Content from playable character deaths.

[Jotari]

Were there also rivalries (or enemies to be specific) between those special characters? Like, if you had recruited one, say Bill, you couldn't recruit the other, Bob, because Bob hated Bill? I want to see group-dynamics in Fire Emblem too, instead of the entire army getting along all the time. Thinking back PoR did a pretty good job with this, as did the conflict between Lucina and MU. But I'd like to see it done better and on a somewhat larger scale.

Fire Emblem did that way back in the first game.

[Phoenix Wright]

with alan and samson? lol that was at most a 30-second experience, wasn't it? plus neither of them mattered to the story. i'm asking for something that would actually serve as part of the plot.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Soledai]

The Ogre games use more generic characters, so the loss can be lessened by recruiting new generics. Though Ogre Battle 64 handled recruiting special characters extremely well; depending on what route you took, certain characters outright refused to join and had often had to be fought.

That's what I want to see in Fire Emblem. You can't recruit everyone, and some of those you would have to fight if they weren't recruited.

I didn't think about that part, that would be pretty cool, but if FE did that, I could probably detect an alignment factor being involved to some extent or other.

I was playing Ogre Battle 64 and stopped for some reason I can't remember, and even though I kind of brought it up, I really wanna replay TO and/or resume OB64 after reading this page of the topic

Edited August 15, 2013 by Soledai

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

with alan and samson? lol that was at most a 30-second experience, wasn't it? plus neither of them mattered to the story. i'm asking for something that would actually serve as part of the plot.

There are two things that is notable here too:

1. Alan and Samson does not have a rivalry. The village did >_>

2. Alan is likely canon anyway. Wait no, Alan is canon

Which brings up a new point, what if we get an FE3 esque game with this kind of decision?

Edited August 15, 2013 by Salesmaster MU

[Jotari]

with alan and samson? lol that was at most a 30-second experience, wasn't it? plus neither of them mattered to the story. i'm asking for something that would actually serve as part of the plot.

Yep! The glorious depth of plot that is NES games.

[Anouleth]

Guess why so few games have such modes? Because they aren't well-received usually and aren't terribly appealing.

Diablo II, not well received? Are you fucking with me?

Not to mention both those games don't focus on character development.

Fire Emblem didn't use to focus on character development either, back during the glory days of FE3-6. I would gladly like to see a return to such a time.

And who are you to claim the 'temptation is too great'? A mind-reader who knows exactly what each player desires to do when a character dies?

You don't have to be a mind-reader. Anyone who has ever played Fire Emblem understands instinctively how horrible it feels to lose a unit and suffer that kind of major, permanent setback.

Someone who can tell the difference between resetting because they loved the character and resetting because that character was a statistical brute who got 1/1ed?

Doesn't matter. People reset, they do it a lot.

Also, you're an idiot in regards to resetting. If a player resets a chapter it's because they value the character more than the chapter frustration, WHICH IS A GOOD THING FOR THE GAME! Maybe it doesn't make it 'harder' but good characters make people want to play the game more. I'd be more scared for the game if the characters were so bland or unlikable that people didn't reset the game upon the death ever.

Sure. It's perfectly natural behavior for people to reset the game when a unit dies. But that doesn't mean the behavior is healthy, or fun, or interesting enough to preserve. Why, specifically, do we want people to reset the game when their units die? To prove how much they care about a particular unit? Why do we want to force the player into an unpleasant decision?

Ironically, I find that I care about my units more when I know I can't reset. I was far more protective my soulless generics in XCOM and my adorable Nuzlocke run Jellicent far more than say, Jill, who I was happy to throw into the middle of huge hordes of enemies, in the knowledge that well, if she dies, I can just reset. Whereas I would never take such a risk in XCOM. I remember the last level of XCOM was particularly epic, because by the end, I was struggling through with just two wounded soldiers left of my initial six.

As for why it would be productive, it's a mode that could be legit-challenging by forcing players to use a variety of units in non-optimal set-ups.

Except, that a player could get the exact same experience by simply choosing to use a variety of units in non-optimal set-ups. The exact same argument applies to both my "Nuzlocke" mode and this hypothetical game mode of yours, that they don't impose any restrictions on the player that they can't impose upon themselves.

Compare that to 'unable to reset' and it's clear when is more productive for the game by being actually unique as opposed to merely killing a potential urge.

Yes, it is clear.

with alan and samson? lol that was at most a 30-second experience, wasn't it? plus neither of them mattered to the story. i'm asking for something that would actually serve as part of the plot.

