Should Casual Return?

[shadowofchaos]

@Soc So your anecdotes are evidence, but other peoples' aren't? Alright then.

Damn, thanks. I need to get some burn heal after that.

What I mean is it shows the newcomers that are the extreme. Should they be discounted over the people who get past the perma-death threshold because they don't have as much resolve to get into the series?

Mine isn't evidence. It is merely showing a counterpoint to the one saying it there is nothing showing that permadeath in FE discourages casuals. My goal is to show there are some.

Their goal is to show it is not at all a barrier. Do you see what I mean?

He is using his own experience and sets it as what people should do. If Casual mode were to be left in, people could still bash their heads in Classic mode until they get better. There is nothing preventing "his story" of rising to the challenge if the player chooses to do so.

However, if it were to be taken out, everyone must pursue that same path, even the newbiest of the newbies.

Edited February 18, 2015 by shadowofchaos

[Baldrick]

Well, almost everyone is bad at any pursuit at first. The difference between the people who get thrashed by Normal Classic and those who got thrashed by Eliwood Normal Mode is that the latter didn't have access to Casual Mode, so they were made to learn from their mistakes and improve.

Edit: I think the kind of person who would persist with Classic Mode voluntarily wouldn't have been discouraged from trying the series because of permadeath in the first place. As long as Casual Mode is still in, very few, if any, will "rise to the challenge".

Edited February 18, 2015 by Baldrick

[Irysa]

What I mean is it shows the newcomers that are the extreme. Should they be discounted over the people who get past the perma-death threshold because they don't have as much resolve to get into the series?

Which is why feplus (with a lot more snark), Refa and I have repeatedly posed the question as to where the line is, and very few people have replied to this. Everyone needs a certain degree of resolve to get into any game, the question is how resistant they are to what the game is like. If you only have minor resistance to the game, then they don't need much, but if they have a lot, then they will need a lot. I'm resistant to playing Smash 4 because I think the game's air game is crap, the landing recovery is awful and shield stun is tiny, I'm basically just not playing it because I don't like the mechanical qualities of the game. I have a massive resistance to reading Steins;Gate because Okabe is a huge narcissistic fuckhead who can't stop dropping memes and is so incredibly unlikable that I'm not even willing to put up with the inevitable significant character development arc when something goes wrong and he has to question himself.

Why should those games change how they are/how they're written beacuse I don't like them? I just don't play/stopped playing, and that's fine isn't it? Difficulty seems to be a topic anyone is willing to cecede for accessability but we're unwilling to accept a degree of challenge is actually part of design, equally to the same degree as writing or mechanical nuances. Personally I don't care about difficulty settings in FE, since I don't think they have been/ever were core to the series, but permadeath is.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Irysa

[shadowofchaos]

Well, almost everyone is bad at any pursuit at first. The difference between the people who get thrashed by Normal Classic and those who got thrashed by Eliwood Normal Mode is that the latter didn't have access to Casual Mode, so they were made to learn from their mistakes and improve.

And yes, they indeed worked for their fun. But what is wrong with praising those people brave enough to pick up FE13 because they didn't want to worry about their units? And then removing the training wheels for them not at their own pace? Is it not up to them to decide when to do that if they were already given the option before, since this is for what their definition of fun for their money?

Wanting them to rise to the level of FE veterans is a noble wish for the community as a whole. But what if some people don't want to and just want to play the game with the options they were once given?

Also, I'll type up a response to you Irysa, later. I'm on mobile and I should be getting to bed. Thanks to both of your responses though.

Edited February 18, 2015 by shadowofchaos

[Chloe Neo]

Casual mode should return only so you can save right in the middle of battle, the returning of a unit after it has died should be abolished as its not real fire emblem unless a unit dies permanently (until you find an aum staff).

[Irysa]

I may as well also add (this is a big tl;dr and not FE related so sorry if it's OT, but it's tangentially related), I am a hugely passionate fan of The King of Fighters series. But XIII, (13, ironically, the same entry number as a game so many people here hate...) I found totally disgusting and antithetical to what KoF was about.

