Content from playable character deaths.

[Jotari]

Ehhhh, that's not really the way to go, though; that's still a bit... simplistic, I guess?

What I mean is something where the ambiguity is in the less immediate aspects of the choice; like, "we're all OK now, but what repercussions might this have further down the line?" If it's something as simple and obvious as just "main character dies but everyone else lives" then that's not very interesting or thought-provoking, since the consequences are so immediate and... I guess, generic? Killing main characters off is far too often done for easy shock value, so if it were to be done, they'd need to do a damn good job with it.

Additionally, being burned for witchcraft in a world where the existence of a plethora of magical abilities is common knowledge and those abilities are in reasonably common use by people who are more often than not considered benevolent doesn't really make any sense.

I thought it was quite obvious that I was joking.

[Topaz Light]

I thought it was quite obvious that I was joking.

Wow.

I guess this proves yet again that I'm incapable of understanding dry humor on the internet.

I'm sorry about that.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Starlight36

[AnonymousSpeed]

I'd be fine with character death leading to additional/alternate content so long as for every single instance of it there was a legitimate, sensible plotline reason for it to be that way. None of this "if Bob dies you go down route B instead of route A because of reasons completely unrelated to Bob" crap. Instead, something like "if Alice dies, she's not there to tell you about a safer route/good out-of-the-way place to visit, so, lacking that knowledge, your party embarks down route B rather than route A", would actually be pretty neat. With proper plot relevance/explanation, it could encourage players to play the game as the creators intended, moving on from the deaths of characters instead of turning back time to save them. It could also pull double duty as the incentive to play Classic mode over Casual mode, since none of the casualty-based content would be attainable in Casual.

Additionally, I'm all for alternate endings and branching plotlines, but please, do something more interesting those Good/Bad- or Hero/Villain-type branches, where there's one choice that's clearly more desirable than the others. Make it an actual dilemma, with upsides and downsides to each possibility and no clear "golden ending".

This could actually be pretty cool, assuming that route b doesn't give you a new unit you can't get otherwise or a free weapon that you can't buy until chapter 38 or 10 free draco shields something.

Say, Jon (the only game grump who doesn't share their name with an FE character) dies before point X, but I can recruit a character I would have a bit to get in order to compensate for Jon's leaving game-dying, but without rewarding the player for letting Jon die in the long run.

[Rehab]

Having extra content derived from player character deaths of itself doesn't mean you can't also have extra content available to players who don't let anybody die. There's plenty of room to plumb replayability from the depths of systems that Fire Emblem already has in place.

I don't think I've seen anybody say that getting player characters killed should be unambiguously rewarded, and that's certainly not something I intend to say. I just think the idea that getting your characters killed shouldn't make any difference in how the story and game play out is moronic.

How competently IS actually can execute it is a different matter from whether it has potential to add to the games.

Kaiden vs. Ashley was hard enough and that was a cake-easy decision (Ashley is the best non-Shep fighter in the group while Kaiden offers nothing that can't be done by Tali or Liara, never mind Wrex or Garrius. If you're male there is a solid chance Ashley is your love-interest too and female Sheps simply are not THAT common. And to top it off, the bomb getting diffused simply would ruin the mission more so even from a plot standpoint saving Ashley makes more sense).

Maybe Kaiden's my electronics and/or decryption bot, maybe I already have a tank/weapon specialist (Shepard or Wrex), maybe I don't like relying on the AI's firearm skills and want ability bots to back me up instead and Kaidan better fits my needs there, maybe I like Kaidan as a character more, maybe I think a biotics guy seems more useful storyline-wise than a small-arms specialist, maybe I'm taking a gamble that Kaidan's option is actually better for the plot, maybe I don't care if femsheps are less common (this actually is the case for me, my main Shepard is a lady), or maybe I'm planning on having dudeshep hook up with him in the third game.

I've seen tons of people claim that the Virmire choice was so clear-cut that nobody could possibly pick the one they didn't choose, for both choices. It is actually kind of arguable.

