Content from playable character deaths.

[The Void]

In Thracia 776, you recruited Eyrios only if Olwen was dead or not recruited. Shadow Dragon required that various PCs die to access Gaiden chapters.

Would be against another FE having content that is accessible with at least one character death or more? Or not? Like say, being given the option by some wizard character to sacrifice playable characters? Or where you get to a chapter after a unit has died? Etc.

[VincentASM]

For me, it would depend on how it was handled.

I didn't like FE11's gaiden requirements because you had to arbritrarily massacre the majority of your army. However I did like the decoy event and how you could recruit Norne if you were missing 2 or more units.

[Anouleth]

Nobody lets player characters die anyway. I'm sure that if they removed permadeath, nobody would actually notice unless it was specifically mentioned.

[Airship Canon]

Only way I'd ever see those missions is if it were something stupid like an Awakening prequel where you fight for Plegia against Chrom's father-- basically unless I'm given a reason to hate my units, which, frankly is a better way to make me hate the game, I'm not wanting any of them to die.

I hated the decoy event.

I think MU's ending in Awakening is the wrong choice.

I always reset unless Casual/L+ or vs. Streetpass teams.

[Snowy_One]

It's a poor idea on the whole. Casual players will hate having to lose their units to gain access to other characters and chapters, especially since this is a 'lose it and it's gone forever' series. Meanwhile, experienced players won't bat an eyelash at the thought of suiciding character A to get character B/chapter C robbing it of any actual impact.

The idea is bad in general and should probably be ignored.

[Soledai]

It's a poor idea on the whole. Casual players will hate having to lose their units to gain access to other characters and chapters, especially since this is a 'lose it and it's gone forever' series. Meanwhile, experienced players won't bat an eyelash at the thought of suiciding character A to get character B/chapter C robbing it of any actual impact.

The idea is bad in general and should probably be ignored.

...What? It's a bad idea just because "casual" players won't or don't like it... then they don't have to do it, and if they ever decided to, that's what multiple PTs are for, if you couldn't/didn't the first time, you can the second time around(assuming)...

Now to be on topic, only if the scenario was like Thracia's and I wounldn't getting more something out of like, like some extra/alternate story or something(but that's just cause I like stories)... but not like FE11 at all, please none of that

Edited July 23, 2013 by Soledai

[bottlegnomes]

In a sense, it's no different than situations like Harken vs Karel, which most people don't seem to have a problem with. The only difference is one you choose which one to recruit and completely ignore the other and the other you have to actively kill one.

Like Vincent said, it's how it's handled. If it's like Olwen or making a sacrifice to get an extra sidequest, that could be cool, but if it's like SD's sidequest requirements, then no.

[Snowy_One]

...What? It's a bad idea just because "casual" players won't or don't like it... then they don't have to do it, and if they ever decided to, that's what multiple PTs are for, if you couldn't/didn't the first time, you can the second time around(assuming)...

Now to be on topic, only if the scenario was like Thracia's and I wounldn't getting more something out of like, like some extra/alternate story or something(but that's just cause I like stories)... but not like FE11 at all, please none of that

The problem is 'casuals' are the main audience of the game. Also, what is good for casual players is USUALLY good for the more constant players as well. Regardless though, casual players won't like killing off one character to get another and probably won't do more than one or two more PT's after beating the game while 'hardcore' players won't care one bit and just go with the character/route that suits them best. It will annoy/irritate the players who do care and the players who don't are the only ones who will truly use it to gain advantages. Honestly, I think the only reason it even existed in the first place was to try and keep players interested in a game with perma-death from a time when 'dying' merely meant losing a life/continuing or reloading a save.

[The Void]

I didn't know "casual" players were a hivemind.

[Rehab]

I'd consider it a nice step towards making unit death something that actually matters in both the gameplay and the story as much as I'd expect, though I doubt it'd reliably get a large chunk of people to stop defaulting to resetting after a death entirely. At least not on its own.

