How to improve Fire Emblem Awakening

[Moira]

The fact that it exists there and your statement of a "factor in people buying it"... just simply makes me have a "huh?" look.

Honestly, of the huge success of sales that Awakening sold... how many people do you think were "prevented" from enjoying the game? For an option that A LOT of people won't even bother to touch, let alone unlock?

I'm not saying it's preventing people from liking it, I'm saying it's not making more people like it. Of the few people who enjoy it, almost all of them would still have bought the game without lunatic+, which is why I'm saying it was a waste of resources.

Edited March 3, 2014 by n00srac

[Gaia]

I'm not saying it's preventing people from liking it, I'm saying it's not making more people like it. Of the few people who enjoy it, almost all of them would still have bought the game without lunatic+, which is why I'm saying it was a waste of resources.

Some people embrace the demonic difficulty with wide arms, because it's a challenge. Some people enjoy that insanity. Some people aren't satisfied with even Luna/Cla. Some people enjoy it. It's not a waste of resources if it provides people enjoyment. What are games for?

Edited March 3, 2014 by Gaius217

[shadowofchaos]

waste of resources

I still don't get how you're going about proving this point.

I enjoyed that masochistic mess. I still do. In classic, or casual.

Lunatic+ Casual is the funnest crap I've played since discovering how to memory hack the older Fire Emblem games.

Edited March 3, 2014 by shadowofchaos

[Angelic Phoenix]

I would get rid of the marriage system, but still keep the support system. It wasn't necessary to marry people and get their future children even if they were somehow important. On my first playthrough on Hard Mode Classic, I didn't even bother going to the extra Paralogues and recruiting the children since I felt they were just extra baggage (even if stat-wise they are better). I'm not saying they are useless characters, but in FE6 I used the worthless characters as extra storage for important equipment which made them have a use in my game. Also, by that point in FE13 (after Chapter 14), I already have a team set and prepared for anything.

The Bishop class making a return would be nice too and making us be able to make serious decisions that could effect the game drastically (maybe multiple endings, different characters, etc).

I've never played FE4, but even though I've heard about the flaws it doesn't sound like a terrible game. I would actually like to play it when I get the time.

Edited March 3, 2014 by VoltStrike

[Interceptor]

Turtling, overleveling the Avatar or die and using only bows to avoid the Counter skill.

This is probably on the Mount Rushmore of Lunatic+ strategies in terms of reliability, but there are more ways than just that to win. Particularly if you either have a high tolerance for resets, or if you are lacking completely irrational "scrub rules" that hold you back.

I fail to see how sacrificing characters being the most viable strategy makes a difficulty mode well designed.

Or rather, I don't see how keeping all characters alive requires reseting and praying to the RNG that there aren't too many enemies with death skills makes it well desgined.

Please. This entire franchise is predicated on the notion that death is permanent, but not game-ending (unless you are a Lord or critical character). They rarely get away from that in the modern FE era. Keeping every character alive in a game is OCD nonsense, like "routing every map" or "collecting all Vulneraries" or "turning every stat green". Going for it is a handicap with no particular upside. Using Stahl as a decoy in Ch.2 is considerably more productive than having him sit on the bench as a level 2 dumbshit Cav for the entire game.

Shadow Dragon set this one up: death is a part of the game. Success sometimes means being as cold-hearted as Marth.

[XeKr]

Actually, that's not really true I don't think. I personally managed to solo all of Lunatic+ without bows, self-healing, Galeforce, DLC, or grinding, with only a minimal amount of fuss. Even there, there are different promotion paths that are viable for beating the game.

Really, if there's anything the mode needs, it's Preparation Screens on all except the Prologue, and Bonus Experience (except this time, inflation kicks in way more rapidly than in the Tellius games).

Oh, I suppose I would consider reseting the map for a favorable skill distribution under ‘unreliable’. Otherwise, how did you reliably deal with high densities of Counter and Hawkeye+Luna without Bows or Sol+Nosferatu or Galeforce+Rescue? I’m not aware of any better strategies and would be quite interested in them. Sacrificial spotpass units or something?