I've been to bioware social

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe

(and I would of course argue that Ashley v. Kaidan being a hard choice is/was actually a dang good thing, because hard decisions along those lines can add some weight to the proceedings and pull us in if done well)

Edited August 9, 2013 by Rehab

[The Void]

This could actually be pretty cool, assuming that route b doesn't give you a new unit you can't get otherwise or a free weapon that you can't buy until chapter 38 or 10 free draco shields something.

Say, Jon (the only game grump who doesn't share their name with an FE character) dies before point X, but I can recruit a character I would have a bit to get in order to compensate for Jon's leaving game-dying, but without rewarding the player for letting Jon die in the long run.

And what's the problem with getting access to somebody, somewhere, or something if Jon dies?

Is Tactics Ogre bad for only letting you get to a stage and weapon if a certain character dies?

[AnonymousSpeed]

And what's the problem with getting access to somebody, somewhere, or something if Jon dies?

Is Tactics Ogre bad for only letting you get to a stage and weapon if a certain character dies?

No, just make it so there isn't something one can never compensate for as the result of 'Jon' dying.

[The Void]

How come?

[AnonymousSpeed]

Imagine if you can only get the wolf biel if Matthew dies. People who care about the characters will never see the wolf biel and people who don't are likely to kill Matthew the first chance they get.

[CT075]

Make the ending where everyone lives seem very suspicious which results in your avatar being burnt at the stake for witchcraft.

this guy knows what's up

[Lord of Gabriel Knight]

Imagine if you can only get the wolf biel if Matthew dies. People who care about the characters will never see the wolf biel and people who don't are likely to kill Matthew the first chance they get.

But how does this directly affect you? It seems like you're only concerned about how others will play the game.

Edited August 10, 2013 by GabrielKnight

[AnonymousSpeed]

But how does this directly affect you? It seems like you're only concerned about how others will play the game.

It's a game. If only one person is going to buy it it's highly unlikely that the game will be made!

[Jotari]

As it is you have to choose between Tiki or Nagi in Shadow Dragon but people aren't upset about that (though it's great we can just cheat the system and use the Aum staff to bring our favorite manakete princess back to life. I probably wouldn't do it so often if that weren't the case).

[AnonymousSpeed]

I actually do complain about that!

[Rehab]

It's a game. If only one person is going to buy it it's highly unlikely that the game will be made!

The point is, why would it be a problem if people choose to game the system that way? Matthew sounds like a relatively fair trade for a/the Wolf Beil (not getting into efficiency arguments here, just weighing "good weapon versus useful thief"), and vice versa.

Easy example I just thought up: Maybe having Matthew die before a certain point in the story could even further emotionally harden Hector. Maybe this could result in him being more tense and/or focused in dialogue, and have him impress upon somebody enough for them to gift him the WB out of respect or sympathy or fear, while if Matthew was alive the same character would write Hector off as a lout and not bother.

It wouldn't strictly be a reward, it'd be a tradeoff. I'd get a better Hector in combat, sure, but in exchange I let one of Hector's best friends and a loyal servant of Ostia die. The obvious loss is that I don't have Matthew to use any more, and it's implicit that I may have allowed Hector to suffer a loss that could leave him forever changed. Stimulus in gameplay produces response in both gameplay and story, etc.

[The Void]

Alright, so here's a list:

1. Stat changes for one character if another dies.

2. Different stages and/or routes.

3. Different characters, be it by going through a different route and recruiting that character, or something else.

4. Different weapons and items.

5. Maybe have the option to sacrifice characters. Which might change the way the story goes, along with other things.

Anything more?

Edited August 10, 2013 by The Void

[Jotari]

Change to general dialogue outside the importance of the story as well as supports and endings would be nice too.

