Content from playable character deaths.

[bottlegnomes]

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.

That's exactly why people hated it. Gaidens have always been a way of rewarding good gameplay. SD took literally the exact opposite approach and deprived you of content for playing the game well.

And, Snowy, I'd be more inclined to say casuals would stumble on this before regs. Casuals are more likely to let characters stay dead because they just don't care. Most regs would probably knee-jerk reset when a character dies unless they found out about the exchange or were doing a no-reset run or something like that. And really, what's wrong with having a player pick char A or char B? Basically it's saying do you care enough about char B to be willing to sacrifice char A? So in that sense, it does take affect the player. Like if I had to pick either Sumia or Coredelia to say with the peggy knights and that results in their death, then you can be damned sure that I'd send Cordelia as I like Sumia much better. However, if it were something like Cynthia vs Sumia, then I'd have a lot more trouble deciding. Basically, you're treating it like no one who regularly plays FE cares at all about the characters which is incredibly not true, and that only casuals would care and it would annoy them, even though they're actually less likely to care if a character dies.

[Jotari]

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.

Isn't the original game unwinnable anyway if you don't pick up Falchion? I don't know where I heard it but I thought Medeus could only be damaged by Falchion.

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.

Actually I heard that in Path of Radiance, Tormod's supports change if Muairm dies. They could do a bit more of that to make the world care.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Jotari

[Rehab]

That and things like it are definitely steps in the right direction, I agree, and it'd admittedly be generalizing of me to say there's never any content like it in the games. I'm just definitely ready for them to get a little bolder about it.

[Anouleth]

No I don't. Yes, I would

If you reset every time a unit dies, how would you know if they stayed dead?

[Snowy_One]

Isn't the original game unwinnable anyway if you don't pick up Falchion? I don't know where I heard it but I thought Medeus could only be damaged by Falchion.

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.

Actually I heard that in Path of Radiance, Tormod's supports change if Muairm dies. They could do a bit more of that to make the world care.

I do agree that more effort should be put into what happens when a character dies. I don't think it should be extra chapters/characters though. It rewards bad gameplay, potentially punishes good gameplay, can rob a death of its meaning by making it so that a character is killed for better rewards down the line, and other such stuff.

[Icon of Sin]

FE5 handled it oddly enough since Olwen felt like a B route character that you'd get a few chapters only. It's not like Eyrios actually had a problem with Olwen and vice versa, so it's a bit of a downer that I have to sacrifice Olwen everytime just to stay within the total character limit when I could've killed off someone else like Alva.

FE11's gaiden characters may have been intended as replacements to the originals but there's no real reason for it either when you could've obtained the gaiden chapters through other means.

[shadykid]

I do agree that more effort should be put into what happens when a character dies. I don't think it should be extra chapters/characters though. It rewards bad gameplay, potentially punishes good gameplay, can rob a death of its meaning by making it so that a character is killed for better rewards down the line, and other such stuff.

the hell is this

who are you to say that what is basically a character swap is "bad gameplay", and death only has meaning when it changes something else down the line

[Acacia Sgt]

Isn't the original game unwinnable anyway if you don't pick up Falchion? I don't know where I heard it but I thought Medeus could only be damaged by Falchion.

From what I remember, there are still a few other options if you didn't got the Falchion, like Tiki, the Mercurius, the Pachyderm, etc (well, you still need a character with high enough Str since Medeus has like over 45 defense). Then again, these things aren't also guarantees that you will have them by endgame, but then again, this applies to most of the games anyway, since it's always possible to end up without good weapons or characters and reach a gameplay dead-end.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Acacia Sgt

[Soledai]

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.

Only casuals will do this?... Any player who wanted to see everything will do it, try not to speak for everyone, not all casuals are of like mind, and like most here have said, casuals are the ones who likely not to care

There was no point in bringing that up, except if you're trying to undermine Char deaths, and even if you had all chars, if you didn't have Falchion, you were more than likely to land in an 'unwinnable' situation regardless

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.

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

Additionally, who decided that you can't become attached to the char that affects your ending? where did you get that idea?

And how is getting a different route/char/end an anti-frustration device? If you mess up and decide to keep going, that's going to be your result, or if you're on that second PT or were just curious? HOW are alternate scenarios anti-frustration features is my question

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.

...What in the... How is it ham-fisted? even if there are players who like the story and chars... if they really wanna see that alternate stuff, then they're gonna do it and if they don't, they won't, really that simple... it's suddenly bad to have that choice? and honestly, does it matter how the players perceive these situations, everyone isn't going to play with hearts of gold, you know that right?

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.

