Should Casual Return?

[xdxturx]

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.

1) that would be a horrible business move (yes this is a joke)

2) no i'm not trolling just pointing out real world things money speaks plain and simple.

and also the institution of nonperm-death crossed no lines it just made the game better for CASUAL play.

why am I even still here...

[Irysa]

Please explain how adding the ability to pay at will to rig crits and misses is a terrible business move.

[arvilino]

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.

Your whole Q&A is essentially to say the expanded audience "Casual mode is a bad idea, you cannot appreciate the game on as many levels as I have on classic if you play it". I can see where you're coming from and why permadeath makes the series special for a certain set of the player base, but building attachment to the characters and wanting to avoid them from reaching 0 HP exists regardless of whether permadeath is in or not. The tension is still similar to the same way a player doesn't want to see their Pokémon to faint they don't want to see their favourite character lose in every battle or not having Leon decapitated by a Chain Saw in REIV despite the fact you know he comes back each time. You massively overblow the impact casual mode has (and I'd imagine intentionally given your treatment of KoF XIII) but this isn't Super Meat Boy or Fable II where the character instantly pops back up in the same level.

It's not as extreme as classic mod Fire Emblem but its clear a number people want to play without that level of tension or frustration and enjoy Fire Emblem(which is why changes/options to make the game easier that still include permadeath aren't effective), a number of players do want to play with the traditional level of tension. The devs even state it in that interview that even lapsed Fire Emblem fans may want to play that way and by Awakening you see some of the devs have turned their opinion round.

Edited February 18, 2015 by arvilino

[xdxturx]

Your whole Q&A is essentially to say the expanded audience "Casual mode is a bad idea, you cannot appreciate the game on as many levels as I have on classic if you play it". I can see where you're coming from and why permadeath makes the series special for a certain set of the player base, but building attachment to the characters and wanting to avoid them from reaching 0 HP exists regardless of whether permadeath is in or not. The tension is still similar to the same way a player doesn't want to see their Pokémon to faint they don't want to see their favourite character lose in every battle or not having Leon decapitated by a Chain Saw in REIV despite the fact you know he comes back each time. You massively overblow the impact casual mode has (and I'd imagine intentionally given your treatment of KoF XIII) this isn't Super Meat Boy or Fable II where the character instantly pops back up.

It's perhaps not as extreme as classic Fire Emblem but its clear a number people want to play without that level of tension or frustration and enjoy Fire Emblem, a number of players do. The devs even state it in that interview that even lapsed Fire Emblem fans may want to play that way and by Awakening you see some of the devs have turned their opinion round.

been saying the mode is meant for less stress and casual plays......but i'm speaking latin I guess.

goodluck with this group...

[BrightBow]

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".

Thing is, the series direction being right from an

Financial standpoint

is not a valid argument. Not when you are arguing that this justifies giving up anything that makes the series special in the first place.

We are not working for IS nor do we know anyone working for them. And even if we did, it's not like they would have to be starving or anything, they would just work on different projects that are more profitable. So from that angle, the success of the Fire Emblem brand is a complete non-issue for us.

What matters for us is what becomes of the series itself.

And cancel a series or robbing it of it's soul, it makes no difference. It's dead either way.

A series that is reduced to a mere brand name is nothing more then a zombie. And a zombie is a mockery of the memory of the person whose skin it's using.

And I am saying this as someone who is in favor of Casual mode and inclusivity.

But saying that money justifies litterally everything that happens to a series is a disgusting attitute to have towards a franchise that one claims to give a damn about.

Edited February 18, 2015 by BrightBow

[Irysa]

Your whole Q&A is essentially to say the expanded audience "Casual mode is a bad idea, you cannot appreciate the game on as many levels as I have on classic if you play it". I can see where you're coming from and why permadeath makes the series special for a certain set of the player base, but building attachment to the characters and wanting to avoid them from reaching 0 HP exists regardless of whether permadeath is in or not. The tension is still similar to the same way a player doesn't want to see their Pokémon to faint they don't want to see their favourite character lose in every battle or not having Leon decapitated by a Chain Saw in REIV despite the fact you know he comes back each time. You massively overblow the impact casual mode has (and I'd imagine intentionally given your treatment of KoF XIII) but this isn't Super Meat Boy or Fable II where the character instantly pops back up in the same level.