[Soledai]

I'd be fine with character death leading to additional/alternate content so long as for every single instance of it there was a legitimate, sensible plotline reason for it to be that way. None of this "if Bob dies you go down route B instead of route A because of reasons completely unrelated to Bob" crap. Instead, something like "if Alice dies, she's not there to tell you about a safer route/good out-of-the-way place to visit, so, lacking that knowledge, your party embarks down route B rather than route A", would actually be pretty neat. With proper plot relevance/explanation, it could encourage players to play the game as the creators intended, moving on from the deaths of characters instead of turning back time to save them. It could also pull double duty as the incentive to play Classic mode over Casual mode, since none of the casualty-based content would be attainable in Casual.

Additionally, I'm all for alternate endings and branching plotlines, but please, do something more interesting those Good/Bad- or Hero/Villain-type branches, where there's one choice that's clearly more desirable than the others. Make it an actual dilemma, with upsides and downsides to each possibility and no clear "golden ending".

This, is actually what I meant the entire time or rather, how I meant it, though I suppose I'm partly to blame for my lack of proper wording, but this is practically what I meant, and I completely agree and also don't want the 'golden ending' effect, I'd want endings that are based on the decisions you made and the actions you took...(This sounds like SMT, but Tactics Ogre is what I'm referencing, honest)

This could actually be pretty cool, assuming that route b doesn't give you a new unit you can't get otherwise or a free weapon that you can't buy until chapter 38 or 10 free draco shields something.

Say, Jon (the only game grump who doesn't share their name with an FE character) dies before point X, but I can recruit a character I would have a bit to get in order to compensate for Jon's leaving game-dying, but without rewarding the player for letting Jon die in the long run.

Almost... you almost grasped it, but you know, in a scenario like the provided, you should at least expect some route exclusive equipment/chars, I know that would raise more disputes, maybe... but the equipment isn't necessarily, A=bad stuff/chars and B=good/better stuff, you know?

Is Tactics Ogre bad for only letting you get to a stage and weapon if a certain character dies?

No, there is a point in the game that, depending on what you do, or 'say' in this instance effects the rest of the game, I'll answer this question(assuming you don't already know) with that moment

Spoilers ahead, for those playing or planning to play it, and for reference, this is actually the scene which made me think of the whole, character death affecting ending/route thing

At the end of Chapter 3, you have to convince your sister into basically to rejoining the party, and if you fail, and you can fail quite easily cause this part is rather tricky, she'll kill herself, how is this important, it turns out she's the princess of the kingdom you've been fighting(she wasn't named heir due to her existance being a secret, and ironically your uncle is the current sovereign), and she thinks that now that you know what she is, you'll use her just for her crown, and abandon her... again, since you kind of chose to fight instead of staying with her, the person who told her she was the princess flat out admitted he was only interested in using her for his own means, at the time she didn't care, but when push came to shove, he abandoned her too, and she felt betrayed... anyway, if you fail she'll kill herself, and it will change the ending you get, you become the king and,well... that ending, and for note, the endings are a night and day difference

Edited August 10, 2013 by Soledai

[AnonymousSpeed]

This, is actually what I meant the entire time or rather, how I meant it, though I suppose I'm partly to blame for my lack of proper wording, but this is practically what I meant, and I completely agree and also don't want the 'golden ending' effect, I'd want endings that are based on the decisions you made and the actions you took...(This sounds like SMT, but Tactics Ogre is what I'm referencing, honest)

Almost... you almost grasped it, but you know, in a scenario like the provided, you should at least expect some route exclusive equipment/chars, I know that would raise more disputes, maybe... but the equipment isn't necessarily, A=bad stuff/chars and B=good/better stuff, you know?