Sorry that Alan and Samson didn't get a thirty page monologue each where we could Explore their Feelings and we could get some Character Development, like you would have preferred. Edited August 15, 2013 by Anouleth

[Phoenix Wright]

thanks for the concern!

I would gladly like to see a return to such a time.

from what i can gather, you are in the minority here. games are evolving, man. change is occurring.

[Anouleth]

thanks for the concern!

from what i can gather, you are in the minority here. games are evolving, man. change is occurring.

Evolving? Sounds to me like games are devolving. Modern games are trying more and more to be movies. Fire Emblem Awakening is trying to be an anime. Change is occurring, alright, but it's in the wrong direction.

[1% critted]

To an extent. For example, about halfway through the game

you have the option of recruiting up to one of two characters; Ankiseth or Biske. Prior to the game, Ankiseth was responsible for imprisoning Biske. So you make a choice, if you recruit Ankiseth, you may have to fight and kill Biske. Conversely, you can turn down Ankiseth (or he refuses to join), which allows you to recruit Biske. However, Ankiseth becomes MIA or killed later in the story.

I recruited Ankiseth for a simple reason on my run of the game.

He is Magnus' dad ^_^. Why not have your father in your main party?

[Constable Reggie]

Evolving? Sounds to me like games are devolving. Modern games are trying more and more to be movies. Fire Emblem Awakening is trying to be an anime. Change is occurring, alright, but it's in the wrong direction.

Character development is not exclusive to animes or movies. (lulz im title dropping again because fuck y'all) Spec Ops the Line is arguably the most evolved video game so far, and that game is primarily character development (albeit with unique twists to it)

Edited August 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Swordsalmon]

I didn't think about that part, that would be pretty cool, but if FE did that, I could probably detect an alignment factor being involved to some extent or other.

I was playing Ogre Battle 64 and stopped for some reason I can't remember, and even though I kind of brought it up, I really wanna replay TO and/or resume OB64 after reading this page of the topic

I would be fine with that. A Fire Emblem game really needs branching storylines or alignment to make it more interesting.

Ogre Battle 64 is incredible. You gotta resume it!

[Phoenix Wright]

Evolving? Sounds to me like games are devolving. Modern games are trying more and more to be movies. Fire Emblem Awakening is trying to be an anime. Change is occurring, alright, but it's in the wrong direction.

Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted 3, and The Last of Us are some of the best games I have ever played, hands down. Solid gameplay, all three (MGS4 is my favorite in terms of both gameplay and story).

I don't see why it's a problem to be immersed in a game's story. The notion that a game shouldn't have character development and an accompanying deep story is absolutely mind-boggling.

[Snowy_One]

So you criticize Anouleth for claiming to know why people restart, then instantly blurt out that you think you know why people restart. How do you know people are restarting due to character connection, rather than not wanting to lose their stats? Considering the insanely high bar Fe7-9 set for characterization (of which none of the subsequent fe games even grasp to reach), I'm more than willing to bet a significant percentage of people nowadays restart for ulterior motives.

Want proof? Imagine your most unlikable character in any Fe game ever, someone you absolutely loathe, and that you're training him/her; now imagine him/her dying due to a mistake in combat. Did you restart? This is a question to everyone, and be honest.

I don't know that players are resetting for any one particular reason, but I know better than to assume all players will reset and that those who do did so for one reason in particular. Heck, I'm sure there are people who reset because they missed treasure chests and wanted to get them all. Assuming players reset just because they can't bear to loose one unit or just because of personal attachment = stupidity. Players are a diverse group, and they will reset for a diverse amount of reasons.

Diablo II, not well received? Are you fucking with me?

Unless I missed something, the player character in Diablo II was little more than a paper doll onto which equipment was stuck with almost no defining personality or traits.

Fire Emblem didn't use to focus on character development either, back during the glory days of FE3-6. I would gladly like to see a return to such a time.

You can. Just stop playing FE7+, and never talk about them again, and it will be to you like the series had just stopped there.

You don't have to be a mind-reader. Anyone who has ever played Fire Emblem understands instinctively how horrible it feels to lose a unit and suffer that kind of major, permanent setback.

And you think every player's instinctive reaction will be to reset as a result? Either A) You're wrong and not every player will reset or B) This is a sign people don't exactly like the notion of perma-death. At that point, why do you think including a mode that forces it will be well-received by the public?

