FEIF Phoenix Mode.

[Roflolxp54]

How would you feel about the proposal that Phoenix Mode can't be selected normally, but is "unlocked" (or the game suggests the player to swap to it) if the player game overs enough?

(aka DMC easy automatic)

Pokemon Black 2 and White 2 done it -- Easy mode and Challenge mode have to be unlocked first.

[Philranger]

I was a complete scrub when I started with FE7. Like completely terrible at the game. I damn near gave up after I beat Lyn mode and found out that I'd struggled through the easiest portion of the game. I had to restart a ton on Lyn mode it was awful looking back. I trudged through though and made it to whatever that chapter is at the Shrine of Seals where you fight Lloyd/Linus (Cog of Destiny maybe?). I had basically Marcus, no Lord above lvl 10 and whatever pre-promotes were still alive. I couldn't do it. I restarted, didn't struggle with Lyn mode so I had some decent characters built up. Actually read up on recruiting enemy characters (I killed Guy, Raven, Dart, etc. on my first run). Abused the shit out of the arena and was able to beat the game without losing anybody well except Athos against the dragon at which point I said screw it. Every subsequent playthrough I was able to drop various crutches like arena abuse and Marcus.

Skip forward to Radiant Dawn. I'd read reviews about how hard it was supposed to be so I started the game in easy and was bored out of my mind to the point that I restarted in normal by the start of Part 3. Much more satisfying but still not difficult.

I guess the point is, some first time players who are not only new to the series but are new to the genre are absolutely terrible. I'm glad now that my suckage didn't drive me away but my brother was completely turned off to the series after his attempts at FE7. I get the argument that Casual should be enough of a crutch, but if IS feels like they want a mode that is as easy as possible where it is damn near impossible to lose I'm fine with it especially since it's optional. My wife thought Awakening was too hard (her first FE and SRPG experience) so maybe something like Phoenix can get her hooked.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Philranger

[shadowofchaos]

Pokemon Black 2 and White 2 done it -- Easy mode and Challenge mode have to be unlocked first.

Pokemon Black 2 and White 2 kinda suck at that department for "Easy Mode".

It requires you to have a friend that beat the game already... which isn't you know... terrible... but it is requiring an external method of unlocking for the player... which is you know... bad.

[Tamanoir]

How would you feel about the proposal that Phoenix Mode can't be selected normally, but is "unlocked" (or the game suggests the player to swap to it) if the player game overs enough?

(aka DMC easy automatic)

This would be quite fitting.

Also thematically (the Phoenix born again for the ashes of the battlefield), which is a nice bonus.

[Topazd]

The mode is an asinine way to go about accessibility, though this is something I'm starting to feel slightly apathetic about. More bastardized modes contribute to bloating the game, their nature dragging the overall quality of the product down -- but it's a trend I've come to terms with.

I do hope playing Classic is advocated and/or incentivized, at least.

[Tamanoir]

Pokemon Black 2 and White 2 kinda suck at that department for "Easy Mode".

It requires you to have a friend that beat the game already... which isn't you know... terrible... but it is requiring an external method of unlocking for the player... which is you know... bad.

Or buy 2 versions. This would be like if Easy could only be obtained from a Hoshido cartridge and Lunatic (+) from a Nohr ones.

Or Phoenix and "Nightmare" (every units dying means Game Over, even allied (green) ones)

The modes themselves were pretty good though (especially Challenge Mode) : You play on easy, you get less experience and money, Challenge have far more EXP and Money in exchange of the harder difficulty.

Even if this isn't much, it's still nice.

The mode is an asinine way to go about accessibility, though this is something I'm starting to feel slightly apathetic about. More bastardized modes contribute to bloating the game, their nature dragging the overall quality of the product down -- but it's a trend I've come to terms with.

I do hope playing Classic is advocated and/or incentivized, at least.

We haven't talk about the ability to change difficulty much, but I think it can actually encourage people to try Classic, knowing if it's really too hard, they can still change.

Even if it's just for Normal Hoshido (Assuming it would be as easy as Awakening was here.)