No, there is a point in the game that, depending on what you do, or 'say' in this instance effects the rest of the game, I'll answer this question(assuming you don't already know) with that moment

Spoilers ahead, for those playing or planning to play it, and for reference, this is actually the scene which made me think of the whole, character death affecting ending/route thing

At the end of Chapter 3, you have to convince your sister into basically to rejoining the party, and if you fail, and you can fail quite easily cause this part is rather tricky, she'll kill herself, how is this important, it turns out she's the princess of the kingdom you've been fighting(she wasn't named heir due to her existance being a secret, and ironically your uncle is the current sovereign), and she thinks that now that you know what she is, you'll use her just for her crown, and abandon her... again, since you kind of chose to fight instead of staying with her, the person who told her she was the princess flat out admitted he was only interested in using her for his own means, at the time she didn't care, but when push came to shove, he abandoned her too, and she felt betrayed... anyway, if you fail she'll kill herself, and it will change the ending you get, you become the king and,well... that ending, and for note, the endings are a night and day difference

That actually sounds like a really interesting choice. I just don't like the idea of route exclusive characters that can only be accessed by killing a character, but otherwise you guys are coming up with pretty good stuff most of the time.

[Tamanoir]

I think that more game should take inspiration from Tactics Ogre.

If you haven't already you should try playing this game (either original or PSP version), and then you can play Knight of Lodis in GBA. It's a little inferior to the original, but still pretty fun (besides, there is a spoilerish reason for those who played LUCT).

Edited August 10, 2013 by TendaSlimeKnight Ikkar

[Snowy_One]

The point is, why would it be a problem if people choose to game the system that way? Matthew sounds like a relatively fair trade for a/the Wolf Beil (not getting into efficiency arguments here, just weighing "good weapon versus useful thief"), and vice versa.

Easy example I just thought up: Maybe having Matthew die before a certain point in the story could even further emotionally harden Hector. Maybe this could result in him being more tense and/or focused in dialogue, and have him impress upon somebody enough for them to gift him the WB out of respect or sympathy or fear, while if Matthew was alive the same character would write Hector off as a lout and not bother.

It wouldn't strictly be a reward, it'd be a tradeoff. I'd get a better Hector in combat, sure, but in exchange I let one of Hector's best friends and a loyal servant of Ostia die. The obvious loss is that I don't have Matthew to use any more, and it's implicit that I may have allowed Hector to suffer a loss that could leave him forever changed. Stimulus in gameplay produces response in both gameplay and story, etc.

I have no problem with dialogue changes, but statistical shifts and rewards should be avoided ENTIRELY or else it will become 'kill off everyone you aren't using for the boosts' or 'let absolutely no one die'. The moment you attach stats to it you make it an impersonal matter of weighing benefits, which is NOT how the game should be played at all.

[Jotari]

I have no problem with dialogue changes, but statistical shifts and rewards should be avoided ENTIRELY or else it will become 'kill off everyone you aren't using for the boosts' or 'let absolutely no one die'. The moment you attach stats to it you make it an impersonal matter of weighing benefits, which is NOT how the game should be played at all.

I agree. The cases should be unique and story based.

[Rehab]

A character could also get a certain skill if somebody they were close to or supported died. I threw out a couple potential skills dancing around that idea back in some old thread where people made up their own skills, or something.

I have no problem with dialogue changes, but statistical shifts and rewards should be avoided ENTIRELY or else it will become 'kill off everyone you aren't using for the boosts' or 'let absolutely no one die'. The moment you attach stats to it you make it an impersonal matter of weighing benefits, which is NOT how the game should be played at all.

I'm not sure if I've just been failing to communicate it or what, but all this time I've been trying to say:

Having a statistical difference for a death doesn't mean that there can't ALSO be a statistical benefit for keeping them alive. Hopefully where the exchange is just balanced enough that the player isn't simply going to reset when a character dies.

(As we've gone over, if the game doesn't even recognize a unit died beyond a death rattle and taking away the ability to use that unit, the player is that much more likely to be of the opinion that they simply made a mistake and reset, thus opting not to see what happens. That doesn't mean losing a unit should be completely embraced, like I'm not trying to argue the games should in effect be saying, "Oh look, everyone died. Good job, ya dummy! Here, have something that makes your retarded strategy work even better." I'm trying to say that, in the optimal situation, gameplay and story should work together etc., and the least the series could do is plainly recognize that having somebody die tends to affect the people around them, and the death of even "non-essential personnel" can change the course of history.)