Sure. It's perfectly natural behavior for people to reset the game when a unit dies. But that doesn't mean the behavior is healthy, or fun, or interesting enough to preserve. Why, specifically, do we want people to reset the game when their units die? To prove how much they care about a particular unit? Why do we want to force the player into an unpleasant decision?

Ironically, I find that I care about my units more when I know I can't reset. I was far more protective my soulless generics in XCOM and my adorable Nuzlocke run Jellicent far more than say, Jill, who I was happy to throw into the middle of huge hordes of enemies, in the knowledge that well, if she dies, I can just reset. Whereas I would never take such a risk in XCOM. I remember the last level of XCOM was particularly epic, because by the end, I was struggling through with just two wounded soldiers left of my initial six.

That's nice. I think you need to remember one of the key elements of tiering right now. PEMN. Just because you found yourself well attached doesn't mean everyone will (I'd personally hate such a thing due to 1/1 type crap) or that it should be a mode just because you found it interesting. Especially since you just stated that you would wish the series returned to it's older days instead of moving forwards.

Except, that a player could get the exact same experience by simply choosing to use a variety of units in non-optimal set-ups. The exact same argument applies to both my "Nuzlocke" mode and this hypothetical game mode of yours, that they don't impose any restrictions on the player that they can't impose upon themselves.

Sure, but there is a big difference between 'forcing a series of characters who are likely not optimal' and 'simply not resetting any time the game decides to bend you over'.

I think it's pretty clear you are out of touch with the series as a whole past the older FE games and are one of the old-school elitists simply trying to force his way about because 'that was what the good old days were like'. The most content we should see from a player death is acknowledgement in conversations, not unlockable maps/characters/content or some mode that robs you of your ability to reset 'just because' especially considering how dickish such a mode would have to be to the player to ensure such a ruling.

[Anouleth]

Unless I missed something, the player character in Diablo II was little more than a paper doll onto which equipment was stuck with almost no defining personality or traits.

If you don't think that Diablo II is one of the greatest RPGs ever created, I have nothing to say to you since you are so completely disconnected from what people actually want from video games.

You can. Just stop playing FE7+, and never talk about them again, and it will be to you like the series had just stopped there.

FE7 onwards are still good games, though, but they could be better.

And you think every player's instinctive reaction will be to reset as a result? Either A) You're wrong and not every player will reset or B) This is a sign people don't exactly like the notion of perma-death. At that point, why do you think including a mode that forces it will be well-received by the public?

I don't expect most, or a significant number at all, to play Hardcore mode. Hardcore mode is not for everyone. I never played Hardcore Mode in Diablo II. The game is too hard for me to try that. But I did play Ironman Mode in XCOM: Enemy Unknown, because I was reasonably sure I could still beat the game that way (although it was close in the end!), and I'm sure I had more fun because of it.

That's nice. I think you need to remember one of the key elements of tiering right now. PEMN. Just because you found yourself well attached doesn't mean everyone will (I'd personally hate such a thing due to 1/1 type crap) or that it should be a mode just because you found it interesting. Especially since you just stated that you would wish the series returned to it's older days instead of moving forwards.

I was talking in terms of plot and character development. There are many things that have been added to the series since then that should be kept, and entirely new things that should be introduced.

Sure, but there is a big difference between 'forcing a series of characters who are likely not optimal' and 'simply not resetting any time the game decides to bend you over'.

Yes, it's far more tempting to reset than it is to deploy Seth. There are more players who refuse to let the units they're using die than there are players who refuse to use units they think are strong, even though the costs of resetting (time) are higher than the costs of using Seth (nothing).

I think it's pretty clear you are out of touch with the series as a whole past the older FE games and are one of the old-school elitists simply trying to force his way about because 'that was what the good old days were like'.

But, like I said, that wasn't what the good old days were like. The "good old days" didn't have real permadeath, any more than the games now do.

The most content we should see from a player death is acknowledgement in conversations, not unlockable maps/characters/content or some mode that robs you of your ability to reset 'just because' especially considering how dickish such a mode would have to be to the player to ensure such a ruling.

"Dickish" is certainly a good word for it. However, I don't see how such a mode is really qualitatively different from something like Lunatic+ or Lunatic Reverse or Merciless or Maniac Mode, modes that are meant to be unfair and punishing and aggressively difficult. And to be honest, even a no-reset mode would in my opinion be kinder than something like Lunatic+, which is somewhat luck based. If IS are looking for a way to add modes or difficulty levels that offer an extreme challenge, I would much rather they followed my suggestion than have another Lunatic+ mode.