One button of mine that FE likes to push just enough to stick out and annoy me is to include content that makes for an interesting addition to the story, but that is also made skippable, and then to not tell the player it's there. I can't say it's unique to any genre or school of game design (west versus east, for example), but it sometimes feels like a staple of JRPGs (fuckin Tales games, dude).

Personally, if I made a game whose content and plot changed based on how the player played/performed, I would trumpet that shit from the fucking hills, man. It would be in the advertising, the box art, the manual, the game would yell it at the player roughly as loud as the way most games yell PRESS A TO CONFIRM YOUR CHOICES in the beginning, etc. I'd prefer to give a player the same kind of warning people like to get for same-turn reinforcements, but at the very least if I have to put effort into making stuff that the player could realistically fail to see, I'd want them to know in no uncertain terms that the content's out there. Like "HEY PLAYER THIS CHARACTER'S IMPORTANT AND WILL IMPACT THE PLOT BUT ALSO IS NOT SO IMPORTANT THAT THEY DON'T DIE LIKE ANYBODY ELSE, WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN"

[Mighty Kamina]

I'd like that if a character dies his/her friends and loved ones would have a conversation if they are still alive after the battle.

[Blademaster!]

As long as they fulfill some kind of substitute role like in FE4, then I have no problem with it. The replacement character should just be (generally) worse than who they replace.

[shadykid]

The problem is 'casuals' are the main audience of the game. Also, what is good for casual players is USUALLY good for the more constant players as well. Regardless though, casual players won't like killing off one character to get another and probably won't do more than one or two more PT's after beating the game while 'hardcore' players won't care one bit and just go with the character/route that suits them best. It will annoy/irritate the players who do care and the players who don't are the only ones who will truly use it to gain advantages. Honestly, I think the only reason it even existed in the first place was to try and keep players interested in a game with perma-death from a time when 'dying' merely meant losing a life/continuing or reloading a save.

killing one unit to recruit one new unit=/=FE11 mass suicide to get a handful of new characters

besides, the flamewars between fans of the two characters would be a spectacle

[ZemZem]

I liked Hector's small monologue if Matthew were to die in Chapter 11 (Hector's mode, of course), and the whole Olwen vs. Eyrios thing. I personally wouldn't mind if the mechanic were to continue, but not as extreme as FE11 made it.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

killing one unit to recruit one new unit=/=FE11 mass suicide to get a handful of new characters

besides, the flamewars between fans of the two characters would be a spectacle

HARKEN IS BETTER THAN KAREL AND KAREL IS GARBAGE BESIDES HARKEN X ISADORABLE ISAMAZING

BUT DEMISE KAREL HAS WO DAO AND HAS DA BES GROWTH IN DA SERIES

BUT PEEPS HARKEN HAS DA BRAVE SWODO HAS 1-2 RAENG AND HAZ TEH RES ALSO HE SUPPORT MARCUS

MAI KAREL ALWAYS TEH CRITS AND AVOID EVERYTHING

fun

[Lord of Gabriel Knight]

I honestly would love to see it added to more Fire Emblem games. I don't understand why people get so twisted up. After, it gives some bit of replay value. Also, I'm tired o everyone saying the FE11's stuff was so bad. You're not supposed to get the Gaiden chapters. If you got Athena, Horace, or any other characters as such, it was probably because you aren't good at the game, or don't care.

[Nobody]

Nobody lets player characters die anyway. I'm sure that if they removed permadeath, nobody would actually notice unless it was specifically mentioned.

No I don't. Yes, I would

Edited July 24, 2013 by Nobody

[Snowy_One]

killing one unit to recruit one new unit=/=FE11 mass suicide to get a handful of new characters

besides, the flamewars between fans of the two characters would be a spectacle

I didn't say it was a mass suicide. I said newer/casual players would avoid such routes because of the character-loss while more experienced players wouldn't bat an eyelash. So the players the impact would affect won't likely see it, and the players that the impact likely is lacking against will.