Say, in the above scenario, if Matthew's alive by a certain point, there could be an extra chapter, or interaction in a chapter, or an option to lose access to Matthew for a chapter to "send him an a mission" or an extra conversation or whatever

where the player gets something hopefully close enough to a reward to be balanced with getting in this case a wolf beil, or whatever other stat reward was imagined. That frankly also strikes me as more believable than "and then Matthew was never spoken of again" either way, though of course it'd vary depending on the exact character.

Players also aren't even guaranteed to take the statistically superior option if the game recognizes that taking the "less rewarding" option is an act of goodness or something. Power gamers might, but I don't really see a reason to discourage them, as long as the options that aren't strict min-maxing tactics are given meaning, and help to give the rest of the game some context/characterization.

Easy examples from the Knights of the Old Republic: there's a one-off interaction with a single mother who begs the PC to buy a hunting trophy that her husband basically died to get, and which is actually worth a sizable amount, but which she isn't technically authorized to sell to the person who's authorized to buy such stuff. She has nothing left, trying to get herself and her kid a ride offworld, et cetera.

Theoretically, since there's little to stop me aside from the game slapping me with some dark side points, if I took the right force power my character could just coerce her into giving it to me and laugh all the way to the bank, which is most likely the statistically superior option (unless I'm full lightside and absolutely drowning in cash or whatever). I still don't do that every time I play the game by any means, because then the game makes a point of saying "wow you're an asshole," and it impresses on me that my character might've just made somebody's life a lot harder. Characterization! World-building! Role-playing! Shazam

There's also, of course, an option to give her a good bit more cash than her asking price for the trophy. Not a lot of people are going to argue that's the option to take when power-gaming, because you don't get a whole lot in return except for the warm fuzzies, but I've still taken that option a good amount of times, because I often imagine that the character I'm playing is the sort of person who'd do that kind of thing. (And sometimes for the lightside points, but I wouldn't say those are so hard to get that I need to have a powergaming mindset to catch every LS interaction needed to get full-LS bonuses)

Somewhat similarly, as evidenced in some of the responses to this thread, there are a lot of Fire Emblem players who simply don't want their characters to die because.. they don't want to let somebody die. I'm not saying those people should go chuff off, I'm one of those players for the most part in practice. I'd like to see their efforts vindicated, in fact.

I'm repeating myself many times over, but seriously, the series doesn't recognize character death enough. If somebody dies, for the most part there's no clear effect on gameplay, just maybe some slightly altered dialogue somewhere and a "Died at ___" blip at the end of the game in the character epilogue roll. Often, the death epilogue is nonexistent, just "dead." Sometimes an option to recruit somebody has been cut off, but even when somebody can only be recruited by one character, the games usually tend to just let you figure it out on your own (assuming you don't, bleh, go online for the answer), as opposed to impressing that you've just missed an important opportunity.

And, partly because because character death isn't recognized well enough, getting anybody/everybody to live isn't recognized well enough, either. How many times has the series straight-up/unambiguously rewarded the player for keeping every single character alive? The series does occasionally reward keeping specific character alive, in narrative, gameplay and evaluation (the rankings in the few games they were in, character recruitment obviously, getting people paired and keeping the moms-to-be alive in fe4 and 13 so you can get their kids, character-specific conversations in fe9 and fe10 that may yield items, and so on), but I can't actually remember many times where the course of the gameplay really obviously changed and the player was given recognition when nobody died under their control, even so much as getting a gold star or something.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Rehab

[AnonymousSpeed]

...that's good. I like.

I'd especially like an incentive to keep everyone alive, whether or not I use them.

[Anouleth]

Content rewards for characters dying would be the sort of thing that it's impossible for the player to know about without stumbling onto it by accident. Like, even if you actually knew that one of the characters dying would lead to new content, how would you know which one it was, aside from going through the game multiple times with different characters dead each time? Or, if the content had other requirements, you might need to do even more. It's easy to assume that because we all cheat and look things up on Serenes, these kinds of things are obvious, but they're not.