[Book Bro]

My first game was Shadow Dragon. I played on Normal Mode (aka easiest) and ended up getting to a point where my army was filled with generic faceless mooks with horrible base stats, because they never really got a chance to level up and died as soon as I got them, a horribly under-leveled Marth and Jeigan. It got to the point where I could not get pass chapter 22 no matter what I tried because my units sucked and were way way way inferior to the enemy units. I basically had to restart the game from the beginning (and when I did I did much better but was still super scrubby at it).

I guess I suck.

It really irks me how some people can't realize a person's first experience with a game series can be pretty brutal even on the easiest difficulty. Especially if you have never played a game in the same type of genre before (SD wasn't only my first FE but my first real SRPG as well). :L

I mean, I have no problem admitting I sucked at my first FE. I wouldn't even say I'm amazing now after all these years. I've definitely improved and am competent now though, and I do attribute that in part to classic forcing me to identify why I fail and replay parts with different strategies. Phoenix mode feels to me like it encourages new players to do the opposite. And don't we want new players to be able to improve? Or is that "elitist" too?

[Jedi]

I mean, I have no problem admitting I sucked at my first FE. I wouldn't even say I'm amazing now after all these years. I've definitely improved and am competent now though, and I do attribute that in part to classic forcing me to identify why I fail and replay parts with different strategies. Phoenix mode feels to me like it encourages new players to do the opposite. And don't we want new players to be able to improve? Or is that "elitist" too?

Wanting people to improve isn't elitist.

Wanting to force people to be hardcore is. Which most of the people against both casual mode and phoenix mode tend to do or/come off as attempting.

I will personally admit I think Phoenix mode is a tad silly, however with a toggleable difficulty I can see it being nice for even more experienced people if/when they get so frustrated with a chapter.

As said earlier its no different from Bravely Default allowing you to pick encounter rates etc to make yourself look "badass".

The main difference here is that this part of this fanbase feels entitled to the point where if you play anything "easier" despite Sacred Stones and Path of Radiance being easier then Awakening (this isn't even counting Lunatic) Is proof that you're "scum" and shouldn't play fire emblem ever.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Jedi

[mimgrim]

I mean, I have no problem admitting I sucked at my first FE. I wouldn't even say I'm amazing now after all these years. I've definitely improved and am competent now though, and I do attribute that in part to classic forcing me to identify why I fail and replay parts with different strategies. Phoenix mode feels to me like it encourages new players to do the opposite. And don't we want new players to be able to improve? Or is that "elitist" too?

I don't particularly care about Phoenix mode. I just get irked by people not grasping that some people can do horribly bad in their first experience of a game series/genre. Like that skill in video games are more of a global thing that transfers from game to game when in truth it is more of a specific thing of genre by genre (and even within the same genre it can still be different from game to game).

For me personally that experience I had with Shadow Dragon got me hooked into the series despite all that happened to me and is what made me love the base of the game. But like mileage may vary and yadda yadda yadda. I won't touch Phoenix mode now, or even Casual, but I could see myself having done that on SD had it been an option (though I'm personally glad it wasn't).

[eclipse]

How would you feel about the proposal that Phoenix Mode can't be selected normally, but is "unlocked" (or the game suggests the player to swap to it) if the player game overs enough?

(aka DMC easy automatic)

Or SMT IV easy (but then again, that game's early mode was designed to kick your ass over and over).

I would NOT be opposed to this method of unlocking it!

[XeKr]

back to this tangent

Of course, but equally, not all things within a work fall into "appreciate" and "do not care for". There is a negative here as well, in things that we actually dislike being part of the game. If I think a particular cutscene bastardises the characterisation of a character within a work, whilst I can say that I still enjoy the rest of the the scenes that character is in, then I can still say I actively do not enjoy the aforementioned scene, and may believe it would have been better for it to not exist, or be modified in some manner.