It's not as extreme as classic mod Fire Emblem but its clear a number people want to play without that level of tension or frustration and enjoy Fire Emblem, a number of players do want to play with the traditional level of tension. The devs even state it in that interview that even lapsed Fire Emblem fans may want to play that way and by Awakening you see some of the devs have turned their opinion round.

Of course it exists on some level, regardless of whether it's there, the point is it detracts significantly, much in the same way removing real support conversations in FE10 and 11 detracted from their goals and pissed off a lot of fans. You can certainly wish for your Pokemon/Characters/etc not to fall in combat, but one cannot reach the feeling of "I can't lose here at any costs!" because you actually can afford to lose a character unless you self impose a rule on yourself (which admittedly, vets playing casual do, but newcomers don't, and the contract players sign up to when playing the game can be arbitary, all the devs can do is lay their intended one out). Although the Resi 4 comparison is way too loose because that's actually a game over, you HAVE to restart, much like if the Lord or Avatar dies.

I don't believe I massively overblow the impact it has, because I haven't said that you can't like Fire Emblem or Fire Emblem characters without permadeath. What I have said, is that without permadeath, the experience is watered down and diluted in a way that difficulty settings actually don't do. I'm also not sure what you mean by "intentionally", because I don't actually dislike Awakening or New Mystery as games on the whole. They have a lot of things I do like about them, and things I don't like, same as every Fire Emblem game, and any complaints I raise against systems within those games is as grounded as me discussing other mechanics in other games.

Your last point goes back to what I said previously with how a clear number of people want to be able to play any number of games in different ways to their own preference. Aside from the impossibility of accomodating them all, I repeat, what is actually wrong with the prospect of those people not playing the game because they don't like something in the game? I won't tell people who hate any violence to play Fire Emblem, and expecting the developers to accomodate them is ridiculous not only because it's a minority, but because it goes against what the series even is. I gave multiple examples of popular to somewhat popular titles that I am not playing because I dislike aspects of them, so I don't play them. Please tell me what's wrong with this?

It's true, some people have changed their minds, but the impression I get is that they believe as such that it's okay because it will get people to experience at least a watered down version of the game/they may try the full experience. My standpoint is that's not worth it, because it's like trying to create an easier to read/shorthand version of something like War and Peace.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Irysa

[arvilino]

Of course it exists on some level, regardless of whether it's there, the point is it detracts significantly, much in the same way removing real support conversations in FE10 and 11 detracted from their goals and pissed off a lot of fans. You can certainly wish for your Pokemon/Characters/etc not to fall in combat, but one cannot reach the feeling of "I can't lose here at any costs!" because you actually can afford to lose a character unless you self impose a rule on yourself (which admittedly, vets playing casual do, but newcomers don't, and the contract players sign up to when playing the game can be arbitary, all the devs can do is lay their intended one out). Although the Resi 4 comparison is way too loose because that's actually a game over, you HAVE to restart, much like if the Lord or Avatar dies.

I don't believe I massively overblow the impact it has, because I haven't said that you can't like Fire Emblem or Fire Emblem characters without permadeath. What I have said, is that without permadeath, the experience is watered down and diluted in a way that difficulty settings actually don't do. I'm also not sure what you mean by "intentionally", because I don't actually dislike Awakening or New Mystery as games on the whole. They have a lot of things I do like about them, and things I don't like, same as every Fire Emblem game, and any complaints I raise against systems within those games is as grounded as me discussing other mechanics in other games.

Your last point goes back to what I said previously with how a clear number of people want to be able to play any number of games in different ways to their own preference. Aside from the impossibility of accomodating them all, I repeat, what is actually wrong with the prospect of those people not playing the game because they don't like something in the game? I won't tell people who hate any violence to play Fire Emblem, and expecting the developers to accomodate them is ridiculous not only because it's a minority, but because it goes against what the series even is. I gave multiple examples of popular to somewhat popular titles that I am not playing because I dislike aspects of them, so I don't play them. Please tell me what's wrong with this?