Of course it needs to be done right, and players don't always need or want their hands held when these choices come along, what would the point in playing and learning be if you get told everything? and if you really have a problem with a plot char dying... then reset it... even if it's a counter agrument against this topic, if you don't want that branch to happen, then you will reset, otherwise, you have no reason to complain, or rather, you can't complain

[The Void]

Here are several more suggestions for content from PC deaths:

1. Stat changes at least for a few of the characters.

2. Losing a certain amount of units could lead to a mercenary character or group not joining you, since the Lord doesn't seem good enough to work for. And losing another amount of units could change how the game goes (like somebody turning against you).

[Soledai]

1 reminds of like in action rpgs, like when a char falls in battle, the others go into a rage, and have temporary stat boosts

2 makes me wonder... have you played Tactics Ogre? The general idea reminds me of how poor team management can lead to people not joining and/or people defecting or deserting the force

[dondon151]

@ complaints about "sacrificing" olwen:

easy solution is to just not recruit her in the first place.

[Irysa]

Isn't the original game unwinnable anyway if you don't pick up Falchion? I don't know where I heard it but I thought Medeus could only be damaged by Falchion.

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.

Actually I heard that in Path of Radiance, Tormod's supports change if Muairm dies. They could do a bit more of that to make the world care.

A bunch of characters do that. Makalov and Astrid have different supports if Marcia is dead for example. He's picking flowers for Marcia, and if she's alive it's to try to cheer her up/make amends since she gets mad at him a lot, and if she's dead he upset talking about it, since he's going to place them on her grave. He also gets guilt tripped by Ike into giving back Astrid's pendant instead of being told off by Marcia. It's a neat touch.

Anyway on the subject, core problem with this is that people tend to use characters they like, or characters they think are strong/useful.

If those characters die, then by those reasonings, you're generally more compelled to NOT LET THEM DIE. Thats part of the focus of the series to a degree, and with the exception of Shadow Dragon, the series has kinda gone to more lengths to make characters more than a disposable means to an end. I feel this is a strength of the series, many strategy games either have lots of faceless template player created units, or death isn't permanent anyway.

Letting characters die only really becomes an option if you actually don't care much about them in the first place ("casual" standpoint), or you gain some kind of significant benefit for doing it ("hardcore" standpoint). . Neither of which sound appealing to me. Choices in plotline on recruitment and killing characters/taking routes makes more sense.

Valkyrie Profile: Covenant of the Plume has a decent attempt at this though. You can super power up a character for one map, after which, they die forever, and you gain a powerful skill or buff that can be used permanantly after they're gone. Using this power also affects the plot and which route you go down. Not killing anyone has you stay on the on the hardest route of the game, killing a few gets you the normal route, killing a LOT is effectively the easiest, and if you kill too many you just lose the game period. You can also shift "down" the routes by using that power, but you can't go back up. It also has moral implications on the state of the MC and his beliefs/goals, and who he allies with in a big mess of a civil war.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Irysa

[Jotari]

A bunch of characters do that. Makalov and Astrid have different supports if Marcia is dead for example. He's picking flowers for Marcia, and if she's alive it's to try to cheer her up/make amends since she gets mad at him a lot, and if she's dead he upset talking about it, since he's going to place them on her grave. He also gets guilt tripped by Ike into giving back Astrid's pendant instead of being told off by Marcia. It's a neat touch.

That is extremely cool but the problem is that most players wouldn't find out about it due to the fact that loosing a character is the equivalent of a game over. If there was some kind of gain that might encourage a player to leave a character dead than their death might feel more like a death. For, me anyway, loosing a character is unacceptable so as a result any importance and meaning to a character dying is lost since I make sure they never die. If players have some kind of encouragement to continue after loosing a unit they can see what is, arguably, the biggest facet of a death in story telling, the reactions of other characters. It doesn't need to be rewarding bad playing or giving a handicap to someone who is terrible. Just some kind of advantage that will make you consider things before hitting reset.

[algae]

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

It might be better to tie the branches to the plot more than to gameplay though. Say, you get to choose between which of two characters to save somewhere down the line, getting a different branch of the story depending on which you chose. It could probably be similar to the choice between Eirika and Ephraim in Sacred Stones, at least superficially.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Isn't the original game unwinnable anyway if you don't pick up Falchion? I don't know where I heard it but I thought Medeus could only be damaged by Falchion.