I spent months prior to console release watching videos, working on the leaked arcade boardset (Taito X2 is basically Windows XP lol), editing the Shoryuken wiki for combos and strats, and discussing and hyping the game up. I was so fucking ready for KoF to be a thing I could share with my friends in a brand new, HD and beautiful game.

But then I got the game and went to my local ranbats and played it vs people for the first time and words can't really describe how upset I felt when playing the game. It was like my internal organs had all squished themselves together in one tiny clump that just kept growing smaller and smaller the more frustrated and depressed I got. I'd managed to convince myself in all the previous videos from JP arcades that the way the Japanese were playing the game was just their personal preference, aiming for large combos constantly, stocking up loads of meter to make sure you can win matches from random hits etc. I was like "KoF is a flexible game, it'll be fine, it'll still be like 02 and 98". I geninuely believed that. But I was really totally wrong, the game is designed completely differently and the the optimal way to play is ALL about huge combo converts and doing extremely scummy EX reversals into massive damage. Normals do crap damage, antiairs suck, trying to zone sucks, and meter gain for getting hit is huge, so even if you dominate, the other can still just press EX reversal or something and kill you. Everyone can easily and realistically 100% combo off any old ranom hit because of the automatic HD dash in to make combos easier. Most of the EX moves have invinciblity on attacks that were never intended to have invincbility, so they offer a degree of space control that wildly changes how you have to play the game and what's safe. (this probably mostly went over your heads but there's even more things I was pissed about)

I won the ranbat series pretty handily (I'm pretty decent at KoF), but was so physically nauseated by the end (yes, physically nauseated, I felt so awful) that when I got on the stream mic (perk of winning), I quite literally just stood up and said "This game is fucking awful and you should all play KoF 2002 UM instead, it's way better", then went and played like 30 games of casuals in 02 UM with my friend and spent a long time exclaiming just how much better the game felt.

After that incident, I actually stopped going to local scene meetups for a few years. Why? Because I hated KoF XIII and knew I couldn't contain all the negative emotion I had against that game, but at the same time I wanted to let the potential scene for it grow without me showing up, inevitably getting into an argument with new XIII players on why they were playing XIII over the older games (it's flashier and it's good for frauds who want to learn how to win in training mode instead of actual matches), or just generally being "that guy". I went back to playing 98 and 02 on GGPO and just lived with it. I tried to act in the best interests of my local community, and it paid off, we have the strongest XIII scene in the UK, and one of our local players actually placed top 16 at Evo last year (might be remembering the placement wrong). Good, great, fantastic. I can live with things I like changing, even if I hate what they become, don't try to tell me otherwise. I'm a huge fan, but I accepted the game was not for me, and so I didn't play it, and didn't complain for ages about it.

Sure, one could say I'm just being toxic right now by clamouring about the design values of FE and Casual Mode here in this very thread. But come on, it's not like I'm going around this community trying to bash Awakening or New Mystery all the time or something (although I 100%, full understand how those people who are fucking pissed at Awakening felt, to the most extreme degree, and I won't blame them for their nasty backlash), and I'm not even the one who posed the question, plus I've been very much civil throughout. I'm discussing the topic at hand because it is an interesting topic that is not as cut and dry as many people want to make it out to be. What the hell is wrong with that?

Edited February 18, 2015 by Irysa

[Baldrick]

It's true that Casual Mode is not easily taken away, and doing so now would possibly alienate even the people who would be willing to move on to Classic at some point. Instead of removing the training wheels before they're ready, I would have given them a different set of training wheels (implementing savestates rather than a non-permadeath mode). If it would mean some people never get into the series, so be it.

So I guess my position is that Casual Mode should return, but it shouldn't have existed.

[DeadGame]

Afterall it's open to anyone how they want to play the game (eventhough I wish for some events that are only accesible when playing on higher difficulties).

Personally, I'm happy as long as cheesy supports and "waifus" don't make a return, while diverse gameplay does.

As I said, I'm not a huge fan of these newcomes that believe the series is some sort of a dating simulator (but I'm not saying that anyone playing on casual mode thinks like that)

..I just want an epic Strategy RPG again.

