Content from playable character deaths.

[Lord of Gabriel Knight]

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

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

A little late, but, hey.

Actually I would love that! Bring on the ending variety!

[AnonymousSpeed]

No. That would be like robbing perfectionists of the full experience. Your a perfectionist (or not an asshat) so you keep every character you can alive, but you don't get all these new things.

I don't care if its replay value, your telling the player to go against what the series is known for to get a minorly different experience.

Of course, I wouldn't mind if there was more acknowledgement of character deaths (I.E Astrid and Makalov support), but I can't stand the though of it being a requirement for the full game.

[Lord of Gabriel Knight]

So the series should stay linear and predictable because of a niche group of fans and its elitist ways thinks the developers should cater only to it? Haha, no.

Edited August 4, 2013 by GabrielKnight

[Snowy_One]

That's a false conclusion. Even assuming that the series is linear and predictable now, there is no guarantee that adding in content from players deaths would change that and no reason that problem couldn't be fixed through other means. Never mind that this is not a problem of necessity.

[Soledai]

A little late, but, hey.

Actually I would love that! Bring on the ending variety!

I'm glad more people can see the possible potential in this

No. That would be like robbing perfectionists of the full experience. Your a perfectionist (or not an asshat) so you keep every character you can alive, but you don't get all these new things.

I don't care if its replay value, your telling the player to go against what the series is known for to get a minorly different experience.

Of course, I wouldn't mind if there was more acknowledgement of character deaths (I.E Astrid and Makalov support), but I can't stand the though of it being a requirement for the full game.

A perfectionist... does everything possible in their games, I know perfectionists and I'm not a perfectionist, but I have perfectionisms, so I know... and if your ornery about keeping a character alive in the fashion you've described, it's not perfectionism

Just how exactly, is getting a different route/ending based on the well being of an story character, minor? and if you wanna go there, Casual mode goes against what the series is known for

I agreed with the first part, now I question the second part, you can't the thought of doing something different to get a different outcome?

That's a false conclusion. Even assuming that the series is linear and predictable now, there is no guarantee that adding in content from players deaths would change that and no reason that problem couldn't be fixed through other means. Never mind that this is not a problem of necessity.

That goes both ways, there is no guarantee that it won't either, it all depends on how it's handled

Edited August 4, 2013 by Soledai

[Snowy_One]

Oh. I'm not claiming that that isn't true. If it's well-done of COURSE it can 'fix' it. What I'm saying is wrong is the assumption that, just because the game is liner and predictable (not bad things of necessity) the automatic solution is rewarding players for killing off characters. Honestly, to me, most of this topic sounds like people wishing the 'the older days' of FE when such things existed without giving much thought as to what they actually meant/did or how people would react to it. Personally, if the game started 'rewarding' players for killing characters and made it so the ONLY way to see the entire game was to kill everyone who wasn't plot-important at least once, I'd probably refuse. 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).

[AnonymousSpeed]

I'm glad more people can see the possible potential in this

A perfectionist... does everything possible in their games, I know perfectionists and I'm not a perfectionist, but I have perfectionisms, so I know... and if your ornery about keeping a character alive in the fashion you've described, it's not perfectionism

Just how exactly, is getting a different route/ending based on the well being of an story character, minor? and if you wanna go there, Casual mode goes against what the series is known for

I agreed with the first part, now I question the second part, you can't the thought of doing something different to get a different outcome?

That goes both ways, there is no guarantee that it won't either, it all depends on how it's handled

By Perfectionist, I meant people who must not let anyone die because they are characters who stay dead, which I guess isn't typical perfectionism, but hey, FE isn't your typical game.

So the series should stay linear and predictable because of a niche group of fans and its elitist ways thinks the developers should cater only to it? Haha, no.

So because everyday you get up, go to work, come home, sleep and repeat, the obvious solution is to go killing your friends? Ha! No.

Oh. I'm not claiming that that isn't true. If it's well-done of COURSE it can 'fix' it. What I'm saying is wrong is the assumption that, just because the game is liner and predictable (not bad things of necessity) the automatic solution is rewarding players for killing off characters. Honestly, to me, most of this topic sounds like people wishing the 'the older days' of FE when such things existed without giving much thought as to what they actually meant/did or how people would react to it. Personally, if the game started 'rewarding' players for killing characters and made it so the ONLY way to see the entire game was to kill everyone who wasn't plot-important at least once, I'd probably refuse. 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).

