FEIF Phoenix Mode.

[goodperson707]

Opinions are opinions, stats are stats. I don't deny that new players were likely drawn in via Casual Mode (it's a pretty observable phenomenon), but I'm saying there is not an effective way to judge whether or not Casual Mode was a significant dealbreaker in drawing in new players. How many of them would have still bought the game or have been comfortable playing Normal/Casual if it simply had battle saves but didn't remove permadeath? I place a far greater weight on Awakening's nature as a game, it's presentation and marketing more than the presence of this single mode, and my reasoning for this is backed up by statistical evidence.

There is no reason to say Japanese sales have no relation to Western sales when there is a degree of parity between markets in interest across the games - see Awakening.

Damaging what I believe to be the spirit of the series. I recognise my subjectivity in this.

I wouldn't say it ignores them, because I've repeatedly said you can achieve an ideal playing field for them without removing permadeath if that really is their concern (and think that such a goal is worth reaching for).

Okay thank you, for what you believe to be the spirt of Fire clarification i will say i do enjoy discussing with you most of the time, its just that you sometimes seem to come across as, your way of getting into the series and enjoying them is the only/best way, when i find that attitude horribly elitist not that i think you truly believe it yourself but it does sometimes come off that way.

Also most of your alternatives i remember either involve lowering the stats of the enemy or just different ways of resetting the game which have its own problems. The Problem with lowering stats (weapons, skills ect) is once you get to a point it pretty much means you cant lose cause your higher stats make you borderline invincible anyway (FE 13 seemed to try to help this with lower def/res growths but it still is a problem in 13 and any lower than that is problematic, also the sheer amount of variables in FE means getting the perfect difficulty by stats alone is borderline impossible) and the battle save thing, without complex restrictions can be used as a poor mans Phoenix/casual mode, and with restrictions mostly seems to just be a situational/limited use casual, but they both seem to need to be activated at the right times which seems to counteract the accessibility function of the mode. Also on awakening normal mode you barely die anyway my little sister only lost 2 characters so far on normal casual,( and she has done only 2 risen maps so far and no spotpass or dlc, she also over exped Chrom Robin yet used everybody equally in most maps anyway and she only lost those characters cause they where not paired up) so playing casual hard is probably a better experience for her as she can actually die and have to think more and i don't think she would enjoy map saves. I'll probably get her to go casual(normal/hard) for hoshido not Phoenix though. So yes I'm a little biased for casual as it helps me but as its an optional mode i have the luxury of being on the side of keeping something optional you "have" to justify removing something optional. I don't envy you

Edited May 13, 2015 by goodperson707

[B.Leu]

@B.Leu I assume the reason you don't like Phoenix Mod is because it promotes inferior strategy.

Lunatic+ is only called luck-based by those whose strategy is inferior. Reliance on Fred does not mean it's luck-based either.

It's not because it necessarily promotes 'inferior strategy', I dislike it because it's one step forward the pure stupidity. Plus a lot of others details...

Yeah, it's a choice, but I don't have to like it. Nor do I have to like that this feature will be what some/a lot of people will know about If.

Lunatic+ is luck-based, not skill-based, and yes, you are forced to use Fred. The first chapters at least I give you that.

I ask again, how do call a difficulty mode where all the ennemy's skills are randomly, distribued, to the point where you just have to reset so that in the next try you have a chance ?

Edited May 13, 2015 by B.Leu

[Mango Giamatti]

Once again you are missing the point. The point isn't that things should not change at all, it is that a premise that boils down to "maximum flexability" (not exactly what XeKr posted but whatever) is fundamentally flawed because of the neccessity of some kind of ruleset and rigidity in order for a game to even exist. This is not a direct argument about phoenix mode, and you are misrepresenting me to claim it is.

I am not trying to say that specifically, one set of rules is superior to the other. It is that, the most malleable possible experience ever would constitute no rules whatsoever.