I would question if the independence of the experience is the same here. A particular cutscene can be skipped true, but you have to experience it once, think about it, and are then essentially self-censoring memories (not so trivial), as well as accepting all the rippling ramifications on the overall, originally intended, characterization or plot.

It feels easier to just ignore other selectable game modes no? It doesn’t feel intrusive, and therefore truncated in the same manner. Or similarly, gamers like to joke about handwaving away game-breaking mechanics (or not), but the ease at which that is done can vary greatly.

It’s almost like PC games and their endless settings, tweaks, and mods (I would say generally considered a positive). Obviously there some distinction between developers vs. fans who are providing the content, and paying vs. not, etc, but I think this idea of modularity to one’s own preference is kind of where all the “but it’s optional!!!” stuff comes from.

Maximum flexability is hypothetically concievable for a game though, within the sense of a player's imagination being the only limit. Flexability in the grand scheme of a game is a lack of relevant rules, and inflexability (in the grand scheme of a game) is an abundance of relevant rules. Rules are by nature inflexible (multilayered rules are still inflexible, they're just more complex), so we have to examine the larger picture of the game as opposed to the rules themselves.

So the less rules, the more flexible something is. Calvinball has basically no real rules besides "you can't use a rule twice" for example (although there are obviously other potential physical, and moral limits on it that are probably subconsciously placed but w/e)

Maximum inflexability with a game is much harder for me to concieve. I suppose "this game does not exist/cannot be interacted with and is just a blank screen" may count, but to me that appears to be more of an absence of rules, which I could point to flexability as the cause rather than inflexability. Rules are inflexible, so having one rule would seem to be the most inflexible scenario, as that rule is the only thing we can look at. But flexability is what reduces the amount of relevant rules in the first place, and less rules are a factor of flexability. If we had more relevant rules (inflexability), then those rules have to interact in relevant ways, which means the game would move past this blank, near nonexistant state onto something we can actually play. Perhaps the gradient here isn't entirely appropriate. Hmm.

I find my brain intuitively thinks of maximum inflexability as effectively unlimited rules imposing on the player, rather than "one single inflexible rule". As such, even with infinite rules on a player, a game's framework can still enable it to exist and be played. Relevant rules can't negate the existance of a game, only modify it. So I don't believe we arrive at the same conclusion by taking each to an extreme. It would indicate to me that rules to create the game are inherantly more important than the goal of "everyone should be able to have fun with this".

You make some interesting points. I’m currently hesitant to get indepth into this discussion because what comes to mind is highly related to stuff like determinism (the nature of the rules and their consequences and interactions) and maximizing overall weighted happies utilitarianism. So there dissonance for me in wanting to make some relevant points, but not really, because I’m personally not that fond of that sort of amateur philosophizing. “To no end”, was in part a reference to this. <_<

I’ll think some more about it, though I will note that I’m unsure that quantity of rules is really the (most) important factor here, as sort of mentioned.

Well you see, I do actually dislike, and avoid playing other SRPGs without permadeath exactly beacuse I find them less compelling/interesting as a result. Or as you put it, I actively do not like it/them. I don't have a problem with ignoring all those other SRPGs and simply not playing them beacuse they don't have what I want, and they are in the vast majority compared to Fire Emblem, so it's natural for me to then say there's no issue with there not being mode to cater to those people.

There could quite easily be a mode without QTEs that simply autuomatically proceeds through cutscenes and any in combat QTEs could be designated towards context sensitive attacks instead of QTE attacks. It's hardly difficult to concieve of such, there are plenty of similar action games that don't have any QTEs. Devil May Cry 3 has about as many ridiculous cutscenes as Metal Gear Rising, but the former simply doesn't bother to tell the player to mash buttons or whatever during them. There's no option currently in the game to avoid them, but that's exactly my point, an option could be created to facilitate me, but I absoloutely do not want or expect them to cater to me! I am not bothered by the notion of simply avoiding the games beacuse of their inclusion of something that is exclusionary to me as a player. Now I won't deny it is unreasonable of me to project like that onto everyone, but I'm simply expressing my view in that sense. Also, they're hardly the only problems I have with their games so it wouldn't be the only thing they have to fix, just QTE's are an easy broad concept to point to, and save me writing a giant rant on why Bayonetta's predetermined combo system is far less compelling to me than DMC3's right now.