Mathematically, its actually not

Medeus has 33 Defense and 80 Hit

Falchion marth has 50 ATK, 34 Damage per round

Miracle Marth has 38 ATK, 10 Damage per round

Gradivus someone has 40 ATK, 14 Damage per round

Marth have at least 25 Crit Chance

I don't have the exact data, so this is merely an aproximation. I'll see if non Falchion Marth can do it in my LTC though

Valkyrie Profile: Covenant of the Plume has a decent attempt at this though. You can super power up a character for one map, after which, they die forever, and you gain a powerful skill or buff that can be used permanantly after they're gone. Using this power also affects the plot and which route you go down. Not killing anyone has you stay on the on the hardest route of the game, killing a few gets you the normal route, killing a LOT is effectively the easiest, and if you kill too many you just lose the game period.

The sad thing about that game is you only need to sacrifice Cheripha, the worst character in the game to get the best Command >_>

And she is an Archer, which is ironic

Edited July 28, 2013 by I have a Dragon Boner

[Snowy_One]

A bunch of characters do that. Makalov and Astrid have different supports if Marcia is dead for example. He's picking flowers for Marcia, and if she's alive it's to try to cheer her up/make amends since she gets mad at him a lot, and if she's dead he upset talking about it, since he's going to place them on her grave. He also gets guilt tripped by Ike into giving back Astrid's pendant instead of being told off by Marcia. It's a neat touch.

Anyway on the subject, core problem with this is that people tend to use characters they like, or characters they think are strong/useful.

If those characters die, then by those reasonings, you're generally more compelled to NOT LET THEM DIE. Thats part of the focus of the series to a degree, and with the exception of Shadow Dragon, the series has kinda gone to more lengths to make characters more than a disposable means to an end. I feel this is a strength of the series, many strategy games either have lots of faceless template player created units, or death isn't permanent anyway.

Letting characters die only really becomes an option if you actually don't care much about them in the first place ("casual" standpoint), or you gain some kind of significant benefit for doing it ("hardcore" standpoint). . Neither of which sound appealing to me. Choices in plotline on recruitment and killing characters/taking routes makes more sense.

Valkyrie Profile: Covenant of the Plume has a decent attempt at this though. You can super power up a character for one map, after which, they die forever, and you gain a powerful skill or buff that can be used permanantly after they're gone. Using this power also affects the plot and which route you go down. Not killing anyone has you stay on the on the hardest route of the game, killing a few gets you the normal route, killing a LOT is effectively the easiest, and if you kill too many you just lose the game period. You can also shift "down" the routes by using that power, but you can't go back up. It also has moral implications on the state of the MC and his beliefs/goals, and who he allies with in a big mess of a civil war.

This is the crux of the problem. From a casual standpoint it robs the death of value since they probably didn't care for the character in the slightest. From the hardcore, it's not a question of character, but of stats and rewards. If brutally murdering Rolf in front of Mist could turn her into the games best Berserker, hardcore players would do it in a heartbeat while casuals wouldn't care unless they really liked Rolf, at which point he'd be kept from death. Only way they'd find out is by sheer luck, and then they'd probably kill Rolf anytime they played unless they wanted to avoid Berserker-Mist (at which point they'd just reset). No matter what, there is no solution.

I support making more stuff dealing with character death, but it should NOT be anything that affects the game in any statistical manner simply because it then turns the game into a bought of 'what gives me the best rewards'.

[Jotari]

Mathematically, its actually not

Medeus has 33 Defense and 80 Hit

Falchion marth has 50 ATK, 34 Damage per round

Miracle Marth has 38 ATK, 10 Damage per round

Gradivus someone has 40 ATK, 14 Damage per round

Marth have at least 25 Crit Chance

I don't have the exact data, so this is merely an aproximation. I'll see if non Falchion Marth can do it in my LTC though

I was under the impression that Medues was immune to damage from anything but the Falchion but I'm probably wrong because for the life of me I can't remember at all where I heard it. I'm sure Tiki could deal out enough damage to overcome his defense too unless she's much weaker in that game.

[Irysa]

The sad thing about that game is you only need to sacrifice Cheripha, the worst character in the game to get the best Command >_>

And she is an Archer, which is ironic

Yeah it's not very well balanced. I do like the incentive though, since unlike many games, it's actually punishing to try to take a moral high ground. I have a problem with many games with "moral" choices where more often than not, either good is equal or better than going evil, because they want to make both extremes viable. In reality, it should always be easier to take the immoral route, thats supposed to be the temptation. It's hard to really think about a decision if you know that if you pick "the good option" it'll all turn out fine in the end anyway.

I personally beat the game on zero kill A route first time. For efficiency's sake it's "better" to do C then B then A on replays since you keep benefits, but whatever.

