Famitsu 14th May: Phoenix Mode and No More Weapon Uses

[BrandedRogue]

^ sure hope so (Do you have any source on that, or is that just your conviction?)

[Baldrick]

If Nohr doesn't sell 250k, Classic mode will be kill.

[Jagged Jagen]

If Nohr doesn't sell 250k, Classic mode will be kill.

If Classic's gone in FE15, FE's a shell . I mean it, without Weapon Durability and Classic, arguably the 2 staples, what's left.

[Ownagepuffs]

I was talking with Integ and we pretty much agreed that weapon durability was pretty lamely used from Fe6 onward, its a near pointless limitation with how poorly it was designed in most games. Also I did mention the breaking a weapon stratagem earlier. Which is kind of a nice choice yes, but.. how many times is one going to find themselves in that situation.

how the hell do you badly design giving a weapon a number of uses?

As much as I was going all durability is the only way, it makes me realize how pointless most of the old mechanics people want back are. The weapon triangle is barely relevant past the first few chapters of almost any fe etc.

FE12 and FE13 Triangles are obscenely powerful. You're nuts if you think it's barely relevant. Disadvantage literally cancels out your weapon rank bonus and puts you at -15 hit and -1 Atk. It's very important when every enemy has A rank weapons.

Like the only old mechanics I'd really like back are like dismount and capture. As those were actually done well.

Dismount is stupid. Movement penalty indoors is far superior.

You're not the only one, and honestly, this talk of "Oh Nohr is going to be sooo difficult" is a lot of wild reaching. I really doubt Nohr is going to be significantly different than, say, Radiant Dawn normal mode.

I'm thinking more like HM. But yes, I do believe they are overstating Nohr's difficulty.

This is a bad example. The Silver Card is only available in the hard modes and the killer shop is in a remote corner of the map, unmarked, and requires an item acquired in that same chapter that might easily have been missed.And after thinking about it, I'm really not sure how much I agree with the idea that conservation was never a problem in older FE titles. We can say it's easy in hindsight, but first time players don't know all the tricks. It can be easy to miss certain sellable items and good weapon drops, and then we also had Radiant Dawn with Aimee's Bargains where even skilled players would be strapped for cash if they wanted the goods.

You are almost never strapped for cash in RD, though. Every team has a money dump and the GMs have Ilyana. You can have up to like, 50k by 3-4. Actually, I think RD is more excessive with its gold than most titles. A better example would be FE12. Resource management is strict as hell in that game.

When you know a game well enough, pretty much anything can be made trivial, and I don't think weapon and money conservation was inherently so simple. Except maybe in Path of Radiance once they dump you with 70,000 for free...And there's stuff like effective and Prf weapons that are available early but sometimes aren't ever buyable at all, and so the player must take caution as to when to make the best use of them.I'm not opposed to unlimited weapon uses (yet), but I think it's wrong to say weapon durability was never really a factor.

Prfs are a good reason for weapon durability being a good thing, I totally agree.

[LuxSpes]

If Nohr doesn't sell 250k, Classic mode will be kill.

That's a bit extreme. Why would IS remove Classic? They know they have fans that like the mode for the challenge and it's importance in the history of the series and even though some people seem to say that everyone who started with Awakening only played Casual, that's certainly not the case since I've seen plenty of them state that they played Classic mode. This just sounds like cynical exaggeration. Hoshido will also have Classic anyway, so I don't see how Nohr not selling would mean the death of Classic.

[Philranger]

If Nohr doesn't sell 250k, Classic mode will be kill.

If Classic's gone in FE15, FE's a shell . I mean it, without Weapon Durability and Classic, arguably the 2 staples, what's left.

This is what we call an overreaction. Also it's incredibly stupid. Hoshido has classic mode as well.

[Cysx]

^ sure hope so (Do you have any source on that, or is that just your conviction?)

