Content from playable character deaths.

[Constable Reggie]

I'm fascinated by your abusive-submissive relationship with turncounts and ltc.

[Phoenix Wright]

seems interesting enough. i'd be up for it to be another mode. as long as the developers won't take away classic mode.

[1% critted]

But if casual mode exists, that means there is a set story that goes one way, because there are no deaths. Classic mode can still follow that set story and your mode can do what you are stating.

[Constable Reggie]

I guess, though at that point it just seems kinda redundant.

An interesting idea would be to introduce classic mode as an unlockable after you beat proposed-mode (maybe after multiple times or after a certain benchmark, idk). That way you can toy around with the story branching however you want after you beat the game.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Phoenix Wright]

edit: oh wait never mind that's a good idea

though, i think it should be unlocked after the first playthrough on whatever difficulty is immediately after the easiest.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Snowy_One]

I'm fascinated by your abusive-submissive relationship with turncounts and ltc.

I hate Turncounts and the people who play for them with a passion. That said, I've come to let up on it a bit. However, when I see topics like this in which a select few are suggesting changes that would both hurt casual players and the series as a whole simply for the sake of their nostalgia and a warped sense of difficulty I get irate. There really isn't a need for a mode like this since even among casual players there will be people who will accept the various deaths as they come. Not gonna claim the people who reset every time are a minority, but here's the thing. They were willing to reset, attempt to clear a chapter again and spend that amount of time simply going again to try and save one unit because the life of that unit held value to them, even if only as a 'meaningless' 'no one dies' clear. Unit deaths DO have value still. How many times have you reset an RTS level because one common soldier died? How many times have you even CARED about how many units you had to kill to accomplish the goals?

We're suggesting adding in a mode simply because some players liked the old methods better. There is nothing stopping them from living by that rule now. Heck, living by that rule really isn't a 'challenge' so much as 'expected, yet subverted frequently' like how an RPG boss is set to battle players of a certain level but there is nothing stopping that player from grinding up to 99 on the starter foes (least usually). It would be far more productive to add in a mode where your units are pre-selected for each map than it would to include this 'classical' mode.

Yet we have people like Anny basically taking every chance they can to espouse how the older days and LTC playthroughs are 'better' and other such nonsense that would only apply to a veteran of the series. My earlier analogy of making a Nuzlocke-run mode for pokemon? Spot on in this case.

[Constable Reggie]

From what I read of your lengthy tangent, I literally cannot tell if you've read the suggestions (and the reasonings behind them) I've made. Are we talking about the same suggestions/intentions behind them here?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Anouleth]

I hate Turncounts and the people who play for them with a passion. That said, I've come to let up on it a bit. However, when I see topics like this in which a select few are suggesting changes that would both hurt casual players and the series as a whole simply for the sake of their nostalgia and a warped sense of difficulty I get irate.

I'm not doing this for "nostalgia". How could I when so few games have actually had the balls to implement a hardcore mode? Aside from Diablo and XCOM, I can't actually think of any games that do it.

There really isn't a need for a mode like this since even among casual players there will be people who will accept the various deaths as they come.

There is a need. The temptation to reset is too great.

Not gonna claim the people who reset every time are a minority, but here's the thing. They were willing to reset, attempt to clear a chapter again and spend that amount of time simply going again to try and save one unit because the life of that unit held value to them, even if only as a 'meaningless' 'no one dies' clear. Unit deaths DO have value still. How many times have you reset an RTS level because one common soldier died? How many times have you even CARED about how many units you had to kill to accomplish the goals?

Unit deaths do have value. However, currently, they have value because "welp better restart the chapter", not because the unit is gone. This is, in it's own way, even more frustrating than the unit being permanently dead because you have to completely replay the chapter.

We're suggesting adding in a mode simply because some players liked the old methods better. There is nothing stopping them from living by that rule now. Heck, living by that rule really isn't a 'challenge' so much as 'expected, yet subverted frequently' like how an RPG boss is set to battle players of a certain level but there is nothing stopping that player from grinding up to 99 on the starter foes (least usually). It would be far more productive to add in a mode where your units are pre-selected for each map than it would to include this 'classical' mode.

Why would that be productive? A mode like that removes the ability of the player to choose what units they use. The mode I'm talking about removes the ability of the player to refuse to let units die. The choices are very different ones.

Yet we have people like Anny basically taking every chance they can to espouse how the older days and LTC playthroughs are 'better' and other such nonsense that would only apply to a veteran of the series. My earlier analogy of making a Nuzlocke-run mode for pokemon? Spot on in this case.

"the older days"? Tell me, what Fire Emblem did this in "the older days"? What does this have to do with LTC playthroughs (which always involve resets so you can build a perfect strategy)?

should have played on the baby's-first-fe-game mode first, scrub

As brought up before, there could still be a casual-type mode. Personally, in my theoretical game that will never exist, I'd have a casual mode, but with none of the events and results from player actions in the regular mode. That way, people can still enjoy the game, but won't get the full experience intended, since they opted out of the way it was meant to be played. Regarding the game itself, it would probably be set up that you can only actually fail the game if you make numerous idiotic mistakes, rather than just getting the lord killed.