Try this: go play Apo (the physically largest map in the game), wait until there are 20+ enemies onscreen, especially if they're at opposite corners of the screen, and start toggling the enemy range on and off (x). It lags quite a bit (on a normal 3ds, at least). If a (comparatively) simple thing such as checking range takes a perceptible amount of time, it stands to reason that AI calculations take a good deal longer.

However, FE1 was for the Famicom, and it still managed to run a decent AI without massive EP load times. Why? Because it had all of the time units were moving around and executing battle animations to calculate moves. In Awakening (and Shadow Dragon) the devs added an option to simply skip EP, and that makes calculation times much more noticeable, and thus a greater priority to reduce, hence the simpler AI (though time was probably also a factor). I recall Genealogy even had pauses where the enemy would do nothing for a second, even with battle animations because the maps were so big and the AI was more complex (enemies could hold formations, etc).

This is, by the way, also a reason why going back to huge maps isn't that great of an idea, at least until FE goes back on console. The Wii U could handle it, but the 3ds would need the skip EP option removed (or it wouldn't save much time).

Personally, I wouldn’t call previous FE AI anywhere near competent or decent. In some cases, it can even be argued the game is fun/well-designed because of deliberately predictable and arguably dumb AI (see: FE12). In another sense, certain games are blatant about their lack of smart AI (for the aware). The GBA enemies do the exact same thing, every time, if you reset, due to the fixed RNG. Can you even call that ‘intelligence’?. Alternatively, one could make this claim for the series in general: that FE is about prevailing with your small army against overwhelming odds. How exactly would you win against an equally competent strategist? If the AI was actually good, it would be impossible or at best, RNG to decide the winner.

While it’s clear current technological limitations do place limits on the complexity of AI in FE games, the sheer hardware difference between the 3DS and older systems makes me doubtful they nerfed AI because of enemy phase skipping. Like for FE4, it seems to me that there’s just a throttle somewhere in the program as I think they exhibit that same slowdown behavior on PC emulators, where speedup is available as an option (I could very easily be wrong, I'm pretty much a layman wrt srpg AI programming). I presume it’s technically possible to emulate NES/SNES accurately on a 3DS, anyway. Rather, I think FE AI is incompetent mostly because smart AI in general is much, much harder to code and optimize than most people realize (this from my admittedly limited understanding). Moreover, I don't think it necessarily follows that smarter AI will provide a better gaming experience (for most players). We already get enough RNG criticisms.

I have no idea what specifically causes the lag on larger maps, besides just more stuff to render. Somewhat notably, other FEs have also had issues loading large amounts of information with no relation to AI (like iirc FE10 lags a lot on just menu/prep screens, later in the game).

Also, the AI does some smart stuff now, like moving out of the way to allow another enemy to attack/kill a softer unit at 2 range in a chokepoint. They aggro in groups (often with balanced weapon types) or sometimes on a timer instead of ramboing alone and being just range-based. They sometimes approach in a slightly different formation each time, or from a different direction. They pretty much always go for a kill if the player slips up. Tiki’s map is an actual defend map (for certain unspecialized teams that can’t 1-2 turn clear) and not an unequip+wait at chokepoints for X turns map (5-8 enemies that can attack your tanks per turn is far more scary than just 1-2). And I read they try to box in Bow users or something.

This leads to a related point. What some people criticize as bad AI/map design, getting bumrushed by lots of seemingly overwhelming enemies (plus reinforcements near the starting area), firstly doesn't actually happen the same way on every map and secondly, is likely purposely designed that way (at least in Lunatic, to preserve the challenge) so you can’t trivially lure and pick them off 1 at a time. This sometimes results in the claim that it’s just RNG or a stat-fest, either you have the numbers or not. While true to some extent, it can be consistently beaten by smart team setup and positioning as well. Allowing for brute force, sometimes risky strategies to clearing the map (which always exist) does not preclude the existence of more clever/unorthodox/elegant ones.