[arvilino]

Which is why feplus (with a lot more snark), Refa and I have repeatedly posed the question as to where the line is, and very few people have replied to this. Everyone needs a certain degree of resolve to get into any game, the question is how resistant they are to what the game is like. If you only have minor resistance to the game, then they don't need much, but if they have a lot, then they will need a lot. I'm resistant to playing Smash 4 because I think the game's air game is crap, the landing recovery is awful and shield stun is tiny, I'm basically just not playing it because I don't like the mechanical qualities of the game. I have a massive resistance to reading Steins;Gate because Okabe is a huge narcissistic fuckhead who can't stop dropping memes and is so incredibly unlikable that I'm not even willing to put up with the inevitable significant character development arc when something goes wrong and he has to question himself.

Why should those games change how they are/how they're written beacuse I don't like them? I just don't play/stopped playing, and that's fine isn't it? Difficulty seems to be a topic anyone is willing to cecede for accessability but we're unwilling to accept a degree of challenge is actually part of design, equally to the same degree as writing or mechanical nuances. Personally I don't care about difficulty settings in FE, since I don't think they have been/ever were core to the series, but permadeath is.

The case is that with Fire Emblem we have people who otherwise may have been interested in the series having with a big resistance to a single aspect of the game that, as shown by New Mystery and Awakening having/removing permadeath can simply be avoided by turning into two separate modes(much like adding difficulty modes to the series).

Permadeath's effect on the games perception isn't simply personal preference(for example nobody new to the smash bros is going to ever feel your way about Smash Bros 4 before playing it) it was a barrier in which people didn't want to to try the series because of the the reputation permadeath had. This means that no matter what Intelligent Systems changed about the game(See Sacred Stones Easy, PoR's easy, map saves in RD, replacement units and mercy gaidens Shadow Dragon) to make it more accessible in the long run it didn't matter, no matter how easy they made it they didn't draw in more new players than they lost for almost every game since it came to the west, people were unwilling to play it due to the concept of punishment of permadeath posed.

On the part of "accepting a degree of challenge as part of design" I disagree, Fire Emblem is a SRPG the series which was designed around concept was making a version of Nintendo Wars that RPG players could enjoy with RPG elements such as character levelling, unit relationships and story. These are a big part of the games abd as a result the skill floor should be pretty low with a high ceiling and a wide range of settings. Everyone has difficulties they feel most comfortable with or think are the best but a lot of the time I see criticism of the skill floor it's just some person who selfishly wants the mechanics, skill floor and/or skill ceiling brought closer to their comfort zone and made narrower.

Edited February 18, 2015 by arvilino

[xdxturx]

Which is why feplus (with a lot more snark), Refa and I have repeatedly posed the question as to where the line is, and very few people have replied to this. Everyone needs a certain degree of resolve to get into any game, the question is how resistant they are to what the game is like. If you only have minor resistance to the game, then they don't need much, but if they have a lot, then they will need a lot. I'm resistant to playing Smash 4 because I think the game's air game is crap, the landing recovery is awful and shield stun is tiny, I'm basically just not playing it because I don't like the mechanical qualities of the game. I have a massive resistance to reading Steins;Gate because Okabe is a huge narcissistic fuckhead who can't stop dropping memes and is so incredibly unlikable that I'm not even willing to put up with the inevitable significant character development arc when something goes wrong and he has to question himself.

Why should those games change how they are/how they're written beacuse I don't like them? I just don't play/stopped playing, and that's fine isn't it? Difficulty seems to be a topic anyone is willing to cecede for accessability but we're unwilling to accept a degree of challenge is actually part of design, equally to the same degree as writing or mechanical nuances. Personally I don't care about difficulty settings in FE, since I don't think they have been/ever were core to the series, but permadeath is.

First off- I am not picking on you, but you do provide the best example for the points I am about to make.

while you are entitled to your own opinion as you should be, why do you even feel the perm-death should have any effect on you game? If it is not a mandatory setting (which we all know it won't be). I understand that you feel that difficulty isn't a core value but perm-death is but that in and of it self is a contradiction. perm-death increases any difficulty because it makes all of your choice matter and have consequence, therefore difficult and perm-death are one and the same.

on the topic of tolerance for a GAME.