I honestly would love to see it added to more Fire Emblem games. I don't understand why people get so twisted up. After, it gives some bit of replay value. Also, I'm tired o everyone saying the FE11's stuff was so bad. You're not supposed to get the Gaiden chapters. If you got Athena, Horace, or any other characters as such, it was probably because you aren't good at the game, or don't care.

There are tons of other ways to get replay value that don't involve killing characters off. Just a simple 'do you want to do this Gaiden chapter? Yes/No' would suffice in most cases. Not to mention supports and the like.

[Soledai]

The problem is 'casuals' are the main audience of the game. Also, what is good for casual players is USUALLY good for the more constant players as well. Regardless though, casual players won't like killing off one character to get another and probably won't do more than one or two more PT's after beating the game while 'hardcore' players won't care one bit and just go with the character/route that suits them best. It will annoy/irritate the players who do care and the players who don't are the only ones who will truly use it to gain advantages.

The casuals are the main audience... really?

So, If I assume the rest this statement correctly, the hardcore players just go for the char/route, while casuals bregrudgingly kill chars for the complete experience ...? How odd, 'hardcores' usually go for the completionist approach, in however that applies, in my case, I do it for the stories(or some other pending rewards).

But generally, where do I stand as a 'hardcore' who does not like to kill his chars off? And how does it irritate the players who do care and how do the players who don't gain advantages?

Honestly, I think the only reason it even existed in the first place was to try and keep players interested in a game with perma-death from a time when 'dying' merely meant losing a life/continuing or reloading a save.

Honestly, I know the reason why it existed is because the devs wanted the players to experience what it's like to lose a unit and not get them back, to build a strong unit, to bond with that character, and experience the pain of what it's like to lose someone you trusted/depened on.

Also, I'm tired o everyone saying the FE11's stuff was so bad. You're not supposed to get the Gaiden chapters. If you got Athena, Horace, or any other characters as such, it was probably because you aren't good at the game, or don't care.

So, not using the word 'bad' for this question, was it fine to you? Was the concept of self-induced slaughter for one or two characters not without it's flaws?

Alright, I'll be that guy and say, how about a story relevant character whose death doesn't warrant a restart, but affects the ending(s) you get?

And no, it's not like VIP lives: Good end, VIP dies: Bad end... nothing quite so trite

[Jotari]

I feel like plot branching is something they could really pull off well in Fire Emblem (if they hired decent writers that is). It could be interesting to see changes to the game's flow as a whole if an semi important (but not lord character) died in game play. They kind of had something like this at the end of Shadow Dragon with Tiki's death but the fact that it was based on a NES game and none of the characters could talk after their recruitment meant it wasn't actually used for much. Still though it expresses what I mean. If something happens to a crucial characters then the protagonist had to find an alternate way to do something or get somewhere (and bonus points if the possibility is addressed before hand so you know something could happen if you keep playing after the crucial character dies).

And I am also in the opinion that Shadow Dragons no army policy of side chapters was a terrible idea.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Jotari

[Soledai]

I feel like plot branching is something they could really pull off well in Fire Emblem (if they hired decent writers that is). It could be interesting to see changes to the game's flow as a whole if an semi important (but not lord character) died in game play. They kind of had something like this at the end of Shadow Dragon with Tiki's death but the fact that it was based on a NES game and none of the characters could talk after their recruitment meant it wasn't actually used for much. Still though it expresses what I mean. If something happens to a crucial characters then the protagonist had to find an alternate way to do something or get somewhere (and bonus points if the possibility is addressed before hand so you know something could happen if you keep playing after the crucial character dies).

And I am also in the opinion that Shadow Dragons no army policy of side chapters was a terrible idea.