Snow, two thumbs up

[Lord of Gabriel Knight]

So because everyday you get up, go to work, come home, sleep and repeat, the obvious solution is to go killing your friends? Ha! No.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject on hand.

[AnonymousSpeed]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject on hand.

Yes it does, as an example. You said to keep the series from being boring and predictable, would should start making character deaths a requirement to see the full game. So the example dictates that if your life is boring and predictable the obvious answer is to kill your friends (who example units)

[Lord of Gabriel Knight]

Yes except one is real life and the other is a fictional video game made for people's entertainment?? SO no, it doesn't make sense at all.

Edited August 4, 2013 by GabrielKnight

[AnonymousSpeed]

You capitalized the wrong word for emphasis. And it's an example, it's meant to exercise a point, whether or not it's realistic.

[Lord of Gabriel Knight]

You don't kill your friends because you're bored. That's real life. That fact that you think that's a valid argument is just....stupid! We are talking about a GAME, something fictional, not real life! Something that's meant for entertainment!

The changes would be good for the game because it offers a chance for variety. Fire Emblem could use a lot more open-ended-ness (lol what). If you don't want to do it, that's up to you. But there is no reason that FE shouldn't change because a select few who want to keep it original. That is not good for a series.

Edited August 4, 2013 by GabrielKnight

[bottlegnomes]

That comparison is like saying slapping someone for doing something stupid and cutting their testicles off are the same thing.

Snowy, what's the difference between picking if you'll recruit Giffca, Tibarn, or Naesala or if you'll go with Eirika or Ephraim or if you'll pair Chrom with Sumia, Sully, Olivia, or whomever else and picking between Bob and Abel? As far as I can tell, people would actually put more thought into Bob vs Abel because it means letting a character die as opposed to decisions with next to no consequences. Abel would have to be stupidly overpowered, like HM Percival with Seth's growths joining in chapter 2 of Shadow Dragon, for the majority of people to be that willing to kill off another character just to get him.

Fire Emblem already makes you choose on any number of levels that result in nothing more than a slight variance in stats. The only difference is that this has to do with characters dying, which makes people a lot more uppity about it. You could have gameplay and story change, like say you have to use a decoy like in SD, and a little later in the game, you go to that character's home to tell the family, which turns into a chapter. In practice, it wouldn't be any different than choosing between Wallace's chapter and Geitz's chapter: slightly different story, different map, and different character, but it would also do more to acknowledge player character death, which is exactly what you want.

[Snowy_One]

That comparison is like saying slapping someone for doing something stupid and cutting their testicles off are the same thing.

Snowy, what's the difference between picking if you'll recruit Giffca, Tibarn, or Naesala or if you'll go with Eirika or Ephraim or if you'll pair Chrom with Sumia, Sully, Olivia, or whomever else and picking between Bob and Abel? As far as I can tell, people would actually put more thought into Bob vs Abel because it means letting a character die as opposed to decisions with next to no consequences. Abel would have to be stupidly overpowered, like HM Percival with Seth's growths joining in chapter 2 of Shadow Dragon, for the majority of people to be that willing to kill off another character just to get him.

Fire Emblem already makes you choose on any number of levels that result in nothing more than a slight variance in stats. The only difference is that this has to do with characters dying, which makes people a lot more uppity about it. You could have gameplay and story change, like say you have to use a decoy like in SD, and a little later in the game, you go to that character's home to tell the family, which turns into a chapter. In practice, it wouldn't be any different than choosing between Wallace's chapter and Geitz's chapter: slightly different story, different map, and different character, but it would also do more to acknowledge player character death, which is exactly what you want.

The difference is I am making an informed decision as to my choice of which path to follow. The choices are largely inconsequential on the whole beyond a few variations in level. I can still obtain a reasonably fulfilling plot as well as deal with any consequences without having to resort to knowledge obtained from prior playthroughs. Lastly, and most importantly, none of those choices require me to kill a character off simply to gain access to a different chapter. Comparing at least reasonably-informed decisions with only minor consequences on the whole to killing a character off to obtain access to new chapters and characters is simply NOT in the same league, not even in the same SPORT, of decision-making.

[AnonymousSpeed]

And I would rather just marry people again to get more characters than kill them.

And yes, I am bothered that I can't get both Harken and Karel in the same playthrough. I always thought stuff like that was kinda dumb. But even then, as Snow said, I don't have to kill a character I already have to get either of them.