In short nothing, but if the change is small but has a large impact but could make a beneficial change( in this case ensuring the best ability for the series to continue) and the change isn't mutually exclusive with the old it's glaringly obvious the person in charge should really think about that change(provided it's legal). Especially if the change is reasonable, "I don't like permadeath but I would be interested in playing Fire Emblem" doesn't require the game being turned upside down to cater to.

For Fire Emblem deciding those players should not play if they don't like permadeath would be essentially letting an opportunity pass by despite not even having to move away from an existing formula yet allowing more people to enjoy the game in different ways. Who says everyone who has to play the game needs to feel "I can't lose here", what if they want to play a new turn based SRPG like Fire Emblem but not feel that way? The creator may have aimed for the audience to feel a certain way but in the end its foolish for them to only want the people who specifically feel that way about each single aspect.

If a group wants a milder version of an experience and they're one of the few actually able to offer it along with the original it'd just seem stubborn to outright refuse it. Just think of how other kind of industries and products handle their business or customer service.

Edited February 18, 2015 by arvilino

[Melissa]

Seeing as how the last two games have been catering to beginners, I see no reason for Casual Mode to be excluded, especially with Awakening's success

Edited February 18, 2015 by Lord_Seliph

[Irysa]

In short nothing, but if the change is small but has a large impact but could make a beneficial change( in this case ensuring the best ability for the series to continue) and the change isn't mutually exclusive with the old it's glaringly obvious the person in charge should really think about that change(provided it's legal). Especially if the change is reasonable, "I don't like permadeath but I would be interested in playing Fire Emblem" doesn't require the game being turned upside down to cater to.

I'm not so sure about that. One doesn't actually have to turn the game upside down to potentially create a pacifist mode, where every enemy soldier is recruitable, because the systems have always been in place to walk up, talk to an enemy, and have them join you. They'd have to do a lot more to make it interesting mind you, since even someone who totally abhors violence is probably not going to find that experience compelling unless they actually have something like dialogue/negociation trees etc, and by that point we're starting to get into Grand Strategy esque titles and have changed the genre.

I'm also unsure about the standpoint of "if the change is small and has a large impact..." because I don't consider not having permadeath to be a small change. But, ignoring how I interpret that, even if it is just a small change to how the game is played, the element of what is more beneficial is pretty relative. In your case, you're saying that the series ability to continue is worth some losses elsewhere. I'd counter and say the series had fine potential to continue even without Casual Mode, (based on prior evidence mind you), but again, I'll ignore that and just instead just question why the series continuing is worth more than those losses? BrightBow just delivered a particularly well written post about the soul of a franchise, and makes a pretty good point; that a series existing in a comatose, zombified state, with it's core elements removed so that it can continue to exist is essentially the same as it being discontinued. In fact I would say it's worse, because as he stated, it exists to mock the past history of a franchise. Think of all those godawful modern reboots of old franchises like Bomberman and Bionic Commando that tried to reinvent themselves for a more modern audience, or the controversy over the last game parading itself as being a reboot of Devil May Cry. (UGH)

Now that isn't to say that including Casual Mode is anywhere near equivilant to those same reboots. But I am questioning why you think "ensuring the best ability for the series to continue" isn't simply comparable to xdxturx saying "only the money matters". We could change a lot more things about Fire Emblem to increase the ability for the series to continue or grow, but I'd hazard a guess you're not in favour of most of them, even if they are optional choices. Asking whether the choice is reasonable is also a bit too subjective, as is clear by the disagreement people have over it's existance.

For Fire Emblem deciding those players should not play if they don't like permadeath would be essentially letting an opportunity pass by despite not even having to move away from an existing formula yet allowing more people to enjoy the game in different ways.