Without some kind of rules, there is no way to describe something (heck, the same applies to our universe), and essentially we arrive at "nothingness". What I am saying is that we must have rules in order for there to be a game, so an argument that supposes that "rules aren't important, the enjoyment an individual gets is" is flawed. It's a metaphysical demonstration.

lol, no one is saying that rules should not exist (or "aren't important" as you said it) to give "maximum flexibility". But the fact remains that the enjoyment from a game is its most important element, and things change over time to maximize enjoyment. It is only natural for developers to try to maximize the game's audience. No developer has ever made a game simply to create a set of rules. Your entire premise is silly.

As a side note, arguing the abstract is pointless when it is not put into perspective. It is pointless to discuss a situation of a game with no limitations, because it cannot exist. And using logic derived from impossible hypotheticals to dictate reality is foolish. There is no harm in including phoenix mode.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Zvarri!

[Irysa]

lol, no one is saying that rules should not exist (or "aren't important" as you said it) to give "maximum flexibility". But the fact remains that the enjoyment from a game is its most important element, and things change over time to maximize enjoyment. It is only natural for developers to try to maximize the game's audience. No developer has ever made a game simply to create a set of rules. Your entire premise is silly.

Actually this is a presupposition of what XeKr said, even if it was not directly stated. That is why I raised the counterargument, (I began with "I don't accept this premise") and asked XeKr to further clarify the statement. Once again you are continously trying to connect this point to Phoenix Mode, when it is not an argument directly related to it. Please just stop.

All games are basically just sets of rules. That's what they boil down to. Otherwise, they'd just be floating art assets.

As a side note, arguing the abstract is pointless when it is not put into perspective. It is pointless to discuss a situation of a game with no limitations, because it cannot exist. And using logic derived from impossible hypotheticals to dictate reality is foolish. There is no harm in including phoenix mode.

It is not pointless to demonstrate how an argument can be reduced to absurdity if it is not further clarified. I repeat, this statement was not directly to do with phoenix mode. It was discussing game design principles.

Okay thank you, for what you believe to be the spirt of Fire clarification i will say i do enjoy discussing with you most of the time, its just that you sometimes seem to come across as, your way of getting into the series and enjoying them is the only/best way, when i find that attitude horribly elitist not that i think you truly believe it yourself but it does sometimes come off that way.

I would say that I think there's a tendency for people to be very judgemental on the internet, so this doesn't surprise me at all. Regrettable, but not much can be done about it, our schema are how we function after all.

Also most of your alternatives i remember either involve lowering the stats of the enemy or just different ways of resetting the game which have its own problems. The Problem with lowering stats (weapons, skills ect) is once you get to a point it pretty much means you cant lose cause your higher stats make you borderline invincible anyway

This is the case even if stats are obscenely high though. We have to get to Lunatic+ levels of difficulty of Hawkeye/Luna+ enemies before this can issue can truly be solved within our current constraints. Games where statistics don't matter as much can still be made easier by adjusting the amount of enemies or their positioning. In general, enemy positioning is a highly underrated aspect of difficulty in this series, and is one of FE12's greatest strengths. Anyway, this is the basic problem with having RPG growth be a factor within a strategy game, because unless the game dynamically accounts for a player's stats, there's no way to make sure the enemy stat curve matches up with the player's appropriately. And that in itself has all sorts of problems.

Basically, nearly invincible status is a separate issue that also can be addressed in various ways, but I haven't yet determined the best way to go about it. However, given that it's abundant in nearly every difficulty of every game, it's fair to say that this criticism doesn't dismiss what I said. Additionally, if a player wants to be challenged more in the case that they want unit death to be a real possibility, then it is somewhat paradoxical to be so worried about the prospect of units dying. The concern here would have to be solely with permadeath, not difficulty. So the question then becomes "why do you dislike Permadeath?", and I expect that answer to vary a lot from individual to individual. For those who just don't want to have to reset battle saves/rewind feature would pretty much solve this. The only other position I can think of are those who just fundamentally dislike permadeath period, and if it is such a strong dislike that it actively stops you from wanting to play the game, and you are not interested in any sort of concession where the concern becomes either trivial (battle saves) or almost entirely irrelevant (enemies that can't kill you), and that it simply must not exist for you to play the game then fine, don't play it. That's what I do games with aspects I very much dislike, such as QTEs.

the battle save thing, without complex restrictions can be used as a poor mans Phoenix/casual mode, and with restrictions mostly seems to just be a situational/limited use casual, but they both seem to need to be activated at the right times which seems to counteract the accessibility function of the mode.