[Jotari]

As long as any sort of mode is optional and the old modes are still present, there really shouldn't be an issue. If you don't like the idea of a no reset mode then just play on classic or newcomer mode instead. There's no need complaining about it. Sure you might not like it but others could and as long as it's optional it's not taking anything away from your experience.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Jotari

[Constable Reggie]

I don't know that players are resetting for any one particular reason, but I know better than to assume all players will reset and that those who do did so for one reason in particular. Heck, I'm sure there are people who reset because they missed treasure chests and wanted to get them all. Assuming players reset just because they can't bear to loose one unit or just because of personal attachment = stupidity. Players are a diverse group, and they will reset for a diverse amount of reasons.

Talk about a hypocritical strawman. One, I didn't assume that all players reset for one reason only, I said that a percentage of players most likely reset for reasons other than character connections (loss of a strong unit, chests, village, whatever). Two, you were the one claiming that all people reset because of character connection trumping repetition.

"If a player resets a chapter it's because they value the character more than the chapter frustration, WHICH IS A GOOD THING FOR THE GAME!"

Also, you didn't answer my question.

PEMN. Just because you found yourself well attached doesn't mean everyone will (I'd personally hate such a thing due to 1/1 type crap) or that it should be a mode just because you found it interesting. Especially since you just stated that you would wish the series returned to it's older days instead of moving forwards.

Wat. PEMN is for shooting down "Nino is awesome because she had awesome stats in my game!" arguments. Since when can we not use our own experiences as reasoning for arguments like this

The most content we should see from a player death is acknowledgement in conversations, not unlockable maps/characters/content or some mode that robs you of your ability to reset 'just because' especially considering how dickish such a mode would have to be to the player to ensure such a ruling.

That's nice of you to refute, or hell, explain why doing such a thing would be a horrible idea. How is it dickish? Because you now have serious repercussions for your actions and mistakes? Because the game now gives you accountability for your beloved charaters? Have we as society become so babied that we consider something like that dickish, and MUST be allowed to keep Mia alive 24/7 because I wub Mia?

[Snowy_One]

If you don't think that Diablo II is one of the greatest RPGs ever created, I have nothing to say to you since you are so completely disconnected from what people actually want from video games.

Final Fantasy (1) is also one of the greatest RPG's ever made (certainly one of the most important). It's characters never utter a word and are complete blank slates in every possible meaning of the word. Great RPG =/= A character who isn't a blank slate.

FE7 onwards are still good games, though, but they could be better.

Sure. I just don't think that cracking down on resetters and putting in additional rewards/punishments for killing off characters is the way they should improve.

I don't expect most, or a significant number at all, to play Hardcore mode. Hardcore mode is not for everyone. I never played Hardcore Mode in Diablo II. The game is too hard for me to try that. But I did play Ironman Mode in XCOM: Enemy Unknown, because I was reasonably sure I could still beat the game that way (although it was close in the end!), and I'm sure I had more fun because of it.

Every mode, no matter how minor, needs proper programming, testing, and balance and should only be included if it will draw players to the game. That's why you don't see things like a time mode in Pokemon. I'm sure some players would love it, but it simply isn't worth the time or effort to appeal to such a small fraction of fans.

"Dickish" is certainly a good word for it. However, I don't see how such a mode is really qualitatively different from something like Lunatic+ or Lunatic Reverse or Merciless or Maniac Mode, modes that are meant to be unfair and punishing and aggressively difficult.

Because 'no resets' also means punishing players for things they can do that might be interpreted as resets when they are not. Accidentally ejecting the cart on a DS game, for example, to avoid an upcoming death before it gets saved. Nothing can save a console from a plug-pull either. Pretty much the only way I can see this being avoided is if the game auto-saves before every move (which would be a huge slowdown) and erased any file upon loading. Even that isn't perfect (since lots of auto-saving will slow the turns down to a crawl) and even then I'm sure it's a matter of time until someone finds a way around it.

Face it, the only way a 'no reset' mode could really work is to out and out put the player in a position in which multiple things could screw them over without them resetting. I'm sure most wouldn't, but some would and that fraction who does would instantly ruin such a mode.

Two, you were the one claiming that all people reset because of character connection trumping repetition.

Well DUH! If they're not connected to the character, there is no reason to reset. There are different kinds though. Some like the character, some like the stats, some like the notion of perfect, but they wouldn't reset if it didn't hold some meaning to them.