It happened. I wasn't exactly looking around for reviews at the time, but I stumbled upon a couple that were complaining about the difficulty. They're french though:p

More seriously, a quick wikipedia search will grant you your answers. Brace yourself though, there is some pretty stupid stuff in there.

[Baldrick]

IS don't need the old fans any more. They didn't buy the games enough, so IS looked to get new fans. There's more new than old, so what's the point in catering to the old? Classic had a lot of history? So did weapon durability. Those who started with Casual wouldn't miss Classic for long; it's not what brought them to the series anyway.

That 250k post was tongue-in-cheek, but seriously, Phoenix Mode should tell you who the developers value more.

[FrostyFireMage]

IS don't need the old fans any more. They didn't buy the games enough, so IS looked to get new fans. There's more new than old, so what's the point in catering to the old? Classic had a lot of history? So did weapon durability. Those who started with Casual wouldn't miss Classic for long; it's not what brought them to the series anyway.

That 250k post was tongue-in-cheek, but seriously, Phoenix Mode should tell you who the developers value more.

Seeing as how catering to the old fans almost killed the series I think this is a good idea

[VincentASM]

Eh, I think we're getting into hyperbole territory now. Even if you really feel that way or it's just for amusement, I think we're getting a bit far.

Er, of course IS cares about older fans... they care about all fans, new or old. For new fans, you've got stuff Phoenix Mode and for old fans, you've got things like Nohr, Classic mode and Lunatic difficulty.

I think you're undermining the important of Classic mode too. In FE12, the first game to have Casual, there were heated debates about even including Casual. From that, I think it's almost guaranteed that Classic is here to stay.

Weapon durability was important, but it wasn't ever touted as a core series element, unlike permadeath.

[Jagged Jagen]

I found weapon durability to be rather vital, but I do admit it's subjective.

Edited May 13, 2015 by DeoGame

[MCProductions]

Honestly, removing weapon durability is more "classic" FE than you give it credit for.

Yes, FE1 had it, but 2 didn't, likely for the same reasons it was removed here. Easier to balance.

3 put it back in, but likely only because half the game was a remake of 1

4 and to a lesser extent 5, had it in a fashion that you keep the broken weapon, and it can be repaired later.

It's not a core gameplay element, and I'm perfectly fine with it.

As long as the game is fun, I don't care what they add or remove.

Edited May 13, 2015 by MCProductions

[Jagged Jagen]

Yes, FE1 had it, but 2 didn't, likely for the same reasons it was removed here. Easier to balance.

I'm not fully certain that Gaiden's removal of weapon durability was due to balance. For better or worse, Gaiden is a different game from FE 1 and 3, and this is rather typical given the era in which it was made. Much like Zelda, Mario and Metroid, Fire Emblem didn't have a distinct formula so they had experimental sequels. Each sequel in the aforementioned series adds numerous additions through said experimentation, but other aspects were cut by the 3rd installment to marry the traditional popular formula of the first installment, with the successful experiments of the second. If Weapon Durability returned in all installments over the 23 years since Gaiden (and I do count the Jugdral games) I see no reason for it to be removed now, especially when it made an impact on the series's identity.

This is just for Japan, within North America, no game yet released has lacked Weapon Durability, which makes it's removal all the more jarring for those only familiar with the localized installments.

Edited May 13, 2015 by DeoGame

[MCProductions]

I'm not fully certain that Gaiden's removal of weapon durability was due to balance. For better or worse, Gaiden is a different game from FE 1 and 3, and this is rather typical given the era in which it was made. Much like Zelda, Mario and Metroid, Fire Emblem didn't have a distinct formula so they had experimental sequels. Each sequel in the aforementioned series adds numerous additions through said experimentation, but other aspects were cut by the 3rd installment to marry the traditional popular formula of the first installment, with the successful experiments of the second. If Weapon Durability returned in all installments over the 23 years since Gaiden (and I do count the Jugdral games) I see no reason for it to be removed now, especially when it made an impact on the series's identity.