I support making more stuff dealing with character death, but it should NOT be anything that affects the game in any statistical manner simply because it then turns the game into a bought of 'what gives me the best rewards'.

Well affecting the game statistically/mechanically can be interesting if it adds to the overall theme or experience, like with what I outlined above. I didn't like the idea of killing off my friends for power, so I abstained from using the Plume. Thats a choice that will vary from player to player. The idea there was to provide a temptation of power, the same one the protagonist can sink into.

The thing here is though that that's a very direct player decision that is present. A unit dying on the battlefield in Fire Emblem is more often than not a mistake. People don't "want" the characters they're using to die for the reasons I outlined in my previous post. And I don't think litearlly sacrificing your recruited units will work in the context of an FE game.

They COULD have like some kind of system where units you don't deploy are deployed elsewhere on a different battlefield/part of a battlefield that you don't have control over, and their chances of success or death are outlined based on combat experience/stats/levels, and then units you're not using have chances to be dying instead of litearlly needing to be kamikazed by the player, resulting in a wasted slot for that map and negative effects on the player's current map strategy. Maybe alternate sidequests and missions could be done with units you send off to do so? It would also probably help with the low manning issue present in many games, bigger team means you have more reliable units to send on sidequests elsewhere for net benefits in funds and items, maybe even the story without affecting turncounts, thus everyone can be utilised. It would also allow more XP to be present in the game without the ability to "grind" to trivialize, sidequests could be time based or just done while you're fighting your own battle.

Theres a real element of risk accessment in that concept, along with the fact it would let you rotate your units to as they fit, allowing maps to be more varied and punishing on different types of units. You'd also get to see more supports or relationships develop per playthrough.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Irysa

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

I was under the impression that Medues was immune to damage from anything but the Falchion but I'm probably wrong because for the life of me I can't remember at all where I heard it. I'm sure Tiki could deal out enough damage to overcome his defense too unless she's much weaker in that game.

Nope

Tiki has 12 MT Dragon stone, and FE1 DS has no effective bonus

In other words Tiki has EXACTLY the same attack as Medeus Defense

Bant has 16 MT weapon, so he can damage Medeus tho

Medeus merely has 32 Defense and negate Ranged attack, so he is VERY bulky and hard to kill without Falchion. To be fair, Im not sure if you can attack Medeus with Magic at close range, but its worth a try

Edited July 28, 2013 by I have a Dragon Boner

[Jotari]

They COULD have like some kind of system where units you don't deploy are deployed elsewhere on a different battlefield/part of a battlefield that you don't have control over, and their chances of success or death are outlined based on combat experience/stats/levels, and then units you're not using have chances to be dying instead of litearlly needing to be kamikazed by the player, resulting in a wasted slot for that map and negative effects on the player's current map strategy. Maybe alternate sidequests and missions could be done with units you send off to do so? It would also probably help with the low manning issue present in many games, bigger team means you have more reliable units to send on sidequests elsewhere for net benefits in funds and items, maybe even the story without affecting turncounts, thus everyone can be utilised. It would also allow more XP to be present in the game without the ability to "grind" to trivialize, sidequests could be time based or just done while you're fighting your own battle.

Theres a real element of risk accessment in that concept, along with the fact it would let you rotate your units to as they fit, allowing maps to be more varied and punishing on different types of units. You'd also get to see more supports or relationships develop per playthrough.

It's pretty out there but I really like that idea.

Nope

Tiki has 12 MT Dragon stone, and FE1 DS has no effective bonus

In other words Tiki has EXACTLY the same attack as Medeus Defense

Bant has 16 MT weapon, so he can damage Medeus tho

Medeus merely has 32 Defense and negate Ranged attack, so he is VERY bulky and hard to kill without Falchion. To be fair, Im not sure if you can attack Medeus with Magic at close range, but its worth a try

Wow Bantu was a total beast in the original game.

[The Void]

Honestly Snowy_One, what do you say IS should do with permadeath?

Really, if you want permadeath to be something that is there for more than punishing players, then it really has to have an impact beyond losing the unit, changing dialogue, and parts of the ending and epilogue. Be it stat changes, different routes, etc.

You said yourself that FE having permadeath set it apart from games like Final Fantasy. Well, why not roll with how FE has had permadeath and go even further with it? If it's only there as a punishment for the players, well, then IS could go and go rid of it. Replacing it with another system that could penalize reaching 0HP and discourage throwing your units at the enemy.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Wow Bantu was a total beast in the original game.

He's good, put if you really want to use him in long term, he need to get tons of statsbooster

I mean, 10% growth in SKL and LCK is rofl

Edited July 29, 2013 by I have a Dragon Boner

[Snowy_One]

Honestly Snowy_One, what do you say IS should do with permadeath?