Wat. PEMN is for shooting down "Nino is awesome because she had awesome stats in my game!" arguments. Since when can we not use our own experiences as reasoning for arguments like this

Because otherwise arguments like this appear. 'Guys, I really like female characters in a game, so the next FE game should have NOTHING but female characters!' Or, more relevantly, 'I like perma-death, so we should have a game mode where it is outright enforced, BECAUSE I LOVE IT AND HATE RESETTERS!'

That's nice of you to refute, or hell, explain why doing such a thing would be a horrible idea. How is it dickish? Because you now have serious repercussions for your actions and mistakes? Because the game now gives you accountability for your beloved charaters? Have we as society become so babied that we consider something like that dickish, and MUST be allowed to keep Mia alive 24/7 because I wub Mia?

Because there are many ways for a 'reset' to happen or be accidentally triggered and if any of them happen, the player is punished by having his entire file erased instead of merely having to rerun a level.

[1% critted]

The SNES games were the glory days?

I mean I like them a lot(favorite FE era) but I wouldn't exactly call them the glory days.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Technically it is, considering that FE3 is the Top Seller of the series, GBA era is average, and Tellius bombed

[Anouleth]

Final Fantasy (1) is also one of the greatest RPG's ever made (certainly one of the most important). It's characters never utter a word and are complete blank slates in every possible meaning of the word. Great RPG =/= A character who isn't a blank slate.

So, why did you mention that Diablo II had blank slate characters, if that's not actually a bad thing?

Sure. I just don't think that cracking down on resetters and putting in additional rewards/punishments for killing off characters is the way they should improve.

If I'm cracking down on resetters, it's because it's an unhealthy gameplay pattern that needs to be discouraged.

Every mode, no matter how minor, needs proper programming, testing, and balance and should only be included if it will draw players to the game. That's why you don't see things like a time mode in Pokemon. I'm sure some players would love it, but it simply isn't worth the time or effort to appeal to such a small fraction of fans.

That's a fair argument, but given all the resources they piss away on voice actors and artists to draw ten year old girls wearing bikinis and shitty writing, I would hope they could spare some resources to actually improve the game. This is Fire Emblem, balance doesn't exist.

Because 'no resets' also means punishing players for things they can do that might be interpreted as resets when they are not. Accidentally ejecting the cart on a DS game, for example, to avoid an upcoming death before it gets saved. Nothing can save a console from a plug-pull either. Pretty much the only way I can see this being avoided is if the game auto-saves before every move (which would be a huge slowdown) and erased any file upon loading. Even that isn't perfect (since lots of auto-saving will slow the turns down to a crawl) and even then I'm sure it's a matter of time until someone finds a way around it.

There is no way around the GBA auto-save feature, and it's done without any slowdown. While I'm no expert on the subject, I am pretty sure that this can be done again with more recent FEs. I'm fairly sure it is not possible to "game the system" either with XCOM.

Face it, the only way a 'no reset' mode could really work is to out and out put the player in a position in which multiple things could screw them over without them resetting. I'm sure most wouldn't, but some would and that fraction who does would instantly ruin such a mode.

I don't see how that's necessary at all.

Because otherwise arguments like this appear. 'Guys, I really like female characters in a game, so the next FE game should have NOTHING but female characters!' Or, more relevantly, 'I like perma-death, so we should have a game mode where it is outright enforced, BECAUSE I LOVE IT AND HATE RESETTERS!'

I actually really dislike permadeath. It's a mechanic that has driven so many players away from FE, it's annoying and frustrating having to constantly reset whenever you make a mistake, yet people go on and on about how it's the Most Important Part of FE, or say that it should be kept in because Otherwise It Just Wouldn't Be FE. Casual Mode was the best thing to ever happen to Fire Emblem, the problem remains Classic Mode which does not really offer any kind of interesting experience, unless you think that resetting the game is an interesting experience. If permadeath is going to stick around, it should at least offer a real Hardcore mode, because otherwise there's no point.

Because there are many ways for a 'reset' to happen or be accidentally triggered and if any of them happen, the player is punished by having his entire file erased instead of merely having to rerun a level.

Untrue. I never had the autosave feature in GBAFE fail on me.

[1% critted]

Technically it is, considering that FE3 is the Top Seller of the series, GBA era is average, and Tellius bombed

So the Wii is Nintendo's glory days?

