Return of Casual

[Jagged Jagen]

Your idea of Casual mode being unlockable is absurd. Make the easier difficulty setting unlockable? Now your stance is "Okay, casual mode can be included BUT it has to be used the way I used it!"

Maybe some people will develop this "Casual Mode Stigma" and never play classic. So what? Maybe a lot of people with fringe interest in the genre will start with casual and level up to classic. The point is, they are all playing and enjoying Fire Emblem.

I didn't want to go there, but they are playing and enjoying Awakneing. No problem with that, I have played and enjoyed Awakening too. But I think IS needs to make a better effort to transition newcomers to the series as a whole and the older games now. We've seen the rise in interest for the fandom, now IS and Nintendo should make a concious effort to ease players into the series as a whole. I understand WHY casual mode is in the game but I still don't know why mechanics such as Pair-Up and Grinding are. Those can break the game at times and goes against the central idea of the series as whole, providing ample challenge and consequence.

My stance is that Casual should be cut. If it has to be in, I don't see why it shouldn't be unlocked. Or better yet, do it in a modified Kid Icarus style. Start the game with a few tutorial levels of an equal difficulty, and Lyn's story style where units will return later dependent on the path chosen. Then, allow time to build up in game currency. When you reach Chapter 6, you pick a side and difficulty. If you want to play Casual mode, charge. Right there is an incentive to play Classic mode. You don't have to pay. Already, it's common knowledge that the developers feel Classic is the true way, so they should enforce it more.

Edited April 25, 2015 by DeoGame

[Crysta]

For IS, yes. For me, no.

You usually prefer less money to more money? Wonderful. Give it to me pls.

Oh I've spent many idle tuesdays playing Fire Emblem. But the company ceasing to exist doesn't mean their old games stop existing. I can still play them.

I have this suspicion this is going to turn into me arguing with someone who needs to be correct about something. Anything.

Again, wonderful. Doesn't really change the fact that it may, indeed, affect how someone else may spend their Tuesday. I wasn't referring to yours. I am assuming another player, who you do not remotely know, playing Casual doesn't directly affect you at all beyond you feeling compelled to complain about it on a forum.

I have no difficulty in understanding why people want the series to succeed. It's simply that the reasons for wanting it to succeed seem to generally stem around "So I get more things of what I like", which is not really any different to the position of someone who doesn't like casual mode.

Okay, before I continue, let me just make something clearer...

What you're essentially arguing is: "People wanting more players to buy Fire Emblem games so more games can be made for my entertainment is just as selfish as advocating adjusting the way another stranger has to play for my own personal preference?"

I need to know this is indeed what you mean before I can decide to continue.

[Irysa]

You usually prefer less money to more money? Wonderful. Give it to me pls.

Whether I prefer that or not is pretty irrelevant to it neccessarily being a good thing, without needing to expand why it's a good thing.

Besides, if I have a stable amount of money right now, and I get more money that I don't plan on using at all, and have no use for, I would actually give it away. Maybe not neccessarily to you, but to causes I consider worthwhile? Sure! In fact, I've done so already. There's a different argument for exactly how much I should be giving away, but I enjoy the comforts of my life enough (selfishly) to not willingly want to give up my central heating and internet for example.

Again, wonderful. Doesn't really change the fact that it may, indeed, affect how someone else may spend their Tuesday. I wasn't referring to yours. I am assuming another player, who you do not remotely know, playing Casual doesn't directly affect you at all beyond you feeling compelled to complain about it on a forum.

I haven't actually complained about them playing the game on casual? I've only said that I think it was a mistake to introduce the mode, and that different steps could have been taken to make the game more accessible without compromising an important aspect of the series.

The only reason I bring myself up is exactly because of the argument "it doesn't affect you" being flung around so much. If this is like, the reason why I'm not supposed to care, then why, by extension, am I supposed to care about that other person playing the game? It's not a consistent position. There has to be some consideration towards other people for this to work. And in that consideration (which I presume you'll find patronising) I've said I think casual mode results in many players getting a watered down experience that's devoid of something I (and the developers) consider to be an integral part of the franchise. Thus, it I believe it was a mistake. If people can't get on board with that basic tenant, then that's fine, people don't have to all enjoy the same things.

I'm not saying there need to actively be some kind of system to stopping them from playing. There is a big difference.

Okay, before I continue, let me just make something clearer...

What you're essentially arguing is: "People wanting more players to buy Fire Emblem games so more games can be made for my entertainment is just as selfish as advocating adjusting the way another stranger has to play for my own personal preference?"