You and me both, I enjoy branching plots very much, and I agree that competent writers are a must, and I like the attention to detail you pointed out about the alternate solutions to the situations they'd encounter

I'd just have the nitpick of having alternate endings, if the char in question had an influence on how the story unfolded

Edited July 24, 2013 by Soledai

[Shin]

If there were an acutal reason to kill characters off, like it giving a different route or offered a character worth using, sure. Most of the subs in FE4 are pretty bad compared to their originals and most gaiden characters in FE11 are pretty horrible. Eyrios was a good idea, although I kept on forgetting to kill Olwen.

[cyron]

I feel like plot branching is something they could really pull off well in Fire Emblem (if they hired decent writers that is). It could be interesting to see changes to the game's flow as a whole if an semi important (but not lord character) died in game play. They kind of had something like this at the end of Shadow Dragon with Tiki's death but the fact that it was based on a NES game and none of the characters could talk after their recruitment meant it wasn't actually used for much. Still though it expresses what I mean. If something happens to a crucial characters then the protagonist had to find an alternate way to do something or get somewhere (and bonus points if the possibility is addressed before hand so you know something could happen if you keep playing after the crucial character dies).

And I am also in the opinion that Shadow Dragons no army policy of side chapters was a terrible idea.

i think that would be a fun way of handling it,

[Snowy_One]

The casuals are the main audience... really?

So, If I assume the rest this statement correctly, the hardcore players just go for the char/route, while casuals bregrudgingly kill chars for the complete experience ...? How odd, 'hardcores' usually go for the completionist approach, in however that applies, in my case, I do it for the stories(or some other pending rewards).

But generally, where do I stand as a 'hardcore' who does not like to kill his chars off? And how does it irritate the players who do care and how do the players who don't gain advantages?

Honestly, I know the reason why it existed is because the devs wanted the players to experience what it's like to lose a unit and not get them back, to build a strong unit, to bond with that character, and experience the pain of what it's like to lose someone you trusted/depened on.

So, not using the word 'bad' for this question, was it fine to you? Was the concept of self-induced slaughter for one or two characters not without it's flaws?

Alright, I'll be that guy and say, how about a story relevant character whose death doesn't warrant a restart, but affects the ending(s) you get?

And no, it's not like VIP lives: Good end, VIP dies: Bad end... nothing quite so trite

Casual players usually try to beat the game once and then will probably attempt at least one additional PT to try and see any content they 'missed' if they are informed of it.

Also, remember that the original Fire Emblem came out on the NES at a time where 'death' in most games held no sever consequences (on the individual level at least) and its competition included games like the FF and DQ games which held no such thing. If the FE games hadn't allowed for replacement characters to at least try to negate the possibility of ending up in an unwinnable situation by design, it's likely the series would have died then due to outrage.

And the problem with something like that is that you can do it for one, MAYBE two, characters, but a whole cast beyond the epilogue? It's simply not possible. But here's the real kicker. Their death has to actually MEAN something to the player. Losing the best ending because someone suffered a random crit isn't enjoyable. It's frustrating. At the crux, that's really the whole problem with these suggestions. They were designed as anti-frustration features to prevent people from throwing the game away in an older time, nothing more.

[spoiler=Mass Effect Spoilers Ahead!]

You want to see content derived from character death done right? Look at Mass Effect and the choice on Virmire. It was made to affect the player as they are forced into a situation where the only way to survive was to sacrifice one. Maybe they shoe-horned it a bit, but the payoff is worth it from a narritive perspective. However, look at Jenkins as well. He dies on the first mission, before you can even FIGHT an enemy, in a cutscene. His death does affect the character, but the connection with the player is *much* weaker. In ME2 it's possible to lose your entire squad except Shep and, while it may be emotional for someone who cared about their characters or about the character who died, to a player who doesn't give a damn or if a character they hated dies they don't really give a damn. In ME3 it's entire possible to lose multiple characters as well if things aren't done exactly right, but the impact is often not felt in the slightest unless you REALLY cared for them. The only character whose death the pragmatic player *might* care about is the Virmire survivor from the first game and even then only because they were a teammate who could be deployed in battle, not because of any attachment to them. Technically so long as Tali and the VS survive, the player doesn't actually 'lose' any gameplay content, just story-content which they might not care about, which renders the choice meaningless for someone who doesn't care about story.