EDIT: Errr...this rambling wasn't intended to be targeted toward you, Czar_Yoshi, specifically. I just think it's a fairly interesting topic that's been brought up.

By the way, Awakening doesn't have microtransactions- microtransactions are where you pay for consumables (if you had to pay each time you played a DLC map) or for something the devs can very easily crank out (spotpass characters) on a per-character basis.

Eh, DLCs like CoY for a few dollars vs. Spotpass characters for a few cents (if they had done so). Pretty much the same. Microtransactions vs. DLC are mostly a matter of quality or scale, and not really worthy nitpickying imo. I suppose I’m doing so now…

Edited March 3, 2014 by XeKr

[Interceptor]

Rather, I think FE AI is incompetent mostly because smart AI in general is much, much harder to code and optimize than most people realize (this from my admittedly limited understanding).

This, basically. I wrote an SRPG as a capstone project in college, and designing an intelligent AI is a lot more difficult than people generally understand. AI is pretty straightforward for toy games like tic-tac-toe or checkers or something, but once you get elbow-deep into something complex that requires moves, counter-moves, and planning several steps in advance... that gets ugly. More complex the ruleset, uglier it gets. Look at what we get for something like chess, for example.

And of course, the natural extension of that is the second part: optimization. Look-aheads are very expensive once you get beyond the surface level, so even if you can design a decent AI you might not be able to afford the cycles for it. I'm impressed that they put the "move someone out of the way for a kill" behavior in this game, considering.

[Moira]

I still don't get how you're going about proving this point.

I enjoyed that masochistic mess. I still do. In classic, or casual.

Lunatic+ Casual is the funnest crap I've played since discovering how to memory hack the older Fire Emblem games.

I'll try to break down my reasoning. The biggest goal behind the production of Fire Emblem: Awakening was to have people buy it and make the company money. To do this, they add features to the game that make people want the game, and subsequently more likely to buy it. Most people who bought Fire Emblem: Awakening did not factor in the fact that it had lunatic+ into their decision. Most players would not touch the mode or enjoy it. Now, there are some highly skilled people who enjoy the unfair, but possible, circumstances that lunatic+ offers. However, this group of people is pretty small, and is made up of almost exclusively Fire Emblem veterans and fans of the series. This would lead me to believe that most of the people who enjoy lunatic+ would still have bought the game even without the mode, being such dedicated Fire Emblem fans and lunatic still offering a very viable challenge. Therefore, lunatic+ did not play much of a role in the sales of this game, which is why I think it wasn't a success from a business standpoint.

For the argument that some people enjoy it and games are for enjoyment, I personally am happy to have lunatic+ in the game because I find it frustrating, annoying, and satisfying when I actually get something done (I haven't beaten it, progress is slow). My only comment is on the business aspect of it. I'm glad thats not all thats focused on with the game, and catering to longtime fans who are very skilled with the series should be applauded.

Edited March 3, 2014 by n00srac

[Gaia]

I'll try to break down my reasoning. The biggest goal behind the production of Fire Emblem: Awakening was to have people buy it and make the company money. To do this, they add features to the game that make people want the game, and subsequently more likely to buy it. Most people who bought Fire Emblem: Awakening did not factor in the fact that it had lunatic+ into their decision. Most players would not touch the mode or enjoy it. Now, there are some highly skilled people who enjoy the unfair, but possible, circumstances that lunatic+ offers. However, this group of people is pretty small, and is made up of almost exclusively Fire Emblem veterans and fans of the series. This would lead me to believe that most of the people who enjoy lunatic+ would still have bought the game even without the mode, being such dedicated Fire Emblem fans and lunatic still offering a very viable challenge. Therefore, lunatic+ did not play much of a role in the sales of this game, which is why I think it wasn't a success from a business standpoint.