I need to know this is indeed what you mean before I can decide to continue.

No.

"An individual wanting measures to be taken during development to facilitate more players buying Fire Emblem games so that more games that said individual finds pleasing are made"

is as selfish/petty as

"An individual wanting measures to be taken during development so that more games that said individual finds pleasing are made"

Make no mistake here, I fully acknowledge the complete pettiness of my own position on the subject. I want the games to be a particular way beacuse I think that they would be better off for it, because it fits my own ideal vision of what the games should be like. This really isn't any different to wanting better map design for example.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Irysa

[NekoKnight]

I didn't want to go there, but they are playing and enjoying Awakneing. No problem with that, I have played and enjoyed Awakening too. But I think IS needs to make a better effort to transition newcomers to the series as a whole and the older games now. We've seen the rise in interest for the fandom, now IS and Nintendo should make a concious effort to ease players into the series as a whole. I understand WHY casual mode is in the game but I still don't know why mechanics such as Pair-Up and Grinding are. Those can break the game at times and goes against the central idea of the series as whole, providing ample challenge and consequence.

My stance is that Casual should be cut. If it has to be in, I don't see why it shouldn't be unlocked. Or better yet, do it in a modified Kid Icarus style. Start the game with a few tutorial levels of an equal difficulty, and Lyn's story style where units will return later dependent on the path chosen. Then, allow time to build up in game currency. When you reach Chapter 6, you pick a side and difficulty. If you want to play Casual mode, charge. Right there is an incentive to play Classic mode. You don't have to pay. Already, it's common knowledge that the developers feel Classic is the true way, so they should enforce it more.

IS doesn't need to encourage people to play older Fire Emblem games because they're not being sold (as much) anymore. IS is and should be focused on making FE14 and subsequent titles enjoyable for a large audience (made larger by the inclusion of such things like Casual).

Bolded: That's exactly what casual mode can be to some players. Something to ease them into the "true" Fire Emblem experience.

Underlined: I hate to be overly hostile but this is another bad idea. If you want to add greater incentives (like bonus chapters or items) for classic, good! But you don't punish people for choosing the easy mode. It's there for people who don't like the pressure.

[Crysta]

No.

"An individual wanting measures to be taken during development to facilitate more players buying Fire Emblem games so that more games that said individual finds pleasing are made"

is as selfish/petty as

"An individual wanting measures to be taken during development so that more games that said individual finds pleasing are made"

Make no mistake here, I fully acknowledge the complete pettiness of my own position on the subject. I want the games to be a particular way beacuse I think that they would be better off for it, because it fits my own ideal vision of what the games should be like. This really isn't any different to wanting better map design for example.

Okay. I think I better understand, and it's vague enough with no specifics for me to agree with it. People who want some developments so the game they churn out is more likeable to them is just as selfish as people who don't want some developments for the same reason. And I think that is the crux between the Casual Should Continue To Exist vs. Casual Should Be Eliminated/Change debate.

Even if one position ("keep Casual so newer players can become fans by actually getting to complete the game and buy more") is much more inclusive, less subjective, profitable than the other ("change/remove Casual because no permadeath destroys game integrity imo").

I'm careful to add the "imo" because I don't believe having my unit getting criticalled with a 2% chance and having to restart the chapter because of it really enhances the game that much. It's a strategy game, so of course that should be a part of it, but consideration for the learning curve of the player is not... a bad thing. It baffles me that people seem to think it is.

EDIT: Somehow messed up the quote tags.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Crysta

[Baldrick]

IS doesn't need to encourage people to play older Fire Emblem games because they're not being sold (as much) anymore. IS is and should be focused on making FE14 and subsequent titles enjoyable for a large audience (made larger by the inclusion of such things like Casual).

They're reprinting FE10, and FE7 is available on Virtual Console. I'm pretty sure they want people to buy them.

You can't separate interest in the older games from interest in the newer games, Fire Emblem is Fire Emblem, and to those who have only played Awakening the older games are a novelty anyway. Do you know why they put FE8 in the Ambassador Program? To hype up Awakening. They didn't just focus on making Awakening a good game, they cultivated interest in the series.

Fire Emblem is an addictive series, and the business is highly competitive. The best way to turn casual fans into loyal fans is get them to play more Fire Emblem games, which won't happen if the new games alienate the new blood from the older games.

[Irysa]

Okay. I think I better understand, and it's vague enough with no specifics for me to agree with it. People who want some developments so the game they churn out is more likeable to them is just as selfish as people who don't want some developments for the same reason. And I think that is the crux between the Casual Should Continue To Exist vs. Casual Should Be Eliminated/Change debate.