Why should those games change how they are/how they're written because I don't like them? I just don't play/stopped playing, and that's fine isn't it? Difficulty seems to be a topic anyone is willing to secede for accessibility but we're unwilling to accept a degree of challenge is actually part of design, equally to the same degree as writing or mechanical nuances. Personally I don't care about difficulty settings in FE, since I don't think they have been/ever were core to the series, but perma-death is.

as i said above don't take this personal, but just because you feel a game mode with a non permanent death shouldn't exist doesn't make you right. The series is expanding and trying to grow, which as a fan should make you happy. This casual mode is not going to be forced upon anyone here...let me restate that CASUAL WILL NOT BE FORCED UPON ANYONE , So what does it matter if it is put into the game to help new people to the franchise? What does it matter if people can't beat the game without it? That is THEIR choice and it will in no way shape or form effect your gameplay.

and with that i shall leave you with this quote “A mind set in its ways is wasted. Don't do it.”

Edited February 18, 2015 by xdxturx

[Angelic Phoenix]

Originally, I thought Casual Mode was pointless since Awakening was easy enough even on Hard Mode. I'm experienced enough to how Fire Emblem works (especially since I've played 6-13) and I find it pretty simple. Some games don't come easy to people like Fire Emblem does to me, so I totally understand the inclusion of this feature.

However, I think they should include something like a drawback to balance this a bit. Maybe another character has to leave the map with the character that retreated to make sure they safely make it out. If I remember, FE7 did something similar with Pent and Louise where if one "dies" then the other will leave as well. If they keep the Pair-up Feature, then the character in the back with them will escort them off the battlefield. I don't know, just something to think about.

[xdxturx]

Originally, I thought Casual Mode was pointless since Awakening was easy enough even on Hard Mode. I'm experienced enough to how Fire Emblem works (especially since I've played 6-13) and I find it pretty simple. Some games don't come easy to people like Fire Emblem does to me, so I totally understand the inclusion of this feature.

However, I think they should include something like a drawback to balance this a bit. Maybe another character has to leave the map with the character that retreated to make sure they safely make it out. If I remember, FE7 did something similar with Pent and Louise where if one "dies" then the other will leave as well. If they keep the Pair-up Feature, then the character in the back with them will escort them off the battlefield. I don't know, just something to think about.

But why? why do you want to punish people who struggle with a game and want to have fun in their own way?

like I really just don't understand the hatred for players who use casual...it's not like anyone is forcing you to use it as well?

[Irysa]

To the xdxturx, I suggest you read this post that I made earlier that addresses your points.

Permadeath's effect on the games perception isn't simply personal preference(for example nobody new to the smash bros is going to ever feel your way about Smash Bros 4 before playing it) it was a barrier in which people didn't want to to try the series because of the the reputation permadeath had.

First point; To the same degree? Probably not, but judging from videos beforehand? Extremely easy to judge and observe things like that. Besides, I only have to hear about some specifics to do with any game and be put off, like say, pay to win online videogames. I don't have to play the game to be instantly put off by the fact I know that that exists.

Second point, it's a barrier in exactly the same way. I can make judgements about games before I play them if I know they're not for me, and I can also tentatively try out games that may be outside my comfort zone but seem interesting, then make an informed decision afterwards.

This means that no matter what Intelligent Systems changed about the game(See Sacred Stones Easy, PoR's easy, map saves in RD, replacement units and mercy gaidens Shadow Dragon) to make it more accessible in the long run it didn't matter, no matter how easy they made it they didn't draw in more new players than they lost for almost every game since it came to the west, people were unwilling to play it due to the concept of punishment of permadeath posed.

I'd say sales faltered primarily because FE7 was the only game until FE13 to have had a non insignificant amount of marketing, and it was was released at the peak of interest in Fire Emblem, thanks to a way more popular series in Smash Bros. On the flipside, I could also say sales were lower because people had tried out FE with 7, at the peak of it's popularity, and preferentially were put off by permadeath/the way the game played, so they made the reasonable choice not to continue to purchase or play Fire Emblem games. Also, there are still way more things that they could have done to improve accessability instead of removing permadeath, examples of where it didn't work don't disprove that hypothesis.