This is just for Japan, within North America, no game yet released has lacked Weapon Durability, which makes it's removal all the more jarring for those only familiar with the localized installments.

I do cede that it will feel weird for those only familiar with the local installments, but in those games it was more an annoyance than a fun mechanic.

FE 7 threw the best PRF weapon in the series that basically had 90 uses at you, but I never wanted too because I might need it later. That's not fun, that's unneccessacery worry. This way, I can actually enjoy using powerful weapons without having to stuff Armsthrift on everyone.

[Bovinian]

Weapon durability was important, but it wasn't ever touted as a core series element, unlike permadeath.

Does Robin's durability mechanic in Smash count? Maybe this is all so that the next FE rep in Smash can have a varied moveset without being limited to Prf weapons or reusing Robin's gimmick

[shadowofchaos]

Okay, standing back and staying away from this thread for at least 12 hours has cleared my head from my own stupidity and emotions.

First of all, apologies to anyone whose toes I stepped on in my crusade of White Knighting Casuals.

I'm calmly just put this out here...

I pretty much share Vincent's view. I honestly should try to be more chill like the admin over there.

I'll clarify my stance:

I personally won't be using Phoenix mode besides testing what the hell actually happens in June, but I welcome its inclusion. I also do not say any way why Phoenix mode make people feel attacked as an "insult" to hardcore players.

I also don't see any reason why people are calling it "pussy mode" and other distasteful names and the like.

Understandably though, emotions are behind that, just like how I inexcusably posted Lucina crying memes designed to provoke those people who don't like the mode.

We really don't have enough information about the game to criticize it to the level we already are.

Because most of those ill feelings are the backlash from Awakening changing the "FE formula" in drastic ways.

And when people hear a bit of information with how FE:if is changing the formula even more significantly, hostility tends to fly in the air.

Like so: "fire emblem if more like fire emblem really fucking iffy"

I see both sides of people's views about weapon durability.

But I'd really like to try Gaiden's take on it.

I mean I see people here nostalgia'ing about it, right?

[Robert Stewart]

Well, that sure was a read.

If.

My guess is that the weapon purchasing system won't be too different from Awakening. If it was a change to something like FE2 or FE4 that would be relatively balanced, it would probably have been mentioned alongside the lack of weapon durability.

I agree with this sentiment.

I keep people saying "if they make *insert major change to the weapon system here* then no durability will be totally cool!" Except, I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that IS has hidden some major change to the way weapons work in FE to complement the removal of durability. If such a change is made, and I find it satisfactory, then cool. But for now, I consider this change a negative.

Same goes to Phoenix Mode. I see no reason to assume this game will have some hidden difficulty spike that will make that mode a necessity. I also don't see how adding a mode that essentially removes any penalty for letting your units be killed will bring in new fans, but w/e.

[eclipse]

This is just for Japan, within North America, no game yet released has lacked Weapon Durability, which makes it's removal all the more jarring for those only familiar with the localized installments.

Falchion wants a word with you.

It wasn't for all weapons, but it gave us a taste of what happens when there's an unbreakable weapon around. And you bet I abused the everliving daylights out of it when able.

Well, that sure was a read.

I agree with this sentiment.

I keep people saying "if they make *insert major change to the weapon system here* then no durability will be totally cool!" Except, I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that IS has hidden some major change to the way weapons work in FE to complement the removal of durability. If such a change is made, and I find it satisfactory, then cool. But for now, I consider this change a negative.

Same goes to Phoenix Mode. I see no reason to assume this game will have some hidden difficulty spike that will make that mode a necessity. I also don't see how adding a mode that essentially removes any penalty for letting your units be killed will bring in new fans, but w/e.

It's logical to assume that the developers are sane. Casual took away the perma-death threat. To put something that lessens the perma-death pinch even more means that either the developers felt that Normal/Casual was too hard on Awakening (That One Mode where Chrom takes no damage from swordies in the prologue), or there's something else that hasn't been revealed.