It isn't Fire Emblem deciding those players shouldn't play, it's the player's own responsibility and agency to decide whether they want to invest time into an activity. Difficulty settings between Easy to Hard or w/e allow people to enjoy games in different ways, but they can only lessen or increase the severity of a decision that may result in a death, not actually outright create scenarios where the death doesn't matter (technically a difficulty setting where enemies can't damage you would sort of be equivilant but I think that's a bit of a nitpick). Obviously, it's still beneficial to not die in Casual Mode, but I can give you at least one example (and there are plenty more than this) of how Casual Mode actually removes an implication in a way that lower difficulties don't - you can use some filler flier or cavalier that hasn't been leveled to distract or lure enemies away from your main group of units that you need to finish the map. If you wanted to do this in a game without casual mode, you would have to accept that by doing this, that unit would be gone forever, and your decisions are a large part of what just killed them. Casual Mode doesn't have that unless a player self imposes that upon themselves.

Besides, the point of contention is that Casual Mode moves away from the existing formula. The counterargument to this is that it's existance can't detract from the original when its optional and Classic Mode exists, but I've already made quite clear how something being optional can definitely detract from the original's integrity (see, Nude Mode argument). Nude Mode has a societial and cultural taboo against it (although I can't really be sure exactly how much money would be lost/gained over the prospective of a pornographic nintendo game, fanservice as it exists in FE13's DLC has definitely generated not insignificant revenue), but is the reason for not doing it cultural/societial, or is the money? And doesn't the prospect of Casual Mode equally have a cultural and societial taboo against it, albiet on a much smaller scale within the preexisting Fire Emblem community? Well that one is a stretch anyway and it's not supposed to be justification, but rather draws attention to the fact that the way people feel about it is somewhat comparable. I'm not "bothered" per se by the fanservice DLC Awakening has, and I don't plan to buy it (optional!) but I do think it reduces the integrity of the product since it's basically just straight up fan pandering and doesn't really have any other purpose than to milk money besides some minor character development.

Who says everyone who has to play the game needs to feel "I can't lose here", what if they want to play a new turn based SRPG like Fire Emblem but not feel that way? The creator may have aimed for the audience to feel a certain way but in the end its foolish for them to only want the people who specifically feel that way about each single aspect.

It's not that they need to feel that way, since we not everyone feels the same way about everything.There will be some who will play FE, dislike it and not get that feeling then stop playing, some may finish to get their money's worth and not play it anymore etc. We can't control that, and I'm not proposing as such. It's that the possibility is there on Classic but not on Casual. Well I suppose it's theoretically possible if you only deploy Chris/Marth or Chrom/Avatar, or let your entire army but them get killed, but it's not quite equatable since those are just game overs instead of a player feeling pressured to reset. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the possibility for that particular sensation of feeling uniquely pressured to keep your non protagonist characters alive at any cost is absent.

Also, a statement such as "what if they want to play an SRPG like FE but not feel that way" is a bit malformed because they can, there are other games that do that? Aiming to invoke a particular reaction is obviously not foolproof, but the goal is to at least try to get that across, mechanics as metaphors etc.

[shadowofchaos]

Honestly, while I see both sides of this argument, I'm just too emotionally invested in defending my friends who are part of the casuals who don't want permadeath when playing.

For one thing, I screw around on Lunatic+ for visuals, and removing Casual mode would remove my oddly specific way of having fun.

...Really I feel like Casual Mode can be for newcomers and veterans who just want to screw around. I look at it like the "Tales of" Series grade shop.

@Irysa: Still reading your post right after I went to bed last night.

Too bad I can't watch your KoF "This game sucks" where I am. I'm sure I'll get a laugh out of it later.

I guess I've had a few facepalms from both sides of the line.

Including from my own posts.

Haha.

Edited February 18, 2015 by shadowofchaos

[arvilino]

Also, a statement such as "what if they want to play an SRPG like FE but not feel that way" is a bit malformed because they can, there are other games that do that? Aiming to invoke a particular reaction is obviously not foolproof, but the goal is to at least try to get that across, mechanics as metaphors etc.

Currently no. Not as a new product for a modern system and if there was while Fire Emblem remained the same, if there was a modern alternative of similar quality of Fire Emblem but with classic and casual mode the result would be pretty obvious. Fire Emblem would have kept its declining fanbase while this new game would garner the newer casual players Awakening would have got in addition to interesting some of the people who like Fire Emblem or may want to continue games like it but more casually.

