Emblem evolve, because no, it's not perfect, even if you seem to think it is, and it seems that the only reason anyone can come up with to defend permadeath is because "it's how we've done it for the past thirteen games and golly gee whiz we couldn't possibly be expected to think of a new way to make the game difficult, and to be honest this is the only thing anyone can remember about our otherwise utterly forgettable and mediocre franchise."

At this point, I would like to see Fire Emblem get rid of permadeath, just to make the developers come up with a new idea, because this shit is getting old.

Of course they have a good explanation for it, it's just one you completely deny because it's not gameplay related. IS has shown that they're able to make a game extremely difficult even without permadeath (see fe13), and yet they continue to keep the mechanic there. Why do you think they do? Because it definitely isn't "because we don't know how else to make our games difficult".

I'm not a big fan of shooters.

*Whooooooosh*

Actually, this needs to be emphasized more.

*WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH*

[dondon151]

i oppose removing permadeath because it fundamentally changes the way one plays the game, and there are few suitable replacements (if any) that yield the same outcome.

[Anouleth]

Of course they have a good explanation for it, it's just one you completely deny because it's not gameplay related. IS has shown that they're able to make a game extremely difficult even without permadeath (see fe13), and yet they continue to keep the mechanic there. Why do you think they do?

Because they're misguided about why people play Fire Emblem. Because they're happy to stay in their rut rather than change it (it required outside pressure from Nintendo to get them to even add in Casual Mode). Because they think that permadeath makes their game "special", and by extension, makes them "special". Because they think they're too good to have to make games that people actually want to play.

Because it definitely isn't "because we don't know how else to make our games difficult".

It was other people in this thread that said that the game would be easy without permadeath.

[Tamanoir]

If permadeath isn't the cornerstone of the series than what is?

Breakable. Weapons.

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.

Have you played Disgaea ? More specifically any X-Dimensions map ? And this is a game when "death" doesn't have any meaning.

I think that there are one aspect that was never really treated well, orat least never fully exploited.

Permadeath also affect your ennemies. But in effect, you rarely have penalties for killing mass of ennemies, or awards to letting them live.

As far as I know,the only one who does that is FE12(and probably FE3 as well...).

Once in chapter 10, when not killing the clerics give you access to a cool bonus Item and to a gaiden chapter. It would have been better if it was more hinted, but hey.

The second is with Sheema and Samson, when not killing their soldiers allows you to recruit them.

Another one who dealt quite wellwas FE, more specifically the capture features, who is probably one of the best featureof the game, and even of any FE.

It means that not killing someone is more rewarding but harder to achieve, which means that you have to think carefully about using it or not.

One idea would also be something like in Tactics Ogre, where ennemies in one road will be allies in one other. So, in one road you're forced to fight them, even if you know their motives, their personality. Would you still fight them, or would you try to let themsurvive if you can ?

I think that, even without true Permadeath, it treated these subjects related to it quite well.

There's one technical aspects of Permadeath that haven(t been evocated yet. There's no skill or spell that attacks many ennemies. Skills and weapons are generally less powerfull, than if you could kill everyone without problems.

...And finally, let's just all agree that FE4/FE5 are the best games in terms of gamepay and theory relathionship. B)

[BrightBow]

Because they're misguided about why people play Fire Emblem. Because they're happy to stay in their rut rather than change it (it required outside pressure from Nintendo to get them to even add in Casual Mode). Because they think that permadeath makes their game "special", and by extension, makes them "special". Because they think they're too good to have to make games that people actually want to play.

You are pretty presumptions with your conviction that you of all people knows which "games people actually want to play".

And btw: "Misguided about the people who play Fire Emblem"?

Of course I don't know about anyone else but... if I had a problem with a strategy RPG with permadeath, then I would simply play one without it and therefore wouldn't be here in the first place.

And since it left unanswered so far: What is it that you play Fire Emblem for?

Edited December 13, 2012 by BrightBow

[Anouleth]

You are pretty presumptions with your conviction that you know which "games people actually want to play".

I'm not presumptuous at all. Fire Emblem has had consistently mediocre sales: even as the video game market has expanded many times over with population increases, sales of Fire Emblem have barely budged at all.

And btw: "Misguided about the people who play Fire Emblem"?

Of course I don't know about anyone else but... if I had a problem with a strategy RPG with permadeath, then I would simply play one without it and therefore wouldn't be here in the first place.