For the argument that some people enjoy it and games are for enjoyment, I personally am happy to have lunatic+ in the game because I find it frustrating, annoying, and satisfying when I actually get something done (I haven't beaten it, progress is slow). My only comment is on the business aspect of it. I'm glad thats not all thats focused on with the game, and catering to longtime fans who are very skilled with the series should be applauded.

Lunatic is very easily broken. The same can't be said about Lunatic+.

[Moira]

Lunatic is very easily broken. The same can't be said about Lunatic+.

I personally found lunatic to be challenging, but I can't say I know all of the intricate strategies that could be used to break it. I still feel like you need to strategically think things out and work out a good strategy in order to beat it (at least for the earlier chapters, later if you have only a few units they get powerful quick). It took me time to figure out good ways to deal with some of the chapters.

[shadowofchaos]

Therefore, lunatic+ did not play much of a role in the sales of this game, which is why I think it wasn't a success from a business standpoint.

The way you're talking about it... You might as well say that the grade system for the tales games are a failure as well.

The existence of a feature being only used by a small part of the fans does not deem it a "failure from a business standpoint".

Lunatic+ is replay value.

...you're making me defend a mode I dislike because you're not making sense. Seriously.

I like it in the sense that it brought a fresh mess of masochism to me... but I generally complain about it all the time... and you're making me defend it.

Edited March 3, 2014 by shadowofchaos

[Moira]

The way you're talking about it... You might as well say that the grade system for the tales games are a failure as well.

The existence of a feature being only used by a small part of the fans does not deem it a "failure from a business standpoint".

Lunatic+ is replay value.

You're making a reference to something I don't know anything about, and replay value and how many people use it has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm only talking about how much money they make from it, which is entirely based on how many people will buy Awakening fully or partially because of lunatic+. If it had huge popularity and made a lot of people want it in the next one, that would be different. To be honest, they could do better things with more appeal with the time they spent on lunatic+, even if it wasn't a lot of time.

[lazydoggamer]

You're making a reference to something I don't know anything about, and replay value and how many people use it has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm only talking about how much money they make from it, which is entirely based on how many people will buy Awakening fully or partially because of lunatic+. If it had huge popularity and made a lot of people want it in the next one, that would be different. To be honest, they could do better things with more appeal with the time they spent on lunatic+, even if it wasn't a lot of time.

I actually think Lunatic+ makes them more money than the other difficulties because people will buy dlc to grind and make it easier.

[Moira]

How am I not making sense? You just seem to ignore the points I bring up without ever explaining anything. As for the dlc I can see that being true but it almost seems sad, though I can't give a reason without sounding elitist and a grinding hater. I'd say if you can get through the first chapters you should be able to do the rest without grinding too, but they could've followed extensive guides for all I know.

[shadowofchaos]

Because you're assuming that they could have spent the time they used to make Lunatic+ on something to "better the game".

Quite the assumption on your part.

Removing it does not give you something else... game development doesn't work that way.

It's not wasted time or resources.

"My only comment is on the business aspect of it."

...no seriously, I can't follow your logic on this. HOW is it a failure from a business standpoint? There are many features of the game that fail on the "business" route by your definition.

Dual Tag/Double Duel... streetpass... seriously I could go on...

[Moira]

Because you're assuming that they could have spent the time they used to make Lunatic+ on something to "better the game".

Quite the assumption on your part.

Removing it does not give you something else... game development doesn't work that way.

It's not wasted time or resources.

"My only comment is on the business aspect of it."

...no seriously, I can't follow your logic on this. HOW is it a failure from a business standpoint? There are many features of the game that fail on the "business" route by your definition.

Dual Tag/Double Duel... streetpass... seriously I could go on...