I say "ensuring the best ability for the series to continue" because all things need to change with the market to avoid being stagnant, if the changes or effects of the changes each time are minimal or overly conservative fewer and fewer people are going to come back each time even if dramatic changes(Bomberman Act: Zero) can be catastrophic.

[Irysa]

Currently no.

How similar to FE are you asking this to be? Quite a lot of SRPGs exist these days, between devs like NIS being very content to pump out mediocre titles to indie titles on PC like Banner Saga. There's also SRW's near yearly installments.

I say "ensuring the best ability for the series to continue" because all things need to change with the market to avoid being stagnant, if the changes or effects of the changes each time are minimal or overly conservative fewer and fewer people are going to come back each time even if dramatic changes(Bomberman Act: Zero) can be catastrophic.

I couldn't disagree more. There's no need to change, if a game series can't sell then I have no problem with the series ending. Seriously, what's wrong with it simply ending? All things have to end. Unless you're Detective Conan.

[Radiant head]

I couldn't disagree more. There's no need to change, if a game series can't sell then I have no problem with the series ending. Seriously, what's wrong with it simply ending? All things have to end. Unless you're Detective Conan.

Nintendo/IS isn't going to prioritize some sense of purity over keeping the games profitable.

You're free to just stop playing and let others enjoy changes.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Radiant head

[Irysa]

Which is what I'll do if the games ever actually become entirely unenjoyable or opposed to the things I care about! Which they haven't yet, fortunately.

Besides, that's not the point, the games have been profitable (just about, apparently), the point is "Why should FE change?". Is the answer just money? If all that matters is money, then that's somewhat of a reprehensible position since it allows for a lot of other potentially disgusting practices in the name of more cash as we've seen other publishers do. You need some kind of extra ethical standpoint to add onto that goal, to do with the principles of your game and duty to players and role as artists. Money is required to keep making games but the goal isn't solely to make the most money, or else they'd be making something that wasn't Fire Emblem.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Irysa

[Radiant head]

Potentially yes, but casual mode/no permadeath option isn't a disgusting practice unless you just want to be melodramatic, so we're still in the range where trying to be profitable is justified. It's not the only motivating factor, but thinking it's anything but the most important one for a business is naive.

[Irysa]

Ah, the free market approach. Well, unsurprisingly you'll find I'm quite opposed to that, saying that profit is the most important thing for a business is pretty much a purely subjective viewpoint. What about non-profit organisations? Their goals are to better humanity, so the money doesn't matter to them. Obviously Nintendo can't go non-profit, but as someone who has worked tangentially on some game projects (I like, gave advice and edited a script once THAT COUNTS) and knows a few developers, saying that it is the most important factor is something I would view as naive!

Honestly I'd go far enough to state that I actually believe and trust in the designers and artists at Nintendo a lot more than I trust a lot of companies these days. I'm willing to believe the narrative that the executives and shareholders are the ones pushing down on them to change, but they're basically not invested in any practice other than generating revenue, so that's hardly surprising. I believe the devs are trying to make games they think are good and realise their own goals within them as developers. In a sense I hold Nintendo to an unfair, but slightly higher standard, which is why I was quite dissapointed with how they eventually double backed on DLC for games like FE13 and Hyrule Warriors.

So regardless, I haven't disagreed that revenue is important for creators to realise their vision, especially when we're working with today's game budgets (thankfully massively alleviated due to the status of being on a handheld, Yune bless 3ds graphics for saving resources on development). We're once again back to this crux though - How far can you go for profit?

If something that is at the heart and soul of a series, according to both developers and long time fans, is up for being changed or modified, that to me makes the apparent point of no return seem extremely hard to discern from either the front or back.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Irysa

[Refa]

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.

That was hilarious. Also uh I don't like Casual Mode or something.

I guess I've had a few facepalms from both sides of the line.

Including from my own posts.

Haha.

Nah, your posts have been fine.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Refa

[Radiant head]

Ah, the free market approach. Well, unsurprisingly you'll find I'm quite opposed to that, saying that profit is the most important thing for a business is pretty much a purely subjective viewpoint.

It's really not.