Rewinding is not a "poor man's Phoenix Mode" in any sense of the word, because the fact is that characters die, and if they die, measures will have to be taken to make sure they do not die. The traditional method taken is a reset, which neccessitates replaying up to that point again, but a rewind removes almost all of that entirely. As for needing to be activated at the right time, it's possible for there to be automatic saves at the start of every turn going back very far, or even just saves after every "wait" command chosen that can be progressively jumped backwards in. That's basically how savestates work after all.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Irysa

[BrandedRogue]

So basically, casual mode wasn't easy enough for people? (Not including people's 10 year old siblings and such)

[goodperson707]

^ actually casual on normal wasn't that necessary for my oft mentioned- 9 year old sister (only two deaths at the beginning of one chapter cause the terrain prevented easy pair up) so far anyway but then again normal awakening is easy enough as it is, I think hard casual might be better for her as she can you know actually lose a chapter.

For some reason some people seem to think casual normal is the only option.

Edited May 13, 2015 by goodperson707

[Baldrick]

some people have absolutely no interest in strategy games at all, so if IS think they can tap into that market more power to them.

I ask again, how do call a difficulty mode where all the ennemy's skills are randomly, distribued, to the point where you just have to reset so that in the next try you have a chance ?

Because the sample space of the random skills is finite. You have 21 different configurations for any given enemy, if you have one or more strategies to deal with every possibility you're golden. Obviously there's multiple enemies and the RNG to take into account, but the reliability for even the brutal earlygame can be fairly high if you have the right strategy.

The random skills are also all have non-random activation so you can plan around them, and you can take advantage of the fact that enemies will lack most of the skills and thus have weaknesses. Enemies without Pass can be countered by walling, enemies without Luna+ can be countered by a tank, enemies without Hawkeye can be countered by a high avo unit, etc.

[MajorMajora]

I posted this in a PM session with someone else concerning whether the extra catering to casuals would end up making the game worse for the serious players. I liked what I said, so I'll post it here:

"Yes, I understand your worry, and it may come true in some ways. However, I don't really think that if it did happen it would be an inherently 'bad' thing. We lose an experience important to us while others get an experience important to them. If the group that gains is larger than us, then to say that a net loss was suffered would necessitate deeming ourselves significantly more important than the outside group, which is selfishness and hubris. Not saying you are saying this, but many are.

I also think such a slippery slope is not to be feared, at least not to any significant extent. Sure we may never go back to being quite as hard core as we have in the past (maybe we will with Nohr etc.), but even then to get rid of that aspect, the 'classic' aspect would be foolish. The extra audience adds something for sure, but to believe it will do so without a point of saturation is presumptuous. It's important to have both, and that very well may be part of FE's new identity: One that is easily accessible and fun even as an easy game, but offers wild amounts of depth and difficulty to those who wish to dig into it. And the extra accessibility may lead even more people to find this hidden depth.

Additionally, the classic aspect may be the very thing that gives the series its staying power. People looking into the depth get invested in the series, breeding 'hardcore' fans like the people on the forum, the ones that make guides, lets plays, and inspire casual players to explore and get invested in the world of Fire Emblem itself. The casual aspect will lead to even more people finding this depth as well. In a strange way, the hardcore audience may grow from the addition of phoenix mode. And yes, some people will merely play the easy modes and never go further, but the fact that they can be given a satisfying experience as well is just the icing on the cake.

I, myself, and very much looking forward to the new identity FE is heading towards. It seems far better, something that is easy to get into but offers incredible depth. I honestly hope its as good as I think it will be. And really, if Awakening is anything to go by, it will."

Edited May 13, 2015 by MajorMajora

[Baldrick]

If you think the new direction is better you're not really qualified to speak for people who like the old direction better :/

Like, the tl;dr of that post is "As someone who prefers Casual, I am AOK with Classic being removed."

If the group that gains is larger than us, then to say that a net loss was suffered would necessitate deeming ourselves significantly more important than the outside group, which is selfishness and hubris

As the majority group, you can deem yourselves more important because if you're not satisfied, it's a net loss.