It is an assumption, but I feel safe in making based on what little lunatic+ provides for people. You really think that they couldn't have made anything better than lunatic+ to make more people happier? And it does take time and money to make anything in a game, people actually work on it and people actually get paid, and time and money are resources. I've made my logic perfectly clear on how it failed from a business standpoint. As for dual tag/double duel, these features make the game a lot more fun for me and many other people and make people enjoy the game much more. I personally was interested by these features and they were a factor in me buying the game. And since people enjoyed them so much, they'll look forward to future games in the series that have similar features. However the vast majority of people won't care about a mode as hard as lunatic+ in future games. This is what I've gathered from what people say about the game, but most people who have the game don't give feedback on it so I will admit that opinions could be different, but this is the same for everything in the gaming world.

Edited March 4, 2014 by n00srac

[Sunwoo]

You are making assumptions about stuff you don't actually know are true, and using your assumptions to say that it is the reason why something is so. That's a big no-no. You are using what you enjoyed and did not enjoy about Awakening, personally, to say that other people who played Awakening feel the same. How do you know the "vast majority of people" won't care about lunatic+? If most people who have the game don't give feedback on it, then how can you say that your assumption is even right? How do you know that the time on lunatic+ could have been spent on something else more "enjoyable"? How do you know this would've even been more enjoyable?

Personally, double duel is almost a wasted feature for me, because I have only one friend who even likes FE enough to ever want to double duel with me, and he doesn't always want to do double duel as well. Personally, this feature doesn't make the game more interesting for me (on the contrary, makes me feel bad because I don't have a lot of people I can enjoy it with!) You don't see me making assumptions I cannot prove to state as a fact why double duel was a business failure, right?

You can't make an assumption and use it to argue a point like you're right. In a recent mafia game I played, a townie tried to make an assumption that scum shot the governor instead of the tracker on the first night, to make his case that the ninja was scum. His case banked heavily on that assumption. When the game ended, we learned that the ninja was town and scum shot the tracker, and so his assumption was wrong. My point? Don't make assumptions you can't prove to argue a point.

When you've talked to everyone who's owned the game, the people who made the game, and got their opinions on everything, then come back and talk about why lunatic+ was a business failure or not. Until then, I feel you have not proved a thing.

As for what I feel would have improved Awakening, a better story and writing with less contradictions and plot holes. That's the biggest thing I want. While I feel that the avatar shouldn't have been the avatar and that he should've had a set personality and gender and just been like any other character in the game, I'm not sure if this would've actually improved FE13.

[HK Motendra]

All I'm gonna say is this. No, I have not, and prolly will not ever try Lunatic +, but Rey has a point about Lunatic +. By completing the game on what is considered to be the highest difficulty (at least from a player's point of view), you're offered an even bigger challenge to try and overcome. Obviously, the mode is for those who are masters of the game and seek an even higher challenge than what was given. The fact that you find the mode to be a waste is blasphemous, considering the fact that it is 100% *OPTIONAL*. It may not appeal to the more casual gamers, but for those that are hardcore, a new challenge is just the thing that'll keep them engaged into more hours of play time, even if said new difficulty is a bitch to play. Some even consider Awakening to be easier among the series, which the inclusion of Lunatic + would keep them from being bored of the game.

TLDR: The game mode isn't meant for everyone, so therefore, if its too hard, don't bother.

As for improving Awakening, give a mode that plays through the story from Lucina's perspective to explain all of the loopholes.

[FionordeQuester]

The only way I can possibly see Lunatic+ being a failure from a business standpoint is if it literally prevented someone from buying it for whatever reason. But how it would it do that if it's not even start off unlocked to begin with?

[Moira]

From the beginning I have been using statements like I feel and I believe to show that this is in fact my opinion, and have also stated several times that my opinions are based on what I believe to be reasonable assumptions and reasoning. THIS IS 100% MY OPINION. Since most people don't give feedback, nobody ever actually knows what the hell people want. You have to go on what opinions you see more often than others, even though this can be skewed by vocal minorities. But really, there is no better alternative, and you have to make do with the best you can get. I have read around and seen what people like and do not like a pretty good amount. I have also never said that my assumption was right, only reasonable. I even went to great pains to make this obvious, but obviously not obvious enough. Like I said, I really do truly genuinely believe something better than Lunatic+ could've been done. From your reasoning, nobody should have an opinion on this matter without every possible opinion being known(however many millions that is). Once again, it is my personal opinion that lunatic+ didn't succeed and could've been done better.