Well again, I've said that since it's already happened, I begrudgingly accept it should return (in some form), as it will cause a stink if it doesn't, and I'm not so wholly self centred as to be entirely inconsiderate of that.

That's why there have been suggested compromises such as incentives to play classic mode. I think there's also something to be said for parity of experience sharing with other players - it is geninuely difficult to share one's own experiences with another person who is quite literally playing a different version of the game entirely. Difficulty settings already contribute to this but further segregation kinda sucks.

Really, like I already mentioned previously, I think feplus summed up the last thread on this pretty well.

This has been a straightforward thread I think. Two main areas of debate:

1. Whether or not Casual Mode is a worse version of Classic Mode.

2. Whether or not the inclusion of an optional, worse mode adversely affects the quality of the game.

Point 2 is where this debate isn't making much traction. No surprise considering how you answer is pretty subjective.

Even if one position ("keep Casual so newer players can become fans by actually getting to complete the game and buy more") is much more inclusive, less subjective, profitable than the other ("change/remove Casual because no permadeath destroys game integrity imo").

I'm not sure how one position is any less subjective than the other though when it comes to preferences. How can something be "less subjective"? It's binary, it either is or it isn't. Are you reffering to popular opinion?

As for the other points, the first is more inclusive, and likely more profitable, but this isn't some kind of hipsterland where those are neccessarily viewed as negatives and steps should be taken to avoid them. It's that they're not primary concerns to all individuals. Take the dismay at some of the character designs in the If trailer versus the enthusiasm expressed by others at the same designs. This is pretty indicative that not everyone's got the same priorities or philosophy on what's important to Fire Emblem or not. <_<

I'm careful to add the "imo" because I don't believe having my unit getting criticalled with a 2% chance and having to restart the chapter because of it really enhances the game that much. It's a strategy game, so of course that should be a part of it, but consideration for the learning curve of the player is not... a bad thing. It baffles me that people seem to think it is.

It's a strategic consideration, and in some cases can be manipulated in your favor. FE12 Lunatic difficulties do this, in that low luck units can be extremely valuable due to how they can function as lures for enemy AI, but there's a cost associated with using such strategies. Besides, you're not forced to restart unless the Lord (or Avatar I guess) dies, and traditionally Lords have always had pretty high luck growths, and they don't even have to see combat in the first place most of the time either.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Irysa

[Crysta]

I'm not sure how one position is any less subjective than the other though when it comes to preferences. How can something be "less subjective"? It's binary, it either is or it isn't. Are you reffering to popular opinion?

To preferences? It isn't any less subjective because preferences themselves are subjective. The fact that Casual more than likely keeps more players than the alternative? Not quite so subjective. I said "less subjective" simply because it's an educated guess and I don't have hard data beyond a few players here saying they've got hooked on the series via Casual.

Whether or not you like that doesn't really matter.

As for the other points, the first is more inclusive, and likely more profitable, but this isn't some kind of hipsterland where those are neccessarily viewed as negatives and steps should be taken to avoid them. It's that they're not primary concerns to all individuals. Take the dismay at some of the character designs in the If trailer versus the enthusiasm expressed by others at the same designs. This is pretty indicative that not everyone's got the same priorities or philosophy on what's important to Fire Emblem or not. <_<

Yes, I know you don't care for it. You have made that pretty clear by "I don't care if the series ends" admission.

It's a strategic consideration, and in some cases can be manipulated in your favor.

It's the RNG deciding to screw you over, mostly, if every character has the chance - however slight it may be - to be criticalled. In the earlygame especially, when you none of your units fall under the "can't be crit'd" criteria.

So no, it's not always a flaw in your strategy. You could use the best available strategy and still get screwed over. In that particular case I was using one of my higher leveled units: Oswin. Sure as hell wasn't going to continue the game without him from that point on.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Crysta

[NekoKnight]

They're reprinting FE10, and FE7 is available on Virtual Console. I'm pretty sure they want people to buy them.

You can't separate interest in the older games from interest in the newer games, Fire Emblem is Fire Emblem, and to those who have only played Awakening the older games are a novelty anyway. Do you know why they put FE8 in the Ambassador Program? To hype up Awakening. They didn't just focus on making Awakening a good game, they cultivated interest in the series.

Fire Emblem is an addictive series, and the business is highly competitive. The best way to turn casual fans into loyal fans is get them to play more Fire Emblem games, which won't happen if the new games alienate the new blood from the older games.