Getting the lord killed is pretty idiotic. Maybe the lord can have a certain number of "lives", like in a Mario game or something, so they can die twice without consequence, but on the third death it's game over.

[Jotari]

I certainly don't think a super extreme merciless mode would be appealing to everyone but really if it's just one mode in the game and the other standard modes are there too then what's the problem? It just adds another twenty hours or so of gameplay to the game. You don't like the idea of this mode then you can just ignore it and try the standard modes we have now. Of course this is all entirely hypothetical since IS will most likely not do this.

[Refa]

What if you play so badly that you get stuck in a point of no return in gameplay, and can't finish the game and have to start all over?

Whoops, I accidentally sold off all of my weapons in FE7 on Battle Before Dawn. Now the game is impossible to beat, oh woe is me!

[Irysa]

I dig the hardcore mode idea. People already do ironman runs of these games anyway, adding the feature in would definitely entice more players. I have only tried to "no resets at all" run in FE6 HM once and I eventually gave up because of the shitty hit rates and Lance getting 1 critted (fff). If you gave me a mode dedicated to it I'd definitely be more willing to slug it out.

[AnonymousSpeed]

Wait, isn't this supposed to be about character death?

[The Void]

Thinking about it, I want the next FE that isn't a follow up to Awakening or a remake to have at least a few of the ideas here.

FE has had permadeath for over a decade. It's about time that the series has started taking one of it's defining features (permadeath) and go even further with it.

Edited August 14, 2013 by The Void

[Snowy_One]

I'm not doing this for "nostalgia". How could I when so few games have actually had the balls to implement a hardcore mode? Aside from Diablo and XCOM, I can't actually think of any games that do it.

There is a need. The temptation to reset is too great.

Unit deaths do have value. However, currently, they have value because "welp better restart the chapter", not because the unit is gone. This is, in it's own way, even more frustrating than the unit being permanently dead because you have to completely replay the chapter.

Why would that be productive? A mode like that removes the ability of the player to choose what units they use. The mode I'm talking about removes the ability of the player to refuse to let units die. The choices are very different ones.

"the older days"? Tell me, what Fire Emblem did this in "the older days"? What does this have to do with LTC playthroughs (which always involve resets so you can build a perfect strategy)?

Getting the lord killed is pretty idiotic. Maybe the lord can have a certain number of "lives", like in a Mario game or something, so they can die twice without consequence, but on the third death it's game over.

Guess why so few games have such modes? Because they aren't well-received usually and aren't terribly appealing. Not to mention both those games don't focus on character development. 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? 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? 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.

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. 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.

[The Void]

Because they aren't well-received usually and aren't terribly appealing. Not to mention both those games don't focus on character development.

And FE does?

[Constable Reggie]

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

Enemy Unknown was universally praised for it's ironman mode, alongside being a widely appealing game.

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!

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.

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.

Why should we be forced to use certain people? Weren't you just literally complaining about this in the difficulty thread?

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.

Being unable to restart after you get someone killed is far better than forcing you to use different people. The first greatly bolsters the player-character connection that Fe has always been aiming for in a way never attempted before; you killed Mia, you have to live with it (my suggestions for extra gameplay/story content based on character deaths is intended to emphasize this), while retaining the freedom of the player choosing whoever they want to use. The second is restrictive and pointless, probably only really suggested because you abhor the way others play in comparison to you.

[Mighty Kamina]

Just popping in to say I think an ironman mode would be pretty neat, but if only it existed alongside Classic and Casual mode. Casual mode does help make FE more accessible to new players, and Classic because many long time fans of the series (myself included) would feel estranged if there was only an ironman mode.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Virion

[The Void]

Snowy_One have you played any of the games in the Ogre series?

Tactics Ogre does have permadeath. And the game does have content that requires a character dying for it to be reached.

Also, I'm not against FE getting a mode like that.

Edited August 14, 2013 by The Void

[Acacia Sgt]

What is this ironman mode, some kind of dynamic named difficulty setting?

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.

Well, being honest, I'd still restart. Honestly, I don't really have a character I truly loathe, but even assuming I'd have, I'd still restart anyway.

[Phoenix Wright]

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 restart if it's a standard run.

If it's a challenge run and one of the units I want to use until endgame dies, I'll restart. Otherwise I don't care.

[thetiger39]

What is this ironman mode, some kind of dynamic named difficulty setting?

Ironman mode comes from a game called xcom. no restarts must stick with whatever happens. If Miledy dies, then play better next time. Imagine getting your team killed and have to pull wendy and sophia off the bench to replace people.

[CT075]

i'm all for an ironman mode being an option alongside classic and casual but i'm pretty sure having an ironman replace classic would estrange a ton of people (myself included)

[Swordsalmon]

Snowy_One have you played any of the games in the Ogre series?

Tactics Ogre does have permadeath. And the game does have content that requires a character dying for it to be reached.

Also, I'm not against FE getting a mode like that.

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.

[Phoenix Wright]

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.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Swordsalmon]

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.

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.