One that is easily accessible and fun even as an easy game, but offers wild amounts of depth and difficulty to those who wish to dig into it. And the extra accessibility may lead even more people to find this hidden depth.

There is no depth anymore, you said it's a net gain to remove it because those who prefer it are in the minority.

I'm not going to pretend the old guard isn't a little very toxic at times, but by god, this is the most insidious, buzzword-filled propaganda I have ever read.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Baldrick

[Philranger]

Honestly, it didn't matter what IS did with this game. The fanbase was gonna find something to piss and moan about incessantly.

[Baldrick]

Don't worry, nobody in the new, better fanbase will be nearly as snide as I.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Baldrick

[goodperson707]

^^ well yeah i thought that was a given,

though to be fair that isn't the whole fan base just a portion, another portion ends up pissing and moaning at the pissing and moaning, and the rest try to not pick sides but either don't post and therefore aren't seen or do end up posting and are seen as being on one of the sides no matter what they do. Coincidently this seems to happen in most decently large fandoms when a new game ect, comes out.

Edited May 13, 2015 by goodperson707

[shadowofchaos]

Don't worry, nobody in the new, better fanbase will be nearly as snide as I.

I'm a hell of a lot more calm today than yesterday.

Just speaking seriously even though that comment was (I think?) sarcastic...

It feels like after FE:if, with what Awakening started, it will be something like the fanbase divide of New Smash games vs. Melee.

Edited May 13, 2015 by shadowofchaos

[Cysx]

Snip

Dooooood. I mean, okay, why not.

Me? I don't "like" what I said after that enough. And I don't really like the idea of hijacking this thread with our conversation. I am interested to see if people react like I did though

Don't worry, nobody in the new, better fanbase will be nearly as snide as I.

... I guess that's a no.

[3Comrades]

If you think the new direction is better you're not really qualified to speak for people who like the old direction better :/

Like, the tl;dr of that post is "As someone who prefers Casual, I am AOK with Classic being removed."

As the majority group, you can deem yourselves more important because if you're not satisfied, it's a net loss.

There is no depth anymore, you said it's a net gain to remove it because those who prefer it are in the minority.

I'm not going to pretend the old guard isn't a little very toxic at times, but by god, this is the most insidious, buzzword-filled propaganda I have ever read.

But they weren't saying classic should be removed but that keeping it can both widen the area of interest for the games as a whole, while also bringing new people to the game to enjoy classic and the harder aspects of the game as a wider appeal also means more hard core people who may not have noticed it otherwise.

As fas as old guard vs new Guard believe me I know what it is like to be part of an old guard of something and the new thing sucks, and you have a multitude of reasons for explaining why it is bad, but I mean, expansion is good as a whole isn't it? Without Awakening, the games would have been preserved but no more would have been released, at least not over here. So there is a good thing, but also new blood to keep it going. New teens who can enthuse and enjoy future games, and so on.

I was complaining to my fiance that 5th edition DnD was terrible, horrible, and that every new edition it seems to get worse. She agreed but then she pointed out that 4th edition brought a lot of people into the hobby (including her) and hopefully more people would realize how fun it is. Looked over the books and I noticed they weren't half as bad as they seemed, even an improvement in many ways I refused to see earlier.

My point is for a small group or franchise, more is good. And optional things that bring in more people doubly so, because the nostalgia, curiosity, and interest can enliven the things you love about the old ones, or even inspire future designers and encourage the franchise as a whole.

[ambush spawns]

I'm fine with Phoenix mode; I know some people who didn't want to play awakening because it was a strategy game.

What I am worried about is if same-turn reinforcements are making a comeback.

If Phoenix mode was put in because of bs reinforcements i'll cry.

[Tamanoir]

Long post ahead and not really well constructed. I just want to share my point of view after reading all of this.

We all have our own way to enjoy the games.

Even if we play for the gameplay, we still have our own different styles.

I will never use Warp Abuse because I think it's boring to play.

I prefer to use units I trained myself than prepromote because I think it's more fullfilling (I may be able to solo FE8 Final Boss with Amelia or Seth and have the same result but I find using Amelia more Fun). That's why I love Est archetypes.