I didn't know they were reprinting FE10, cool. What is this Ambassador Program you speak of? I'm still convinced that the bulk of new sales will come from Awakening and post-Awakening games, not the games from before.

The problem with this debate is the tendency for people to believe that players are monolithic. People like you think that casual will ruin the expectations of new FE fans and be unable to appreciate titles in the series without casual. I think players who refuse to play on classic were never the type to get involved in Fire Emblem classic to begin with so casual really is the only way to keep them interested.

[Crysta]

First FE I tried was FE 7. Lyn's story was actually a pretty neat way to get into something completely alien.

Mind you, it wasn't perfect: I still went "COOL I CAN USE MARCUS FOR EVERYTHING" and "COOL I CAN PROMOTE AT LEVEL 10 GGNORE." Those are the kind of mistakes I could have learned not to make on Casual, tbh.

[NinjaMonkey]

The best way to turn casual fans into loyal fans is get them to play more Fire Emblem games, which won't happen if the new games alienate the new blood from the older games.

Thing is, all of the old FE games are full of shitty mechanics, such as Capture, Fatigue and Dismount, which would probably drive them away from the series, rather than turning them into "loyal fans".

Edited April 25, 2015 by NinjaMonkey

[Irysa]

Mind you, it wasn't perfect: I still went "COOL I CAN USE MARCUS FOR EVERYTHING" and "COOL I CAN PROMOTE AT LEVEL 10 GGNORE." Those are the kind of mistakes I could have learned not to make on Casual, tbh.

Those aren't mistakes though. I mean by the time Marcus has fallen off, Pent and Harken can pretty much pick up the slack without any trouble, especially if it's not HHM. And there's Athos for the final chapter.

It's the RNG deciding to screw you over, mostly, if every character has the chance - however slight it may be - to be criticalled. In the earlygame especially, when you none of your units fall under the "can't be crit'd" criteria.

So no, it's not always a flaw in your strategy. You could use the best available strategy and still get screwed over. In that particular case I was using one of my higher leveled units: Oswin. Sure as hell wasn't going to continue the game without him from that point on.

There's inherantly a chance of failure to just about any strategy in FE though. The thing is, the fact there's a "chance" of failure creates a subset of unique situatons and play that can't exist if that chance doesn't exist. If the solution is entirely linear, it either has a 100% chance of success, or a 0% chance of success. You can't create contingency plans in the event of attacks missing, or accomodate for getting hit where you may not have expected to. I kind of get what you mean when you say there's a chance to get completely screwed, but there nearly always ways to maximise chances of success by stacking the odds in your favor. There's less of an incentive to do such things if we don't care about units dying.

One of my favourite things about Awakening was the ability to use the Dual System to negate crits. Although it's not possible all the time, its neat in some situations like Lunatic Prologue to eliminate the Boss's inherant crit from Gamble.

Also seriously, how is Oswin dying to anything even if it IS a crit in FE7? Magic? Effective weaponry? The guy takes single digit damage from physical enemies for like the entire game, especially if you're actually training him. If it's one of those two, you could have avoided putting him in such a risky scenario in the first place.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Irysa

[Jagged Jagen]

First FE I tried was FE 7. Lyn's story was actually a pretty neat way to get into something completely alien.

Mind you, it wasn't perfect: I still went "COOL I CAN USE MARCUS FOR EVERYTHING" and "COOL I CAN PROMOTE AT LEVEL 10 GGNORE." Those are the kind of mistakes I could have learned not to make on Casual, tbh.

I'm glad you started with FE7, if you can't tell, I'm quite fond of it. :) I fully agree on Lyn's story as well.

However, I'm curious, how would Casual mode change your learning of the Jagen/Oifey Archetype and knowing when you should promote?

[Crysta]

Try Cog of Destiny with a lv. 5 Eliwood and Hector and having promoted Kent and Sain at level 10.. I didn't enjoy it, quite frankly, and when a game becomes a chore it has more or less failed it's purpose. Casual would have changed that, hopefully, and I would probably have still killed most of my army to get the point.

And of course I got Karel instead of Harken.

I remember abusing the fuck out of Pent, though. And the other pre-promotes, because I screwed up my army pretty badly beforehand.

Athos doesn't come until the very end so that's kind of moot.

There's less of an incentive to do such things if we don't care about units dying.

Don't think this is actually true. I know I always wanted to keep everyone alive even when I was new and didn't really have to (because you can opt to continue without them unless they're a lord). Hell, I could hate the unit and I would still restart the chapter. Your mileage may vary.