On the part of "accepting a degree of challenge as part of design" I disagree, Fire Emblem is a SRPG the series which was designed around concept was making a version of Nintendo Wars that RPG players could enjoy with RPG elements such as character levelling, unit relationships and story. These are a big part of the games abd as a result the skill floor should be pretty low with a high ceiling and a wide range of settings. Everyone has difficulties they feel most comfortable with or think are the best but a lot of the time I see criticism of the skill floor it's just some person who selfishly wants the mechanics, skill floor and/or skill ceiling brought closer to their comfort zone.

Read this interview.

There are some of the biggest and most influential names in FE's development history, and they all agree on permadeath being a core value to how the game is experienced. I slightly expanded my own thoughts on this with the post I linked to earlier if you want to read that as well. You're entitled to disagree about what you get out of the game, but the design ethos is not a debatable point.

[Angelic Phoenix]

But why? why do you want to punish people who struggle with a game and want to have fun in their own way?

like I really just don't understand the hatred for players who use casual...it's not like anyone is forcing you to use it as well?

How is this punishing the player? Also, I have no hatred for the people who do play Causal. As I stated, I understand the inclusion of this feature for people who don't have an understanding of Fire Emblem like I do.

[xdxturx]

How is this punishing the player? Also, I have no hatred for the people who do play Causal. As I stated, I understand the inclusion of this feature for people who don't have an understanding of Fire Emblem like I do.

However, I think they should include something like a drawback to balance this a bit. Maybe another character has to leave the map with the character that retreated to make sure they safely make it out.

thats how..... your words not mine.

And to irysa:

you are making a huge jump by assuming that this ruins the feeling..... for some people it may make the story feel even better, because there is less stress involved with each decision.

To be honest there is no real reason why it shouldn't be brought back.... I mean unless you just want to feel like an elitist and punish people who aren't as good as you.... which is basically how you come across when you are saying " no don't bring back an easy mode"

but as Einstein said:

"Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"

No valid reason why they shouldn't bring it back......but what does it matter because they will bring it back regardless of what anyone on this site says or feels.

Edited February 18, 2015 by xdxturx

[Irysa]

I've said repeatedly they basically have to bring back casual mode because it's way too unrealistic to not do so now (and I'm begrudgingly accepting of this). I'm arguing from the position that it shouldn't have been added in the first place.

I mean if I had my way I'd say "don't bring it back anyway" but now it's come a huge fuss will get kicked up if it leaves.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Irysa

[Angelic Phoenix]

If your allies NEVER die, then it's not really punishing to have another character "help" them retreat to make sure they don't die. Let's say you can even pick the character to escort them off the battlefield. Then it's a decision up to the player and still keeps them in control of the situation. I'm pretty sure it's not that easy to retreat when you're close to death.

[xdxturx]

yes, why bring something that would help encourage growth to a series that was almost over due to a lack of sales......the audacity.

and don't go on to say "do you really think it helped that much?"

Yes, I do believe it helped more than any of us know or ever will know, because obviously the game formula was lacking something.....but this one got it right in every single way from a Financial standpoint

[Irysa]

"almost over", did you see the sales figures I linked before? They needed to do 250k to not get canceled. Do you really think Awakening wouldn't have done 250k without casual? When most of the other games in the series have managed that in America or Japan alone?

you are making a huge jump by assuming that this ruins the feeling..... for some people it may make the story feel even better, because there is less stress involved with each decision.

It's not me assuming it's ruining the feeling, the feeling is different to the intent of the designer. The intent is what's important. Obviously I can't tell someone they didn't enjoy casual mode as much as they did regular FE, that's their own personal decision, but I can say what the intent is.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Irysa

[euklyd]

However, I think they should include something like a drawback to balance this a bit. Maybe another character has to leave the map with the character that retreated to make sure they safely make it out. If I remember, FE7 did something similar with Pent and Louise where if one "dies" then the other will leave as well. If they keep the Pair-up Feature, then the character in the back with them will escort them off the battlefield. I don't know, just something to think about.