Solo-ing 26x in FE7 with Nino, and having her destroy the Boss is incredibly long and not really helpful (Pent is here and oes the job as well/better than her), but it was really satisfying each time.

I am an old player, but if there's a casual option I'll chose it each time. If Casual is removed I'm still gonna play the games, but I will pobably have less enjoyment.

However, I would be disappointed if Classic is removed because it's an important part of the serie.

There's an aspect of Casual which is important fr me but isn't often discussed.

I play Casual not because it's easier (technically it is, but that's not my main motivation), but because it gives you more freedom. (same thing with the easier mode.) In every FE, there's 30-50 units available (not gonna counts them now, but point is there are lots.)

I want to be able to use them all if I want to. Which is also why I will never play Lunatic because having only 10% of the cast viable is not the way I enjoy playing.

Still I'm glad those options exists for those who care, and I get what the appeal is, even if I don't share the feeling and would find this painful without a doubt.

Some of the old player consider the risk of permadeath makes you think about your strategy better, but in my case it's the opposite.

In Classic I'm gonna turtle like crazy because I'm to afraid of losing a unit and having played all this time for nothing. (I know it's excessive)

With Casual I earned my peace of mind, and it allows to be more risky and inventive with my strategy, so in the end it allowed me to makes the most of the game, something I couldn't totally do in Classic.
Obviously, this is a highly personal view that probably few share, but it's just to show Casual isn't the high end of strategy.

...Now about Phoenix. I'm conflicted honnestly. My first reaction was to consider this completely stupid and useless. But now I'm actually pretty intrigued about how it works and wonder what kind of strategy it can open. You can't consider Phoenix as an modified Classic like Casual was (enhanced for some, reduced for the other, but you could use the Classic strategies in Casual. I think most did because losing the unit for the battle is still pretty significant.)

Phoenix leads to a totally different way of playing. Some would says bastardized, and I can't deny this totally (at least yet.), but the perspectives of gameplay it opens are pretty interresting given how it would be handled. (Where your unit respawn is still an unanswered answer, yet a really important point.)

[BrandedRogue]

I think phoenix mode just goes against what a strategy game is about. You have to figure out a way to keep everyone alive (classic) and if you don't like starting over cuz' a boss with a 1% crit rate kills one of your characters there's casual, but phoenix doesn't require players to think about strategy anymore (At least it allows playing the game without thinking of strategy, I'm not saying it ensures that people stop thinking of strategies). That's where I think phoenix mode is bad.

But on the other hand, the introduction of phoenix mode does make the veterans complain less about casual mode ;P

[Seo]

I'm exactly sharing your opinion BrandedRogue

But it SEEMS that because Phoenix mode is a "choice" you cannot argue with that and everything that will be tell against it is a bad thing... seriously...

Phoenix Mode will now be known as rollface mode, or "I don't think anymore" mode or else.

The base in Fire Emblem is to act strategically.

And if you don't, you will be PUNISHED by the death of one of your units.

Now... what's the matter ? Pretty nothing.

[TheCaptain]

I'm assuming Phoenix mode is just for people who don't care about the gameplay at all whatesover, but more so the story, supports, and the likes. Or it can help players test characters out that maybe start weaker. While I will never use this mode, I guess it might have it's uses. Maybe.

[XeKr]

You presented one example, but that is not specifically my own main objection. Yours was a practical concern of players being bogged down in options, wheras mine is on a principle - a game without true limitations imposed can't achieve anything except via a player's own imagination or arbitrary measures. So the basis of the argument isn't sound enough to justify it, without adding some more to the statement at least.

There is, but your use of the words "fun/enjoyable" were a large factor in how I interpreted what you said. I don't think games need to be "fun" to be good either, horror games work as an effective counterexample.

The basis is something simple. I enjoy say...Lunatic/Classic. I do not enjoy Normal/Casual. I do not enjoy Apotheosis. It does not bother me that those exist and that others enjoy them. Holistically, we can appreciate the design of Awakening even if there is significant other content and options we each don't care for.

My original point was a suggestion we should not be fixating on the simple characteristic of having many options, choices, or flexibility (or not), but rather the context and consequences of those, for each invested party.