Also your parentheses are confusing me. Which one is designed with them in mind? I assume FE, so do you mean games with QTEs are not designed with them in mind? I disagree with that, given that entire games built around QTEs exist, it's not some abstract concept that's only stuffed in just because.

I suppose my use of “unlike” was a bit confusing. To clarify, I agree with you that some games are designed around QTEs, as FE is designed with classic in mind. (I wanted to distinguish something designed with “bad mechanic in mind” vs with “good mechanic in mind”, not “designed with X in mind” vs “not designed with X in mind”, as it reads)

So it’s kinda on the other end of the spectrum now. As originally designed, it doesn’t appeal to you, but it could perhaps if an optional mode changed things.

It’s great to say you’re comfortable with the game not catering to you; that seems somewhat rare. However, in the case that it’s fairly trivial for the game to cater to those such as you (add a mode that automatically does all QTEs or equivalently just making them all cutscenes. Not unprecedented btw.), the developer could get more sales (and feel accomplished that more are entertained). Those players (you) might enjoy a game they otherwise wouldn’t. An improvement for both parties. So why do we not want widespread appeal again?

Sure, but, again, I think as long as your alternatives continue to exist, I don't see a problem in Smash's future iterations being less...intense, shall we say. I bought Smash 4 out of interest, didn't like it, gave it to a friend as a gift instead, don't play it anymore, and will not get the Wii U version. Fine by me. If I wanted to play Melee, I'd just play Melee.

Or rather to put this in terms that apply to myself, I loathe King of FIghters XIII, and I've gone into detail previously on why. But I can still just play 98, 2k2, and their UM editions instead (which I enjoy), and whilst I certainly have an ideal of what I think XIII should have been like, I don't have a problem with simply not playing the game. Competitive games are somewhat different from single player ones really, since their continued worth to a player is mostly tied to the ability to actually play them with people, new installments aren't really that neccessary or important. People are still playing Street Fighter II Super Turbo today, and even forgo the HD edition.

That "just don't play it" sentiment is pretty similar, no? Just for the whole game instead of a mode within the game.

And I don’t really mind the new games either; you’ll notice I simply never venture/post into the Smash section of this forum.

Tho I suppose it slightly irks me when it is implied that the “casualfication” of new smash games, wrt forced basic mechanics, is the same as the eponymous casual mode (notwithstanding some other new mechanics in Awakening, as mentioned). And yeah the multiplayer thing.

I admit I sometimes feel amused that so many Smash 4, League of Legends, Pokemon fans here will lament the direction of FE.

It's "preserved", but it's pretty indicative that their views about how important it is have diminished significantly if they're willing to put in Phoenix Mode, something that is effectively a complete negation (as Ownagepuffs put it, PermaLIFE mode). I can't deny that a change in outlook like that makes me lose interest with the game as a result, because I can only see it as having greater ramifications throughout the game. Which, by the way, is fine, if I opt not to buy the game and play it as a result, then there's no inherant problem with that, aside from my own personal emotional connections to a series making me react in a more unreasonable way. I mean, I've quietly already opted not to play the Etrian remakes on 3DS for various reasons (Picnic/Story mode, bad balance decisions, etc), but just didn't make my opinion heard since I don't feel compelled enough to do so.

This is what I mean :\ . Sometimes it just seems to be psychology. The possibility of permanent death in FE. The possibility of permanent life in FE. One doesn’t have to like it, either way. I would say understand, empathize and move on (not going to stop anyone, obviously).

Fans are going to meltdown because by nature they care. I just try to not make the SF anti-casual sentiment too unbearable. >_> (not posting particularly to you, but to just have another voice out there, earlier when things were so reactionary)

Edited May 16, 2015 by XeKr

[Irysa]

I would question if the independence of the experience is the same here. A particular cutscene can be skipped true, but you have to experience it once, think about it, and are then essentially self-censoring memories (not so trivial), as well as accepting all the rippling ramifications on the overall, originally intended, characterization or plot.