"If you want to save a unit, pick another unit who has to carry them off the battlefield."

it's not even hard to flavor

that being said extensive battle saves would still be ~preferable~ to either but I don't exactly feel strongly, or believe it to be critical either way. to me, it's still FE.

"This game is fucking awful and you should all play KoF 2002 UM instead, it's way better"

"and that's why we're never letting him near a mic again"

that was amazing

both what you did and the reaction to it

I think we can all be glad that at the very least, Casual Mode isn't making the rest of the game worse, like *certain mechanical changes* in various FGs ヽ( ᐛ )ノ

(ofc we have other changes for that)

I disagree that design ethos is the end-all be-all when it comes to what a game series *is.* Although basically all I know of the series is what you just said, I'm sure that the same designers who ruined KoF XIII also thought they had a pretty good idea of what it means to be a KoF game.

Just like Sakurai believes he is making a game more and more like what the *ideal* Smash Bros. looks like with every iteration.

IMO, a game is what the players make of it, not how the designer(s) intended it.

(That being said, it's pretty obvious that permadeath is something that is considered very important - even essential - by both the designers, and a large portion of the fanbase. So that was basically just a nitpick.)

yes, why bring something that would help encourage growth to a series that was almost over due to a lack of sales......the audacity.

and don't go on to say "do you really think it helped that much?"

Yes, I do believe it helped more than any of us know or ever will know, because obviously the game formula was lacking something.....but this one got it right in every single way from a Financial standpoint

dude I've been disagreeing with him for the last like four pages

please understand that this comment is not coming from a position of bias

You're either ignoring what he's repeatedly said, or not even reading it in the first place.

[xdxturx]

"almost over", did you see the sales figures I linked before? They needed to do 250k to not get canceled. Do you really think Awakening wouldn't have done 250k without casual? When most of the other games in the series have managed that in America or Japan alone?

It's not me assuming it's ruining the feeling, the feeling is different to the intent of the designer. The intent is what's important. Obviously I can't tell someone they didn't enjoy casual mode as much as they did regular FE, that's their own personal decision, but I can say what the intent is.

here let me tell you the intent: MAKE MONEY.

Edited February 18, 2015 by xdxturx

[euklyd]

xdxturx.
could you please stop?

you're making the rest of us look bad

it's embarrassing

like that's a really flippant way of saying things, but you're repeating points that have already been addressed at least once, and doing so in an, *ahem* rather uncivil way
for the record, not asking you to stop posting entirely or anything, but please like, read the backlog and stuff.

also, people tend to respond better when the other side is at least pretending to be respectful.

[Topazd]

here let me tell you the intent: MAKE MONEY.

This is about the intents of the designers, not those of the executives who pressured them to add the mode.

[xdxturx]

I do believe i'm not the only one repeating points. And i would have respect if there was a single valid point other than "intent or art".

[Irysa]

I highly doubt xdxturx has read the interview and is basically trolling me at this point, or he places zero intrinsic value on any sort of art. But whatever.

If making money is the only thing that matters, then why not, as others and I have suggested, change or add other features that would improve the game's profit margins? How would you feel about them making a free to play version of Fire Emblem where you have to pay 1 dollar per turn (the best incentive to LTC lmao) to keep playing? Perhaps that would actually put more people off, so in another direction, how about allowing people to pay to rig crits and misses at will? Perhaps you can pay to rewind an action, or to take control of the enemies.

That's why I've repeatedly asked about where people are comfortable drawing the line with regards to things like that.

I disagree that design ethos is the end-all be-all when it comes to what a game series *is.* Although basically all I know of the series is what you just said, I'm sure that the same designers who ruined KoF XIII also thought they had a pretty good idea of what it means to be a KoF game.

SNK is not the same team as they were back in the day. Basically 90% of the company left when it went bankrupt in 2000, and went to basically everywhere else in the Japanese development community. A couple of minors came back to form Playmore and eventually SNK Playmore, but the company is for all intents and purposes entirely different. I'm very comfortable saying that they weren't trying to create a KoF game with XIII.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Irysa