Besides, developer intent, funds, time, technology, human talent/skill, and such, all constrain things considerably in practice. We are still buying games with a certain expectation; the unlimited flexibility in a vacuum (“in principle”) thing would be to make our own. You seem to be calling “maximum flexibility” absurd from a design standpoint, but that’s extrapolated ground you brought up yourself (for the purpose of pointing out the absurdity, it seems). One could arbitrarily, yet with equal futility, do the same in the other direction, “maximum inflexibility”. To no end.

Others of us want to discuss more practical/tangible matters (or at least, I tried to clarify toward that end).

And the only reason I even put (fun/appealing) in parenthesis was to try and avoid semantic discussions on what is "good". ;P

Statements like:

...and that it simply must not exist for you to play the game then fine, don't play it...

Is why I joke about the whole “ur playing the game wrong” thing.

Sure they could not play it at all, or they could just play Casual/Phoenix and have the chance to like it.

The psychological barrier they feel for permadeath (“I just don’t like it) is nearly the same as yours for Casual/Phoenix (“I just don’t like it”). So you should acutely understand them (but don’t come off that way). The difference is they want to play Casual/Phoenix, don’t care about Classic. You want to play Classic, but (effectively) want to stop them from playing Casual.

I see QTEs as a bad example because generally the game in question is designed with them in mind (unlike FE designed with classic in mind), and you typically don’t have the option to avoid them.

Someone brought up Smash somewhere. I’m a huge melee elitist but Again it’s different, there is no option in Brawl/4 to play like competitive Melee. We had to give up fast-paced, technical play to get widespread appeal. Given the option, like say Project M, I personally would prefer it over vanilla.

Things are still designed around Classic, as far as we know. The permadeath experience is independent and preserved. Nothing has to traded off to play classic. (now wrt other mechanics, certainly has been discussed to death…)

I’m pretty sure these kinds of points have already been made many times, even on SF alone, even by myself, but if people are still not making the appropriate distinctions… (I wouldn’t have made this post otherwise)

Also a futile side note (not really to you, Irysa). Mischaracterizing arguments happens, fine, but we can at least make an effort to avoid blatant insults like “fetus mode” or “I lack thinking mode”. No? >_>

the irony is Phoenix mode is probably going to be harder to play efficiently

Edited May 13, 2015 by XeKr

[BrandedRogue]

But to bring back the comparison to smash. playing fire emblem on phoenix mode is like having and permanent invincible mode in smash. I just doesn't make sense and beats the entire idea of the game (of the game play, maybe not the story but the mechanics behind it)

[Refa]

some people have absolutely no interest in strategy games at all, so if IS think they can tap into that market more power to them.

Wouldn't it be better to include a VN mode then over some half assed difficulty setting? I mean like, I don't like Casual Mode personally but I've encountered a lot of people who've said that permadeath turned them off to the series. I've never encountered someone who said Casual Mode was too punishing and they wanted an even easier difficulty setting...

[Bovinian]

But to bring back the comparison to smash. playing fire emblem on phoenix mode is like having and permanent invincible mode in smash. I just doesn't make sense and beats the entire idea of the game (of the game play, maybe not the story but the mechanics behind it)

I'd say a better comparison would be Phoenix is like playing Smash 1-P mode with infinite stocks (people still take damage), whereas Casual is like playing with one stock and damage reset to 0% after each fight. Classic would be where a character that loses one stock is permanently deleted from the roster

[Raguna]

I really don't know what to think of Phoenix mode. I don't think I'll ever use it personally, but why include it if casual is still around. Maybe it's not what most people consider fun, but after a few playthroughs on Classic I went through the rest using Casual mode where I was cockier. I still found it scary when all of a sudden Stahl and Lon'qu got KO'ed in Apotheosis and I had to handle my strategy better and also account that I lost two units making me think of less bolder actions to deploy. It was rather fun dwindling each other armies which I could never do in Classic due to my crippling fear of losing one of my guys.

Phoenix just sounds kinda dumb. Zerg Rush the enemy, wait a turn and do it all over again. If you enjoy that better then cheers to the diversity of opinion.