It feels easier to just ignore other selectable game modes no? It doesn’t feel intrusive, and therefore truncated in the same manner. Or similarly, gamers like to joke about handwaving away game-breaking mechanics (or not), but the ease at which that is done can vary greatly.

It’s almost like PC games and their endless settings, tweaks, and mods (I would say generally considered a positive). Obviously there some distinction between developers vs. fans who are providing the content, and paying vs. not, etc, but I think this idea of modularity to one’s own preference is kind of where all the “but it’s optional!!!” stuff comes from.

I'd have to disagree with the first point. One doesn't have to neccessarily even experience it once, one simply has to be "aware" of it's existance. Lets say my friend warns me about such a cutscene, as they are a good judge of my preferences and character, and advises me to skip it. Now, ignoring the fact that this is contrary to my own actual nature as I'd much rather experience it all and form an opinion, this situation is not entirely unreasonable. An easy example to point to would be an epilogue that undermines characterisation that occured throughout the story. The story has already been wrapped up and completed, but the epilogue could contain regressive behaviour on the part of a character who overcame one of their flaws during the story. Nothing within the epilogue is really important or relevant to anything, but this one thing "exists", and can be viewed negatively even if avoided in the first place.

I mean, I don't even have to really go very far to point to something close to what I'm describing here, just look at FE12! Sure, Marth gets undermined by Chris the entire story, but the final nail in the coffin has to be in the closing scenes where Chris oh-so-graciously cecedes all of their achivements to Marth so that Marth can be a Legendary Hero King in the history books, whilst Chris will fade into obscurity. This is just so completely ridiculous and repulsive that it managed to reduce my opinion of the game as a whole down a massive amount. If I could, I would go back in time and try to get my past self to just skip that moment, and I definitely would think more of FE12 as it stands without it. (but would still wish from a "having been described that scene" perspective for it to simply not exist)

You make some interesting points. I’m currently hesitant to get indepth into this discussion because what comes to mind is highly related to stuff like determinism (the nature of the rules and their consequences and interactions) and maximizing overall weighted happies utilitarianism. So there dissonance for me in wanting to make some relevant points, but not really, because I’m personally not that fond of that sort of amateur philosophizing. “To no end”, was in part a reference to this. <_<

I’ll think some more about it, though I will note that I’m unsure that quantity of rules is really the (most) important factor here, as sort of mentioned.

Well, if you're not interested or comfortable in continuing this particular line of discussion, then so be it. But I would have to say that frankly, the kind of discussion we're having right now aside from this broad tangent falls into the same trap anyway. To me it seems more like you have an aversion to discussing the abstract, if I may say so. Which is fine, nothing wrong with practicality.

It’s great to say you’re comfortable with the game not catering to you; that seems somewhat rare. However, in the case that it’s fairly trivial for the game to cater to those such as you (add a mode that automatically does all QTEs or equivalently just making them all cutscenes. Not unprecedented btw.), the developer could get more sales (and feel accomplished that more are entertained). Those players (you) might enjoy a game they otherwise wouldn’t. An improvement for both parties. So why do we not want widespread appeal again?

Well to be honest, I'd still be lambasting the games anyway even if they were all changed to cutscenes, because that would ultimately mean that instead of breaking up bossfights with QTEs throughout (for example, in many of Platinum Game's titles, they are used to signifiy a phase switch for a boss) they would instead be breaking them up in cutscenes. And my preference is to simply keep it all visceral, to contain everything possible within the game's natural state. It's really not that trivial to adjust something like that, as "spectacle fighters" have this aspect to them where the designer is attempting to enable the player to play out a fantastical fight in a cinematic sense. It's easy for me to point to bosses in DMC1, 3 and 4 that achieve this naturally (and still don't shy from spectacle at all), but frankly, it takes a lot more work to realise fights like these and consistently reach that level without resorting to canned cutscene attacks and the like.