[Jedi]

You don't kill your friends because you're bored. That's real life. That fact that you think that's a valid argument is just....stupid! We are talking about a GAME, something fictional, not real life! Something that's meant for entertainment!

The changes would be good for the game because it offers a chance for variety. Fire Emblem could use a lot more open-ended-ness (lol what). If you don't want to do it, that's up to you. But there is no reason that FE shouldn't change because a select few who want to keep it original. That is not good for a series.

The open endedness you seek may be fulfilled in SMT x FE. But we have had death allowing for different characters to show up before FE4 [in a manner of speaking] FE5 and FE11 all have. I personally found it dumb in fe11 because you have to slaughter many many MANY characters to get what 4 or 5? The very thought of it sickens me to the point I've never done FE11's gaidens nor have I killed off Olwen in FE5 for the other mage knight. FE4 I have done a subs run though but thats a bit different.

Killing off characters for another(s) is a dumb concept in my honest opinion and also when has FE stayed consistent? Almost never unless direct sequels

[bottlegnomes]

The difference is I am making an informed decision as to my choice of which path to follow. The choices are largely inconsequential on the whole beyond a few variations in level. I can still obtain a reasonably fulfilling plot as well as deal with any consequences without having to resort to knowledge obtained from prior playthroughs. Lastly, and most importantly, none of those choices require me to kill a character off simply to gain access to a different chapter. Comparing at least reasonably-informed decisions with only minor consequences on the whole to killing a character off to obtain access to new chapters and characters is simply NOT in the same league, not even in the same SPORT, of decision-making.

And what about the scenario I presented isn't an informed decision? You don't know how the choice to go with Ephraim is different from the choice to go with Eirika until you've played both or looked up the differences somewhere. You don't know the difference between Giffca, Tibarn, and Naesala unless you've picked each or looked it up. In all of those cases, you don't know what consequences your actions have until you've made both decisions, which would take multiple PTs. And if the choices are largely inconsequential, then you obviously don't care about the ability to use the characters you're not getting. So why is having them die so much more abhorrent than them never existing?

Here's another example: The situation is like Rutgar and Clarine or Navarre and Lena. The myrm is sent to capture/kill the healer. Except, you can either kill the myrm and keep the healer safe, resulting in her joining you, or you can kill the healer and inform the myrm of that and he'll join you.

[AnonymousSpeed]

And what about the scenario I presented isn't an informed decision? You don't know how the choice to go with Ephraim is different from the choice to go with Eirika until you've played both or looked up the differences somewhere. You don't know the difference between Giffca, Tibarn, and Naesala unless you've picked each or looked it up. In all of those cases, you don't know what consequences your actions have until you've made both decisions, which would take multiple PTs. And if the choices are largely inconsequential, then you obviously don't care about the ability to use the characters you're not getting. So why is having them die so much more abhorrent than them never existing?

Here's another example: The situation is like Rutgar and Clarine or Navarre and Lena. The myrm is sent to capture/kill the healer. Except, you can either kill the myrm and keep the healer safe, resulting in her joining you, or you can kill the healer and inform the myrm of that and he'll join you.

The game tells you 'you can go with Ephraim or Eirika,' or, 'choose Tibarn, Naesala or Giffca,' while in FE11 you just have to know to slaughter your own army.

And that example is exactly what doesn't happen.

[bottlegnomes]

Have you actually read this topic? Literally no one has advocated what SD did. In fact, many people, including myself, have said, "Sure, just as long as it's not that bullshit Shadow Dragon did."

[Snowy_One]

And what about the scenario I presented isn't an informed decision? You don't know how the choice to go with Ephraim is different from the choice to go with Eirika until you've played both or looked up the differences somewhere. You don't know the difference between Giffca, Tibarn, and Naesala unless you've picked each or looked it up. In all of those cases, you don't know what consequences your actions have until you've made both decisions, which would take multiple PTs. And if the choices are largely inconsequential, then you obviously don't care about the ability to use the characters you're not getting. So why is having them die so much more abhorrent than them never existing?

Here's another example: The situation is like Rutgar and Clarine or Navarre and Lena. The myrm is sent to capture/kill the healer. Except, you can either kill the myrm and keep the healer safe, resulting in her joining you, or you can kill the healer and inform the myrm of that and he'll join you.