I supposed I should clarify: I don't have a problem with permadeath per se. What I have a problem with is how long IntSys dragged their heels over putting in casual mode, and for crappy pseudoreasons, no less. And I would prefer for classic mode to be a full-blown hardcore mode.

And since it left unanswered so far: What is it that you play Fire Emblem for?

I suppose, because I think it's fun. Although maybe I'm not the right person to ask, because I got into the series with FE8.

[CT075]

As much as i'm for gameplay being entire point of a game I feel like I'd like pernadeath more if it was actually a factor past earlygame

[Sasori]

Would't removing permadeath completely change the entire series? Right now enemies are still treatening when they gang up on you, but individually they are no match for your units. If they removed permadeath the games would become laughably easy unless they give an extreme buff to the enemy to get them to your level.

I kinda like permadeath it makes you care a little more about your units and gives a penalty to just mindlessly charging in.

[Renall]

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.

On the other hand, you can still design maps such that bumrushing and attrition don't work. Or you can... accept that attrition is a strategy? Because it is. Hell, it's a strategy that works even in FE in limited circumstances. The permadeath mechanic does prevent it from being viable the entire length of the game, but nothing would actually stop you from employing it on a limited scale even in FE. It's not a moral strategy, but numerical advantages and acceptable losses exist in real warfare.

I don't think that's very good game design necessarily, but it's viable and it really isn't that much different whether permadeath exists or not, other than the frequency with which the sacrifices can be employed. And for any given individual map, both are equivalent and if neither map can be beaten even by sacrificing your entire squad, then at that point attrition has been designed out as a viable strategy, while rendering permadeath irrelevant. Note especially that there are maps in Advance Wars that can be won by attrition, but also maps that cannot be won by attrition.

You can also add scaling penalties to unit loss that don't become actual permanent death for single mistakes. For example, say that if a unit falls they're not usable in the next map unless they're a forced unit, or they're usable but with a stat penalty to reflect their "injury," and the injuries only go away if they stay out a map. Sort of a modification of fatigue, only now it applies only when a unit is defeated. Then have that penalty scale up the more frequently the unit is defeated, such that perhaps they must sit out longer or just get injured into non-viability, a sort of "soft restriction" on deployment rather than FE5's hard restriction via fatigue.

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.

The way TO does it, especially in the PSP remake, is that route determines recruitment potential and some characters are simply never encountered on some routes. You never meet Folcurt and his friends on Law for example. They added a few new things, including a few recruitable characters in one route or another who are unrecruitable story bosses who die in other routes. This makes the choices more meaningful.

And honestly, the Do It/Don't Do It choice at the end of Tactics Ogre's first chapter (or the one at the end of OB64's first two chapters, even though they're far less story-impactful) has more emotional weight and moral complexity than any sacrifice you could make of anybody in a FE game. Although Let Us Cling Together technically does not have permadeath, even though it has permadeath. It's complicated. Anyway, regarding that...

What would be far more interesting and more FE-like is to have route splits based on moral or strategic choices akin to the A/B route split in FE5. Then, in addition to having unique recruitables on each map, have characters with distinct personality who you might want as allies become (or remain) enemies in other routes, forcing you to kill them. Essentially, route choices make the sacrifice decision for you. FE5's only real example of this is having to kill one of either Conomore or Amalda, except you don't actually have to kill the one you can't recruit (but you never see them again anyway).

Actually having more morality and weight to decisions would be cool for the story even if permadeath still existed. Losing a lot of units could create a culture of despair in the army and maybe change stuff (a betrayal perhaps?). Winning without losses creates a sense of invincibility that could cause your troops to be overconfident (resulting in a gaiden where you have to bail them out). If a game had capture mechanics or other ways to "spare" enemies like FE5 (not saying it should, just if it did), you could gain a reputation for either ruthlessness or mercy, and that could affect things. For example, what if Karel wouldn't join Eliwood/Hector if he thought they were sissies who were too quick to show mercy and spare enemies? Or if Zealot wouldn't join Roy if too many units had already died, because a mercenary's pay isn't worth his life and Roy doesn't seem competent enough to work for? It would be really interesting to see more significant reactions, and a branching plot based on some story decisions and a few gameplay achievements would allow for richer plots without sacrificing permadeath.