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

bombed as in failure

[1% critted]

To me, the glory days was as soon as they got FE out of Japan.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

And ironically people considered Shadow Dragon as the real reason why the series almost failed pre Awakening

....its not. Radiant Dawn and POR is.

[Constable Reggie]

Because 'no resets' also means punishing players for things they can do that might be interpreted as resets when they are not. Accidentally ejecting the cart on a DS game, for example, to avoid an upcoming death before it gets saved. Nothing can save a console from a plug-pull either. Pretty much the only way I can see this being avoided is if the game auto-saves before every move (which would be a huge slowdown) and erased any file upon loading. Even that isn't perfect (since lots of auto-saving will slow the turns down to a crawl) and even then I'm sure it's a matter of time until someone finds a way around it.

Jesus dude do the gba games not exist to you? I've already brought it up and expained several times how it would be perfectly usable.

Sure. I just don't think that cracking down on resetters and putting in additional rewards/punishments for killing off characters is the way they should improve

I'm starting to think you haven't been reading my posts at all, because that's not the intention behind my ideas whatsoever. Let me explain it again:

The point of permadeath (and content revolving around permadeath and other player choices/actions) is to strengthen the player-character connection Fe has always been going for. By making death permanent, it makes a) the players care much, much more about keeping the units alive, to see their development, their plights, their lives and their actions, resulting them in having to play in a way that doesn't compromise anyone (or anyone they don't want compromised). The game would be set up so there's no bullshit surprises resulting in cheap deaths (see: fe13, 6), so the only way you'd lose units is by your own tactical mistakes. Because is now the primary reason you could lose your characters, you would have no one to blame but yourself for playing poorly. Mia is gone forever because of you. You have to live with it. All the content resulting from a character's death is only there to reinforce and stamp the fact that you killed Mia, not the game. By guilt-riding the player for their mistakes, the player-character connection is far more strengthened than it currently is. It makes the player legitimately care for the pixels in a game.

But no, you seem to be hellbent that we're on a crusade against those awful resetters and that they're the bane of our existence or whatever.

Well DUH! If they're not connected to the character, there is no reason to reset. There are different kinds though. Some like the character, some like the stats, some like the notion of perfect, but they wouldn't reset if it didn't hold some meaning to them.

What the fuck

"I don't know that players are resetting for any one particular reason, but I know better than to assume all players will reset and that those who do did so for one reason in particular. Heck, I'm sure there are people who reset because they missed treasure chests and wanted to get them all. Assuming players reset just because they can't bear to loose one unit or just because of personal attachment = stupidity."

Maybe I should quit posting, because you're doing a good job arguing against yourself.

Also, you're not really connected to a character if all you care about is his combat usefulness.

Because otherwise arguments like this appear. 'Guys, I really like female characters in a game, so the next FE game should have NOTHING but female characters!' Or, more relevantly, 'I like perma-death, so we should have a game mode where it is outright enforced, BECAUSE I LOVE IT AND HATE RESETTERS!'

Loving the strawman again. Why do you have this notion that we have resetters?

And Anouleth's post was a perfectly reasonable example as to how permadeath can be a positive thing. He's not arguing that wants permadeath because he likes permadeath, he's arguing that, given precedent, it is a very beneficial thing to include.

Because there are many ways for a 'reset' to happen or be accidentally triggered and if any of them happen, the player is punished by having his entire file erased instead of merely having to rerun a level.

Way to completely ignore my point and go back to technical bullshit which me and Anouleth already explained a million times.

Also, you still didn't answer my question.

"Want proof? Imagine your most unlikable character in any Fe game ever, someone you absolutely loathe, and that you're training him/her; now imagine him/her dying due to a mistake in combat. Did you restart?"

I actually really dislike permadeath. It's a mechanic that has driven so many players away from FE, it's annoying and frustrating having to constantly reset whenever you make a mistake, yet people go on and on about how it's the Most Important Part of FE, or say that it should be kept in because Otherwise It Just Wouldn't Be FE. Casual Mode was the best thing to ever happen to Fire Emblem, the problem remains Classic Mode which does not really offer any kind of interesting experience, unless you think that resetting the game is an interesting experience. If permadeath is going to stick around, it should at least offer a real Hardcore mode, because otherwise there's no point.

Theoretically it's a fantastic idea that hasn't really been done before, and it was groundbreaking for the NES era, but they literally haven't changed it in 13 games. My ideas are meant to further the mechanic in a relevant way that is meant to advance the original intentions they were going for with the idea.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Constable Reggie