Someone else mentioned it's Nohr-only, which reinforces my belief that there's a gameplay-driven reason for why it exists.

Unbreakable weapons looks like an interesting change. I'm willing to wait and see how things pan out before throwing in my two cents.

[Jagged Jagen]

Falchion wants a word with you.

It wasn't for all weapons, but it gave us a taste of what happens when there's an unbreakable weapon around. And you bet I abused the everliving daylights out of it when able.

Ragnell wants a word with me too! :)

I don't abuse them though, I prefer Rapiers and other weapons to them.

[eclipse]

Ragnell wants a word with me too! :)

I don't abuse them though, I prefer Rapiers and other weapons to them.

Ragnell wasn't around for the entire game, and it was extremely unique in the fact that it was ranged AND had good stats, so you'd have to be intentionally sandbagging to NOT use it.

FE11/12 Falchion wasn't around for very long (three and then some chapters at most, and that's assuming one took advantage of a certain oversight in 11).

FE13's Falchion was around for every chapter of the game, and had comparable stats to the weapons you got in the beginning. Hence why people would already have experience with a weapon that has no durability, unless the player intentionally didn't use Chrom (and to an extent, Lucina).

Edited May 13, 2015 by eclipse

[Aekenon]

News announcements (particularly ones doled out via magazine) are always going to cater more toward the "casual, mainstream" crowd, which is why you're going to see "YO, CHECK OUT OUR GAME: WE TOOK OUT SCARY WEAPON DURABILITY" without any kind of nitty-gritty on how/if they intend to balance that out. The perception is that the audience they're forging these news items for don't care about those kinds of specifics, which is largely true, but also a bit short-sighted since it's still important to talk to the long-time vets.

Actually, I guess it isn't. The entrenched fans are going to buy the game anyway, haha. Man, this industry is broken, huh?

Anyway, that's just a round-about way of saying that just because they haven't mentioned what they're filling WEP-DUR* void with, it doesn't mean they're not. It could mean that, but it doesn't have to. Personally I have a bit more faith in the development team than to think that they can look at an infinite-use Killing Edge and not see anything wrong with it. You just can't implement a sweeping change like this without making other considerations to account for it. It'll come up in internal play-testing if nothing else.

In general though, I feel like the WEP-DUR!!!!! system is a largely vestigial element from older games that no longer makes much sense in the series' current form. I can't even remember the last time a battle hinged on a weapon's durability. Weapons are so darn abundant and easy to get that it's not really adding any extra strategic considerations -- it's just a little management chore to do between battles. During the battle itself, it rarely -- if ever -- factors in anymore. I welcome them doing something to change it up, and hopefully it pans out.

*(this is a hot new abbreviation used by hip youths and cool people. Feel free to use it always)

[Robert Stewart]

It's logical to assume that the developers are sane.

really? with what they put Camilla in?

I don't think you need to assume that the developers are insane to not conclude that they're hiding some secret change to the weapon system that will make everything all hunky-dory. All we know is that durability is gone. That's it, and I see no reason to make any other assumptions about how the game will function.

[Philranger]

really? with what they put Camilla in?

I don't think you need to assume that the developers are insane to not conclude that they're hiding some secret change to the weapon system that will make everything all hunky-dory. All we know is that durability is gone. That's it, and I see no reason to make any other assumptions about how the game will function.

And yet you made the assumption that it wouldn't change the way it currently functions in regards to weapon acquisition.

[Robert Stewart]

And yet you made the assumption that it wouldn't change the way it currently functions in regards to weapon acquisition.

It's a reasonable assumption to make until someone provides solid evidence to support an alternative assumption.

Edit: And "IS couldn't possibly be that stupid/insane" is not solid evidence.

Edited May 13, 2015 by #RR. shinpichu

[Philranger]

It's a reasonable assumption to make until someone provides solid evidence to support an alternative assumption.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they would make balance changes either.