My issue is simply that the developers should either nurture this mechanic and use it to improve the storytelling or excise it so they can tell a story not reliant upon it. I'm not expressing a preference really. If this is a "core mechanic" of their game, then how and when a player loses units and who they lose should all be critical parts of the story that they're told as they progress through, not a slap on the wrist and a denial of further content. At the moment the punishment is too strong and the interest in "seeing what happens if I keep going" nonexistent, and that's why so many people reset immediately. You cannot stop players playing "wrong" by continuing to punish them when the whole point is they feel overly punished to begin with.

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.

While FFT has permadeath, it's rare that it actually happens. I can tell you that FFT's 1.3 hack is exceedingly difficult, and yet I never permanently lost a single unit playing it. Usually because if I got backed into a corner I was well into reset territory long before I would've had a unit crystallize. And there was quite a bit of long-term strategy to it, mostly in terms of what JP abilities to get for upcoming battles (Wiegraf without Abandon in 1.3 makes you sad, and Elmdor is insane). FFT has sequential battles you can't shop between, which on the short-term at least requires a semblance of strategy (you need to have everything prepared to beat Riovanes Gate, Wiegraf/Velius, and Riovanes Roof all before you enter the end of Chapter 3).

Also I don't see how beating a map without losing a single character necessarily makes you better at the game. It's impressive, but it's not necessarily an indicator of having the best grasp of gameplay, merely the best tactic. Warp-skipping a map requires you know how the Warp staff works; it's not the best indicator of mastery of mechanics, but it is unquestionably the correct strategy for minimizing turncount. To some extent playing it too safe can make the risk/reward factor too great and leads to exploitation of AI mechanics. LTC pros eschew it, but you can win most FE maps by slowly crawling along exposing your units to the attack range of only one or two guys at a time. It will clear the map and avoid unit deaths, but is it exciting? Is it dynamic? Is it fun? Maybe, but I don't personally enjoy it as much.

Reagardless, FE 12 and 13 have casual modes and im 100% certain that every FE after them will also have a casual mode so why complain about permadeath? You say you want IntSys to move on from permadeath to make the series better, well guess what, they did. And instead of making the brash choice of removing it entirely, they gave the player the choice of whether they want it or not.

Yes, and that's great, but the script still has to be written with Classic mode in mind. That means anyone who is sat down and told to write a Fire Emblem script must ask the following question:

"What happens if the character who has just been recruited into the army is killed by an enemy on the first phase of the very next map?"

Can you answer this question and make good with it? Absolutely. Does IS/Nintendo with FE? Not really. Does anybody really? Precious few.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Renall

[Anouleth]

On the other hand, you can still design maps such that bumrushing and attrition don't work. Or you can... accept that attrition is a strategy? Because it is. Hell, it's a strategy that works even in FE in limited circumstances. The permadeath mechanic does prevent it from being viable the entire length of the game, but nothing would actually stop you from employing it on a limited scale even in FE. It's not a moral strategy, but numerical advantages and acceptable losses exist in real warfare.

I question if that's really true, that it's viable. If you take a game like say, FE9, and played through it normally, sacrificing a unit every map, you would run out of units in Chapter 8. Playing loose and fast is not viable, by any means in Fire Emblem: instead, the game rewards slow, conservative play. Stuff like low-turn counts are only possible because the game is in effect, being played perfectly, with perfect tactical positioning that stretch resources, offense, durability and movement to their absolute limits.

I don't think that's very good game design necessarily, but it's viable and it really isn't that much different whether permadeath exists or not, other than the frequency with which the sacrifices can be employed. And for any given individual map, both are equivalent and if neither map can be beaten even by sacrificing your entire squad, then at that point attrition has been designed out as a viable strategy, while rendering permadeath irrelevant. Note especially that there are maps in Advance Wars that can be won by attrition, but also maps that cannot be won by attrition.

Maps in Advance Wars are only winnable by attrition because you can build more units. That's not possible in any Fire Emblem because you cannot build units. But it's interesting to note that even though you can build units in Advance Wars, you can not beat chapters just by bumrushing, any more than you can beat chapters in any other strategy game just by 1-Aing.

You can also add scaling penalties to unit loss that don't become actual permanent death for single mistakes. For example, say that if a unit falls they're not usable in the next map unless they're a forced unit, or they're usable but with a stat penalty to reflect their "injury," and the injuries only go away if they stay out a map. Sort of a modification of fatigue, only now it applies only when a unit is defeated. Then have that penalty scale up the more frequently the unit is defeated, such that perhaps they must sit out longer or just get injured into non-viability, a sort of "soft restriction" on deployment rather than FE5's hard restriction via fatigue.