I'm honestly trying to explain my opinion on this and I get accused of all sorts of things and I feel people haven't even read what I wrote.

for the above post, ill use an example. I run a lemonade business. People will buy my lemonade with 3 scoops of sugar just as much as they would with 4 scoops of sugar. However, I now have to buy 25% more sugar, causing my overall profit to become lower. That money could have been used for better improvements to the lemonade, or at the very least saved for personal gain, which is what I'm selling lemonade for. Lunatic+ plus is essentially the extra sugar in my view.

Edited March 4, 2014 by n00srac

[FionordeQuester]

Like I said, I really do truly genuinely believe something better than Lunatic+ could've been done.

Well sure. But I guess we don't feel it was done that badly.

From the beginning I have been using statements like I feel and I believe to show that this is in fact my opinion, and have also stated several times that my opinions are based on what I believe to be reasonable assumptions and reasoning.

Reasonable assumptions and reasoning from your perspective. Thing is though, some of us don't agree with that, hence the debate. We're not insulting you (or at least, I'm not), we're just telling you why we think you're wrong.

[Moira]

Well sure. But I guess we don't feel it was done that badly.

Reasonable assumptions and reasoning from your perspective. Thing is though, some of us don't agree with that, hence the debate. We're not insulting you (or at least, I'm not), we're just telling you why we think you're wrong.

That's completely fair, but it annoys me when people say I'm wrong without understanding what I'm trying to say or not even responding as to why they think I'm wrong.

[Sunwoo]

You are free to have your opinion. But the way you're saying that lunatic+ is a business failure because it didn't make people more likely to buy the game is faulty. And again, you are using your assumptions, which you cannot prove, to make a case.

"It is an assumption, but I feel safe in making based on what little lunatic+ provides for people."

How can you prove this assumption? What gives you the grounds to make such an assumption in the first place? And if you can't prove it or make a strong enough case for it other than "I feel safe in making it," what right to have to try to build a case using it as your cornerstone to say that it was a business failure?

Edited March 4, 2014 by Sangyul

[Moira]

You are free to have your opinion. But the way you're saying that lunatic+ is a business failure because it didn't make people more likely to buy the game is faulty. And again, you are using your assumptions, which you cannot prove, to make a case.

"It is an assumption, but I feel safe in making based on what little lunatic+ provides for people."

How can you prove this assumption? What gives you the grounds to make such an assumption in the first place? And if you can't prove it or make a strong enough case for it other than "I feel safe in making it," what right to have to try to build a case using it as your cornerstone to say that it was a business failure?

Like every business that sells a product, I'm looking at consumer opinions and trying to see what works and what doesn't. This is how every company tries to improve their product. Assumptions must be made, otherwise choices would be completely random. You must look at what seems to work and what doesn't seem to work. No company ever knows all the opinions, and to say having opinions based on the ones you have is faulty doesn't make sense. Should Nintendo discontinue the Zelda series because not every person who bought it or would buy it has shared their opinion, and therefore they can't decide what a good choice would be? I have shared what my grounds are, other peoples personal enjoyment and opinions on such features. I don't have all the information Nintendo probably has, but I'd have to get a job their to be privy to such valuable information (and it really is valuable).

Edited March 4, 2014 by n00srac

[FionordeQuester]

Then your argument can easily be used against you. I for one LOVE the increased difficulty, and am actually considerably less inclined to buy a game when I don't feel like it's going to give me a challenge. In fact, it's the very reason why I bought Shadow Dragon rather than just playing FE3 on my emulator!

So, there's that. There's my reasonable grounds for why I believe you're wrong.