AnonymousSpeed Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) So, whenever I'm reading a wiki on Fire Emblem, because hey, what else am I going to do with my time? Get a life? Pfft, no! Anyway, whenever I read an article about a unit the player obtains, it describes them as playable. Is that right? Now, I don't mean that in the sense of if that's morally right, as that would fall under your conundrums of philosophy. No, I mean, from a textbook perspective, isn't it incorrect to call units in FE playable? You do indeed control them to an extend, but it's more like you tell them where to go and what to do, in my eyes, rather than controlling them to do that thing. You know what I mean? In my opinion the FE player is the strategist, which begs the question of if you play as the tactics character, but (Awakening loosely not withstanding) even then you don't seem to 'be' any unit in particular, you just command the whole army from your little aerial perch outside the fourth wall. Thoughts? Edited October 16, 2014 by AnonymousSpeed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlegnomes Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Um, what else would you call them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Book of Ereshkigal Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) You, the player, control them. By your logic, pretty much no character in FE is playable... (Aside from MU or something?) Edited October 16, 2014 by L95 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT075 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 i move that we call all player-controlled units "the purple team" because "the blue team" is far too obvious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 i move that we call all player-controlled units "the purple team" because "the blue team" is far too obvious Purple paint is harder to come by though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) The way you describe the units I would think they're more like, say, one's party in Persona 3 or some such- where you don't actually give all the orders to them that you would to any other character, you just give them general directions and hope they get/do the gist of what you want. Beyond percent activations for attacks, dodges, skills and levelups and stuff, you control every action they take, and while on the battlefield it's easy to get invested in them emotionally, at least for me moreso than for the enemy (so trying to take a "I have no more connection to the units on the player's team than any others" sort of position sounds kinda silly to me). You are "playing their parts" in the part of the action that Fire Emblem chooses to use for its gameplay. It's close enough to fit the common definition pretty readily, I think. And I'd say there's a sizable enough number of games where you control the actions of what's referred to as the "playable characters" during less than 100% of their day (for example, just through a level, thus not having direct control of them in transitions or during cutscenes) that it's not really like Fire Emblem is particularly unusual here IMO. (see: almost every arcadey level-structured game ever, "cinematic" games, the better share of JRPGs, list goes on) Edited October 16, 2014 by Rehab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etria Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Wtf? "Playable" is just the opposite of "NPC", the characters you cannot play with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Geek Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Don't really see why "playable" doesn't work for you, but maybe you would prefer the term "player controlled" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragoncat Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Don't really see why "playable" doesn't work for you, but maybe you would prefer the term "player controlled" This. Another thing worth mentioning: Soren is a tactician, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ownagepuffs Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I can use them, so they are playable... Or usable. Same deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousSpeed Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 Fair points, I was just wondering about what people thought. Another thing worth mentioning: Soren is a tactician, so... I've thought about this, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Yes, they're playable, just like the Aztecs are playable in Civ V. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Jam Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) Fire Emblem is a strategy game, and you play an entire army, not a single character, in a strategy game. "Playable" works just fine for the individual characters in the army that you play. Edited October 17, 2014 by Paper Jam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomesticHausCat Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 They're as playable as Fire Emblem lets you play characters. By having them move and attack/heal/whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.