Also seriously, how is Oswin dying to anything even if it IS a crit in FE7? Magic? Effective weaponry? The guy takes single digit damage from physical enemies for like the entire game, especially if you're actually training him. If it's one of those two, you could have avoided putting him in such a risky scenario in the first place.

Now you can understand why I didn't think I had to worry.

It was literally 2%, I think, and vs. a mage I could OHKO. GUESS WHO MISSED.

As for a game which can be strategic without random numbers, there's chess. Can't say it has the same excitement, but Fire Emblem is not a game 100% centered on wits and strategy.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Crysta

[Baldrick]

I didn't know they were reprinting FE10, cool. What is this Ambassador Program you speak of? I'm still convinced that the bulk of new sales will come from Awakening and post-Awakening games, not the games from before.

The problem with this debate is the tendency for people to believe that players are monolithic. People like you think that casual will ruin the expectations of new FE fans and be unable to appreciate titles in the series without casual. I think players who refuse to play on classic were never the type to get involved in Fire Emblem classic to begin with so casual really is the only way to keep them interested.

It was a promotion for people who bought the 3DS at launch, they got digital copies of a bunch of old GBA games for free.

That's true, but the best-case scenario would to have people buy both the new games and the old games.

I think most people who don't play Classic do so because they think it's too hard. That may well be true, but I think if Casual should be designed so that players learn the skills to handle Classic so that they wouldn't reject the older games just because they're Classic only.

Thing is, all of the old FE games are full of shitty mechanics, such as Capture, Fatigue and Dismount, which would probably drive them away from the series, rather than turning them into "loyal fans".

If the new games include those mechanics they'd be driven away even if they hadn't played the older games. If the games don't include those mechanics, why would it affect whether they buy it?

[Irysa]

Try Cog of Destiny with a lv. 5 Eliwood and Hector and having promoted Kent and Sain at level 10.. I didn't enjoy it, quite frankly, and when a game becomes a chore it has more or less failed it's purpose. Casual would have changed that, hopefully, and I would probably have still killed most of my army to get the point.

Dunno, pretty sure Marcus and Pent can still shit all over that map on ENM. Instant promoted Kent and Sain aren't exactly great or anything but I can't see them being liabilities to anything but Valkyries and Heroes, both of which are really rare.

I remember abusing the fuck out of Pent, though. And the other pre-promotes, because I screwed up my army pretty badly beforehand.

Well yeah, that's kind of the way the game was designed. So that it wasn't super growth dependant, that the base stats of the units they gave you could get you through. That's one of the things I actively dislike about the more recent installments of the series.

Don't think this is actually true. I know I always wanted to keep everyone alive even when I was new and didn't really have to (because you can opt to continue without them unless they're a lord). Hell, I could hate the unit and I would still restart the chapter. Your mileage may vary.

I've always cared about keeping everyone alive since the start, since I always saw it as a strategic failing on my part if a unit died, but I do believe I wouldn't have had that instilled into me if the game hadn't reinforced how irreplacable and unique each unit was. Regardless, I wasn't trying to say that "people don't restart without Classic mode", I was saying theres less incentive to create reliable strategies if death wasn't a factor in the game. Like, I'm not bothered about the prospect of having a partymember enter a battle stance that doubles the damage they do and damage they take in other RPGs, because I can just ressurect them if they fall.

Now you can understand why I didn't think I had to worry.

It was literally 2%, I think, and vs. a mage I could OHKO. GUESS WHO MISSED.

Shrug. Having a Knight fighting a Mage who has existant crit is pretty comparable to having a Pegasus attack a Killer Bow Sniper with a Javelin. I severely doubt that was the only option you could have taken in order to kill the mage. If you make the decision to risk the chance of it occuring, then you have to live with the consequences.

As for a game which can be strategic without random numbers, there's chess. Can't say it has the same excitement, but Fire Emblem is not a game 100% centered on wits and strategy.

I wasn't saying you can't have strategy without randomness, I was saying there's a unique subset of strategy that is created when randomness is introduced, especially when dealing with highly deterministic AI. Being able to have a consideration between a more accurate but weaker weapon vs a stronger but inaccurate weapon, or choosing how many enemies you can afford to risk exposing a unit to, etc. These decisions don't exist without the RNG.