That's actually how Rondo of Swords does it.

[Renall]

Maps in Advance Wars are only winnable by attrition because you can build more units. That's not possible in any Fire Emblem because you cannot build units. But it's interesting to note that even though you can build units in Advance Wars, you can not beat chapters just by bumrushing, any more than you can beat chapters in any other strategy game just by 1-Aing.

You can recruit more units in FE. The game isn't throwing them at you all the time of course (except maybe in FE12). However my point was more that you can't win by attrition all the time in Advance Wars because the game doesn't always give you production facilities, or the enemy has such overwhelming force that if you start trying to trade unit for unit for it you'll be overwhelmed. However, sometimes the right strategy is to make a unit or two that exists to gum up the works and eventually die. And you can do that in FE on occasion if you want to, but most people don't. Part of the reason for that is that an APC in AW is just a faceless APC, and a character in FE has a name and a face and whatnot. But if anything that should make the temptation more interesting, if you were given a compelling reason to sacrifice a unit. But the loss shouldn't merely be access to the unit itself; there could and I think ought to be longer-reaching implications for doing it, or not doing it, and for who it's done with. I mean, who you sacrifice in the Shadow Dragon tutorial really doesn't matter, but seeing the way Marth leans on Jagen in FE12 it makes you wonder how things would've turned out without Jagen's counsel and advice from the start.

But what I mean is, imagine if the Fire Dragon in FE7 always countered with a OHKO on almost any unit to attack it, never healed, and any unit could damage it. You could win by throwing units at it. Or to use an actual in-game example, you can one-turn Chapter 19 of FE5 by immediately retreating with Leaf, if you're willing to let several of your units be captured. But there's very little difference if you do, so doing it just comes across as being dumb. If there were more consequence to that, and more story effects, I think they could do a lot with it. It's like you said: A sacrifice you make willingly with consequences for doing it could be more compelling. Do you let a heroic character sacrifice himself to stave off a flanking attack knowing not just that you'll lose him, but that you'll make a few chapters easier and potentially alter how your Lord is portrayed?

I remember a lot of times where August would suggest some strategy in FE5 that was kind of shady and he'd always stress that it could be risky and cause losses. But usually you could do whatever he suggested (or the opposite of what he suggested) just fine without losing anybody. Be nice if the devil on your Lord's shoulder actually was offering a new and possibly easier way to reach your goals, with potential consequences for doing it.

[Lord Raven]

This right here is where I stop taking you seriously. Any person with half a brain who's played Spec Ops would probably argue against this to the death. This is pretty much akin to the reason why permadeath should stay in the game.

Make your case instead of saying "sorry i will never take you seriously because you've never played this game before." There are people who will consider video games art and others will consider video games just a lot of fun, and it's not inherently bad to prefer one or the other. But there is no way in hell you can argue against making a game more fun vs more artistic, because 99% of people (even intelligent people) will never play a boring game with an interesting plot. I'm one of the 1% that is willing to truck through a terrible game for its plot (Drakengard, terrible plot but I felt trolled, which I think was the developer's intent) but i highly doubt Anouleth is one of them.

[Constable Reggie]

I'm not chastising that sentence because he hasn't played the game, I'm chastising it because he's blindly dismissing it because of an extremely narrow minded viewpoint. It's not just Spec Op's plot that's interesting, no, it's far, far more than that. But I can't explain exactly what it does so greatly without spoiling it hardcore (the most I can probably say is that it uses it's mediocre gameplay to it's full advantage for the player, it's not there just to make the game "fun"). When a game mechanic that's there is there not purely because of gameplay reasons, but for something more, then it's ridiculous to dismiss it solely on it's gameplay merits. Again, it's obvious that Fire Emblem's permadeath mechanic was what the game was built on. It's not there just as a "fun" mechanic. Fun games are great, but don't sacrifice uniqueness for it.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Lord Raven]

naw he's not narrow-minded he's just an extremely annoyingly persistent devil's advocate

EDIT: How do people type more than a whole paragraph in a post these days? Maaaaaaaaan

Edited December 14, 2012 by Lord Raven

[Constable Reggie]

Of course he isn't narrow minded, but the notion that a game should be judged ONLY on gameplay and how everything affects it's gameplay is.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Constable Reggie