I'm repeating myself many times over, but seriously, the series doesn't recognize character death enough. If somebody dies, for the most part there's no clear effect on gameplay, just maybe some slightly altered dialogue somewhere and a "Died at ___" blip at the end of the game in the character epilogue roll. Often, the death epilogue is nonexistent, just "dead." Sometimes an option to recruit somebody has been cut off, but even when somebody can only be recruited by one character, the games usually tend to just let you figure it out on your own (assuming you don't, bleh, go online for the answer), as opposed to impressing that you've just missed an important opportunity.

And yet, players avoid it. You don't need to give them an electric shock or something, people are intelligent enough to understand that units permanently dying = bad, without having the game put on a little song and dance about it.

And, partly because because character death isn't recognized well enough, getting anybody/everybody to live isn't recognized well enough, either. How many times has the series straight-up/unambiguously rewarded the player for keeping every single character alive? The series does occasionally reward keeping specific character alive, in narrative, gameplay and evaluation (the rankings in the few games they were in, character recruitment obviously, getting people paired and keeping the moms-to-be alive in fe4 and 13 so you can get their kids, character-specific conversations in fe9 and fe10 that may yield items, and so on), but I can't actually remember many times where the course of the gameplay really obviously changed and the player was given recognition when nobody died under their control, even so much as getting a gold star or something.

Since players go out of their way to keep everyone alive even without being given a doggie snack at the end of it, I don't think a reward is necessary. I'd rather not have Fire Emblem turn into one of those patronising Xbox games where you get "achievements" for everything, because they think you're too stupid to figure out how to have fun with your own game.

The "solution" to making permadeath more significant has been around for a long time. Just stop letting the player reload old saves and savescum. That would be really interesting. We don't need content or achievements or whatever to make permadeath significant, we just need units to actually stay dead rather than just a reset away. And then let me sell my soul to the devil to revive characters. Or sacrifice characters in order to get dark evil powers. Or both. I think I'd like Sumia better if she was an undead abomination. Wouldn't you?

[AnonymousSpeed]

Content rewards for characters dying would be the sort of thing that it's impossible for the player to know about without stumbling onto it by accident. Like, even if you actually knew that one of the characters dying would lead to new content, how would you know which one it was, aside from going through the game multiple times with different characters dead each time? Or, if the content had other requirements, you might need to do even more. It's easy to assume that because we all cheat and look things up on Serenes, these kinds of things are obvious, but they're not.And yet, players avoid it. You don't need to give them an electric shock or something, people are intelligent enough to understand that units permanently dying = bad, without having the game put on a little song and dance about it.Since players go out of their way to keep everyone alive even without being given a doggie snack at the end of it, I don't think a reward is necessary. I'd rather not have Fire Emblem turn into one of those patronising Xbox games where you get "achievements" for everything, because they think you're too stupid to figure out how to have fun with your own game.The "solution" to making permadeath more significant has been around for a long time. Just stop letting the player reload old saves and savescum. That would be really interesting. We don't need content or achievements or whatever to make permadeath significant, we just need units to actually stay dead rather than just a reset away. And then let me sell my soul to the devil to revive characters. Or sacrifice characters in order to get dark evil powers. Or both. I think I'd like Sumia better if she was an undead abomination. Wouldn't you?

No. I wouldn't. I'd like her better if he could marry Gregor. As far as achievements go, that's the support logs and such. They are recordins of things you obtained, as are things like the MVP lists in Tellius (no joke one of my favorite features). Also, the example provided is 'Mathew dies and wolf biel vs. Mathew lives and item comparable to wolf biel,' which I think is a cool idea. I'd also like to see characters respond more to character deaths (see Makalov Astrid support). I just don't want to see characters needing to die in order to recruit other characters more than anything.