[Refa]

Try Cog of Destiny with a lv. 5 Eliwood and Hector and having promoted Kent and Sain at level 10.. I didn't enjoy it, quite frankly, and when a game becomes a chore it has more or less failed it's purpose. Casual would have changed that, hopefully, and I would probably have still killed most of my army to get the point.

I don't see how casual mode would alleviate any of those issues.

[Crysta]

Lecturing me now about what I should have done years ago when I hadn't played a single Fire Emblem game seems a little silly. It's not like I didn't know I was stupid back then now, but a new player neglecting to raise a competent army isn't something entirely out of the realm of possibility. In fact, I did it, as I was explaining. I would have appreciated Casual training wheels.

I think this may be part of the problem: you guys have high expectations for the new inductees because you're experienced players and those are the standards you expect. Aaand you tell them what they should have done and how obvious it is lol.

I don't see how casual mode would alleviate any of those issues.

Read the last part carefully. And the part of it no longer being fun, because I made poor (but easy to make) decisions earlier in my run.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Crysta

[Baldrick]

Well, I know I was just as bad during my first FE7 run. But I and many others got to the level we did through perseverance in Classic. It's tough, but it teaches you good habits. No pain no gain.

[Refa]

Read the last part carefully. And the part of it no longer being fun, because I made poor (but easy to make) decisions earlier in my run.

Unless I'm reading the wrong part (about Oswin being killed by a 2% critical), I still don't see how Casual Mode would help you to make better decisions. I agree that it would be easier overall.

[Baldrick]

I think he's referring to overusing Marcus and promoting at level 10. Though I don't see how lack of permadeath would change your mind on those.

[Crysta]

Unless I'm reading the wrong part (about Oswin being killed by a 2% critical), I still don't see how Casual Mode would help you to make better decisions. I agree that it would be easier overall.

It wouldn't have changed my decisions, it would have been more enjoyable to be able to move on. I learned my lesson; I didn't need to restart dozens of times to finally get I screwed up royally. If I remembered how I got through it I would share, but I don't, and if it was a particularly skillful strategy I think I would have remembered.

I think FE7's critical percentages are actually wrong, but I found that out later - it probably showed something closer to 10% but in actuality it was 2%, but I forget the actual equation. So I was taking more of a gamble than suggested.

A game that isn't enjoyable isn't much of a game. I can legitimately understand if a player tries Classic then demotes to Casual once they realize they don't know wtf is going on and dying all the time wasn't really doing it for them.

[Jagged Jagen]

It wouldn't have changed my decisions, it would have been more enjoyable to be able to move on. I learned my lesson; I didn't need to restart dozens of times to finally get I screwed up royally. If I remembered how I got through it I would share, but I don't, and if it was a particularly skillful strategy I think I would have remembered.

I think FE7's critical percentages are actually wrong, but I found that out later - it probably showed something closer to 10% but in actuality it was 2%, but I forget the actual equation. So I was taking more of a gamble than suggested.

A game that isn't enjoyable isn't much of a game. I can legitimately understand if a player tries Classic then demotes to Casual once they realize they don't know wtf is going on and dying all the time wasn't really doing it for them.

This depends on what one considers enjoyable. I play FE because I love a good challenge and feel it's my fault for making a wrong move and deal with it accordingly.

[Crysta]

This depends on what one considers enjoyable. I play FE because I love a good challenge and feel it's my fault for making a wrong move and deal with it accordingly.

So do I.

I consider learning enjoyable. But there's a point where pain starts to be just pain. I didn't get to that point in Awakening until I tried Lunatic, which I will have to try again on Casual first if I want to make any legitimate headway.

I applaud those who somehow managed Lunatic+ on Classic.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Crysta

[Dark Holy Elf]

Dunno, pretty sure Marcus and Pent can still shit all over that map on ENM. Instant promoted Kent and Sain aren't exactly great or anything but I can't see them being liabilities to anything but Valkyries and Heroes, both of which are really rare.

You're coming at this from the point of view of someone who is good at Fire Emblem. I could probably beat that map with just Pent and Marcus, sure, now, but I sure as hell couldn't on my first playthrough. Fire Emblem is not generally considered an easy game, even on ENM; those of us who play the games to death tend to forget this.

I didn't have any trouble with Cog of Destiny myself but I can't count the number of times I lost someone from fog, Bolting, or just Nino/Jaffar/Zephiel dying in Battle Before Dawn. Everyone's experience is going to be different but it's not very helpful to talk down to someone with "you should have just stomped the game with ____". It's not like the experience of overusing Marcus and then suffering for it is at all unusual, that's how jeigans earned their (undeserved) reputation as bad units for a while.