Honestly I'd go far enough to state that I actually believe and trust in the designers and artists at Nintendo a lot more than I trust a lot of companies these days. I'm willing to believe the narrative that the executives and shareholders are the ones pushing down on them to change, but they're basically not invested in any practice other than generating revenue, so that's hardly surprising. I believe the devs are trying to make games they think are good and realise their own goals within them as developers. In a sense I hold Nintendo to an unfair, but slightly higher standard, which is why I was quite dissapointed with how they eventually double backed on DLC for games like FE13 and Hyrule Warriors.

I mean I trust them too, but that's because unlike you, I don't think money and artistic integrity are always at odds with each other. I mean the games have to be good for people to buy them after all. For the most part, we can have both, and then it comes to things like casual mode, where I guess it's more up for debate. But I guess I just don't see something like casual mode to be such a betrayal of integrity that you do, so that's why I think money ends up being a more important factor by default. I mean when you make that kind of argument, it's definitely more from a subjective fan perspective than either an artist or business perspective, so you can't just take for granted that it's more important than profit.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Radiant head

[Irysa]

Did you like, miss the part where I outlined non-profit organisations? How is profit the most important factor for them? As I said, their goal is to better humanity.

And for many artists, making money isn't actually a primary concern either. Why else would there be so many people on the internet who just draw shit and stick it up for fun? Sure, it's a lot cheaper to do that than make a game, but you've got people like Pixel who made Cave Story entirely by himself, in his free time, then distributed it as freeware. To him, the goal wasn't money at all, he just wanted to create and share his vision with the rest of the world. Again, that game probably didn't cost much to make, but the principle is what's important. I don't expect all creators to aspire to that, but simultaneously I can still desire for creative products to not be compromised by money any more than is actually neccessary.

Ambitious projects need money, and unfortunately there isn't really the same kind of investor interest like there is for indie films or the like where you can actually get the budget to shoot stuff if someone thinks your idea is good. Isn't challenging that outlook about games a positive thing to do?

Edited February 18, 2015 by Irysa

[Radiant head]

Did you like, miss the part where I outlined non-profit organisations? How is profit the most important factor for them? As I said, their goal is to better humanity.

If there was actually a point in bringing up non-profit organizations, I missed it yes, because I don't know what that has to do with anything.

[Irysa]

thinking it's anything but the most important one for a business is naive.

And I gave examples where it's not the most important one?

[Vascela]

And I gave examples where it's not the most important one?

You said it yourself that Nintendo won't become a non-profit organization. While I do agree with: devs want to make a "good" game, the idea that casual is the status symbol of "bad" seems awkward to me. The just the inclusion of this turns a good game into a bad one just seems shallow.

People who played on Normal/Casual shouldn't be segregated from the Lunatic+/Classic by personal experiences that you identify as the crux of the game.

There is more to the gameplay than just permadeath. For example, one of the most important aspects of gameplay [to me] is for beginners to find the generic equations that IS doesn't give you and to pick them up on their own (such as speed, weight system, etc.). That gameplay experience has nothing to do with permadeath. Then there is also gameplay revolving around the support system. That isn't affected by playing on casual or classic.

There's more to gameplay than permadeath. FE used to highlight that as a major point, but now other aspects of gameplay overshadow permadeath.

You call that a bad thing. But I don't think you really believe that taking away casual enhances the overall gameplay completely? That would mean you'd ignore a plethora of gameplay elements.

[feplus]

Permadeath is not the only core gameplay mechanic in Fire Emblem, but it is a core gameplay mechanic.

[Gradivus.]

this waifu stuff is no FE core gameplay mechanic, because it's specific to 2 FE games so far and will or will not come back on FE14. I haven't watched any trailers yet, but it wasn't certain from the start whether it will come in the next FE. I don't know if it has been revealed yet.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Vascela]

this waifu stuff is no FE core gameplay mechanic, because it's specific to 2 FE games so far and will or will not come back on FE14. I haven't watched any trailers yet, but it wasn't certain from the start whether it will come in the next FE. I don't know if it has been revealed yet.

While it's true that no other FE had "waifu stuff" as core gameplay mechanics, the support system has been around. You don't need marriage to dip into the support ranks.