Really, if you want permadeath to be something that is there for more than punishing players, then it really has to have an impact beyond losing the unit, changing dialogue, and parts of the ending and epilogue. Be it stat changes, different routes, etc.

You said yourself that FE having permadeath set it apart from games like Final Fantasy. Well, why not roll with how FE has had permadeath and go even further with it? If it's only there as a punishment for the players, well, then IS could go and go rid of it. Replacing it with another system that could penalize reaching 0HP and discourage throwing your units at the enemy.

FF does have Perma-death (it's VERY rare though). That aside, it doesn't need to go any farther. Already we have players resetting thanks to unlucky criticals and poorly thought-out plans. In it's current form it's succeeding as players are attached to their characters. The only thing I'd ask for more of is some heart-touching dialogue dealing with the deaths, emotional rewards and punishments as it were. When you stat something like that you rob it of any context beyond 'is it good or bad'?

Remember Fable? It was so easy to slide up and down the morality scale on that that it lost any actual meaning. A noble hero could easily slaughter an innocent child for a strong weapon and erase any bad karma via eating tofu. The result? Even good/evil heroes could obtain every bad/good thing without real consequence beyond enough of the food to restore their alignment.

By offering a statistical reward/punishment, ANY reward/punishment, you are making it so that one choice is better than the others. Toss Bob who joined the war to rescue his wife from the hands of the enemy so he could live in peace with his family again to the enemy so you can access the side-chapter where you can recruit Abel who is super-strong compared to the rest of the party? The moment someone discovers that Bob had better hope the player likes him a LOT or else he'll die a lot. Conversely, if Abel sucks, the player will ignore his route and Abel will never get to forgive his brother Cain for backstabbing him.

Offering statistically definable rewards (beyond losing the unit of course) for death simply ends up rewarding poor actions and choices no matter how it's handled.

[Rehab]

Not every player is going to min-max their way through every game, and the people who will do that every single time (who you'll have a hard time convincing me are even half the people who play it through) would min-max regardless of the methods they'd need to take to do so. Just because you can manipulate what happens in even a game with well-designed consequences for player actions and good story-gameplay integration, it doesn't mean those things are worthless.

It's also not like the games can't also give access to other content for keeping people alive, like things that at least attempt to overall balance the affect the player gets from having them die. In fact, that makes more sense as well- seeing other people die has such strong consequences in real life that it's odd to ignore them in a role-playing game about war, but the consequences of people surviving war (and thus having them stick around to continue influencing other people) are no less important. They can both change the course of yet more lives, and therefore history. The whole point of offering different content depending on who's alive is to reflect those consequences through gameplay,the player did is to reflect that not just in changes to the epilogue, but in gameplay.

Offering statistically definable consequences ("rewards") is simply a measure to give people a reason to experience that, as opposed to having them view every death purely as a mistake to be undone. And it's not like the games have to keep players in the dark about every part of it, at the beginning of the game they can come out and say, "keeping people alive has consequences, sometimes good and sometimes bad. Letting people die also has consequences. You need not fear that your actions have consequences, as the way things turn out may surprise you. Just have some self-awareness as you play."

As to "in the context of Fire Emblem, every death is generally the result of a gameplay mistake anyway," that's generally true, but the games can fix that. One thing they can do, like every once in a while, is to give the player a chance to face odds so overwhelming, they're not expected to go through without losing something, and make it clear to the player not just that the mission is going to be hard (see the side chapters in the gba games), but that "nobody actually expects you to win this one, at least not in the way you're used to. We're more interested to see the aspect you in which you'll fail. "

(That would also make sense to include more of in the context of a game about war. Even Napoleon couldn't win em all)

At the very least, Mass Effect actually had some things go better if certain characters were dead.* You could still min-max the whole thing to hell, but you didn't have to make the exact choices that'd get you the absolute most war asset points possible to get certain endings, because there was often more than one choice that'd get you a good enough lot of points to access the best possible endings, so long as you pursued every chance you got to get more. The game's execution was flawed in some parts here, in that sometimes it had a hard time really making the actual gameplay different depending on your actions, but you could nonetheless make choices that would affect the game's universe in different ways, depending on what you wanted your Shepard to accomplish.

[spoiler=*][spoiler=RIP in peace,]Battlemaster Urdnot <;_;

That it wasn't perfectly executed shouldn't just make people think it's impossible to construct a game that has choices made through gameplay affect the experience in a meaningful way, it should make people get fired up and want to see it done better.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Rehab