That's really the problem with 'content derived from character death'. It's rarely more than an anti-frustration feature, not something that should be actively explored, especially on a grand level because then each characters demise can't be given proper treatment. Instead, to a player who cares about story, it's just a ham-fisted method to make them kill characters they liked while to players who don't care, it's just a choice between character A and B. No rewards or emotional attachment.

I feel like plot branching is something they could really pull off well in Fire Emblem (if they hired decent writers that is). It could be interesting to see changes to the game's flow as a whole if an semi important (but not lord character) died in game play. They kind of had something like this at the end of Shadow Dragon with Tiki's death but the fact that it was based on a NES game and none of the characters could talk after their recruitment meant it wasn't actually used for much. Still though it expresses what I mean. If something happens to a crucial characters then the protagonist had to find an alternate way to do something or get somewhere (and bonus points if the possibility is addressed before hand so you know something could happen if you keep playing after the crucial character dies).

And I am also in the opinion that Shadow Dragons no army policy of side chapters was a terrible idea.

Plot-branching can be done, but it needs to be done *right*. Make sure the player is informed of their choices, at least somewhat, and the possible consequences (choosing ham or turkey for your sandwich at the beginning of your game leading to possible character life/death later on? Not a good choice). Also NG+ stuff can be employed like with FE10 (argue all you want about how well it was implemented). I'm not against branching plots in any way. I'm against plots branching because a character died to a random critical against mook 138.

[Rehab]

The point isn't that it would or should matter to everybody, or that it would drastically change the game. I would think twice about asking for it if it did! The point is that, as-is, if a character dies in FE, not only has a player lost an asset to their gameplay etc, the world the character is in doesn't really seem to care. That would make enough sense to leave alone in the context of the game if FE was a purely tactical simulation, but it's not, it's a role-playing game, one of whose selling points is that the units you control are all at least attempts at fully-realized individuals. In the context of FE, having a character under your control die, and then never hearing of it again until we might catch mention of them in a lifeless endgame stats/credits roll, is contradictory to that selling point at best, and is at worst eerily sociopathic.

Just because somebody "might not care" doesn't mean it's a bad thing to give greater fidelity to the characters that are supposed to be one the series' signature strengths.

And the character deaths in Mass Effect are what I'd call exemplars of the concept's potential, not throwaways. Just because somebody else thought nothing of

[spoiler=this is a spoiler][spoiler=no seriously people who haven't played the games, this = Spoiler w/a capital SP]shooting the esteemed Dr. Mordin Solus, or of Thane's willing sacrifice, or Wrex's righteously furious suicide-by-cop/Shepard,

and of the knowledge that the player had some hand in all of them (less so in Thane's case but etc), doesn't mean it was meaningless to include them, or that the feature couldn't make up for it by mattering to plenty of other people, and that's because they all changed the way we perceive that world and its characters. Some huge fans of the series out there probably don't care about the gameplay enough to have a strong opinion on how it changes across the series, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter if the gameplay is improved, and just because not everybody cares about the integrity of the story doesn't mean it wouldn't matter if the story changed to more significantly reflect what happens in gameplay.

And I wouldn't want to have a freak 1% crit ruin my game either, but that happens to still be something both the game and the player already have, in some respects, control over, and there are definitely plenty of ways things could be modified to prevent it: the game could do something like give that character crit immunity, or it could just give a very upfront warning to the player, in terms nobody could misinterpret, that, say, "a one percent chance of death is still an extant chance, and you can prevent that chance from coming to fruition by not putting a character in the situation to be at risk of a critical in the first place," thus leaving that decision (at least in enough respects to justifiably be able to say, "weeeeee warrrrned youuuuuuuuuu" ) up to the player.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Rehab