Sure. I don't know the exact consequences, but I can make a reasonable guess as to what happens with each route without having played either. Plus, playing one route instead of another doesn't suddenly block me from a character, unique item, or the like. Just offers different maps and sides of the story. Same for the Laguz Kings. It's true I don't know what EXACTLY each will do, but I know that I am getting one of them to fight alongside me in the battle. Therefore my choice is informed. That would not be the case, though, if, say, by picking Naesala, Naesala would swoop in and steal Mist away resulting in a game-over the moment he arrived and I wasn't even told 'don't trust Naesala as he might steal someone important away' beforehand.

[Jotari]

Recruiting everyone has never been a staple of the series. Even in the very first game you were forced to choose between Samson or Arran. In my opinion more choice is good for the game. Don't think of it as missing content because you let the character live. They could easily do alternate content because the character died. It doesn't mean your missing out simply because you choose to let someone live.

I'd love to see something like Pelleas' death done with an important playable unit. Have the story continue but in a different way with extra or omitted scenes. Fire Emblem is known for it's permanent death but as it is now there are only two real scenarios regarding permanent death.

A) You don't care so when a character dies they die and you move on (or your playing casual).

B) You reset so the character never dies effectively making it so you get a game over if anyone dies which removes effects of death completely since no one ever dies. You just get a lot of frustration.

Personally I play in a B style but I don't think it should be that way. I'm not saying you should be rewarded for letting a character die but I think there should be some kind of compensation. Something that will incite you to keep playing if your character is killed off so the permanent death aspect of the game actually has some kind of meaning to it. There are so many possibilities for this that are much better than Shadow Dragon. They could give you weapons or different characters or alternate chapters. All in all having some kind of content for character deaths could hugely increase the overall content and replayability of the game. It's all about choice. When a character dies I want there to be a choice to continue or not instead of just a sigh and a reset.

[Soledai]

Oh. I'm not claiming that that isn't true. If it's well-done of COURSE it can 'fix' it. What I'm saying is wrong is the assumption that, just because the game is liner and predictable (not bad things of necessity) the automatic solution is rewarding players for killing off characters. Honestly, to me, most of this topic sounds like people wishing the 'the older days' of FE when such things existed without giving much thought as to what they actually meant/did or how people would react to it. Personally, if the game started 'rewarding' players for killing characters and made it so the ONLY way to see the entire game was to kill everyone who wasn't plot-important at least once, I'd probably refuse. 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).

... What in the...... How in the...... When did I ever say, or when did it ever occur or was implied, that you're being rewarded for a char dying, your story is shifting gears due to a mistake(all assuming) that was made, and what makes you assume that no thought was given to when "the older days of FE when such things existed?" and can you point out to me which and when, in an older FE were you rewarded for char deaths?

and I don't know any of what you're talking about, so I will suggest and probably guess correctly, that you've never played Tactics Ogre?

That's where my example came from, for those who never knew, I'm about ready to say, once you've read this topic, you'll know who has and who hasn't played TO

Recruiting everyone has never been a staple of the series. Even in the very first game you were forced to choose between Samson or Arran. In my opinion more choice is good for the game. Don't think of it as missing content because you let the character live. They could easily do alternate content because the character died. It doesn't mean your missing out simply because you choose to let someone live.

I'd love to see something like Pelleas' death done with an important playable unit. Have the story continue but in a different way with extra or omitted scenes. Fire Emblem is known for it's permanent death but as it is now there are only two real scenarios regarding permanent death.

A) You don't care so when a character dies they die and you move on (or your playing casual).

B) You reset so the character never dies effectively making it so you get a game over if anyone dies which removes effects of death completely since no one ever dies. You just get a lot of frustration.

Personally I play in a B style but I don't think it should be that way. I'm not saying you should be rewarded for letting a character die but I think there should be some kind of compensation. Something that will incite you to keep playing if your character is killed off so the permanent death aspect of the game actually has some kind of meaning to it. There are so many possibilities for this that are much better than Shadow Dragon. They could give you weapons or different characters or alternate chapters. All in all having some kind of content for character deaths could hugely increase the overall content and replayability of the game. It's all about choice. When a character dies I want there to be a choice to continue or not instead of just a sigh and a reset.

... This post, why is this post exactly what I'm talking about?

Edited August 5, 2013 by Soledai

[Topaz Light]

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".

[Jotari]

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

[Topaz Light]

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

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.