Think about it this way; the effort for a developer that has to go into making it feel awesome for the player to dodge high speed, powerful attacks from an enemy is magnitudes higher than the effort that has to go into just preanimating something and making it look cool in a controlled, predetermined environment. In the former, the developer has to pull it off without relying on things that break up the player's focus and control, they want the attacks to be loud and powerful enough to feel intense, and fast enough for the player to JUST have enough time to react to avoid, creating this supreme level of tension. And in the latter they can just "artificially" create that and have the character do it...if you hit the button prompt on screen at the right time whilst the game has transitioned into a cutscene and they have the flexability to play with camera angles, music, and other things.

Sadly, the fact is a lot of people (or at least, Platinum Games fanboys) have ended up at the point where they expect the latter and insist they're fine or not that bad, whilst simulteanously giving other titles flack for utilising the same things. To me it's a mistake to think about it in terms of "just remove the QTEs to get a better game", it's "the game is designed with them in mind and lacks in certain areas without them". You need to add something back in there to compensate. So offering a "qte-less" Bayonetta or w/e doesn't really pique my interest in itself unless the game accomodates for just removing it. Same thing for SRPGs without permadeath - it's not really the same to try to just impose permadeath on myself if the game isn't inclined to work that way in the first place. I feel the exact same way about Casual/Phoenix Mode's removal of permadeath, it takes away and adds almost nothing. In a strategical sense, it enables some less orthodox strategies that involve suiciding units to be utilised without significant penalities, but we're still operating under the assumption that inherantly, the game is designed around you NOT losing units (for Classic), and nothing else changes besides the tweaking of this one mechanic. So I can reasonably assert that maps simply aren't designed in any capacity with these in mind, they're afterthoughts. Sure, there's going to be emergent gameplay or strategies there, but to be entirely honest, it is pretty difficult for me to comprehend situations where the "solutions" are exclusive to these modes. They're more like ways to shortcut to results that're going to be attainable conservatively and is intended to be reached conservatively in the first place. Suicides or sacrifices can be made in Classic already, the penalities are just more severe. We have to get into some insanely brutal, player modified shit (like say, H3/4 FE12 on 0% growths) before we hit the point where constant sacrifices of otherwise useful units on a frequent basis likely becomes something of an imperative, where there simply isn't a better way to go about approaching a problem. "Bloat" is a good way to describe these modes really. And if we reach an opposite conclusion of "the games aren't being designed around classic in the first place anymore" then the option neccessarily existing doesn't sway that conclusion either, and such a conclusion lowers my vested interest, although I'd say it would be better design wise to just pick something and focus on it. If we had a series all about strategic kamikazes then you're not really doing much for the game by just adding a mode with permadeath in an attempt to appeal to weirdos like me if you don't simulteanously actually DESIGN for it.

I suppose it's difficult to directly answer "what is wrong with widespread appeal?", because it doesn't really describe itself contextually. It's like asking, "what's wrong with sharing?" in a situation where there's only enough food for one person to survive. To me the question isn't in the way you've tried to phrase it, it's "what is wrong with undermining established mechanics?", and I try to answer it from that view instead. I could also just flip the question around and ask "what is good about widespread appeal?" and then we get into utilitarianism again (which I don't like).

This is what I mean :\ . Sometimes it just seems to be psychology. The possibility of permanent death in FE. The possibility of permanent life in FE. One doesn’t have to like it, either way. I would say understand, empathize and move on (not going to stop anyone, obviously).

Fans are going to meltdown because by nature they care. I just try to not make the SF anti-casual sentiment too unbearable. >_> (not posting particularly to you, but to just have another voice out there, earlier when things were so reactionary)

Look, I'm not exactly fond of the amount of shit being flung around in these threads either, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I can't advocate people abstaining from communicating over things they care about simply because tensions arise, otherwise any political discussion of any sort ANYWHERE (forget SF) outside of a hugbox would be bad, which it's not! Even if the discussions themselves are unnuanced, I think a fair amount can be taken onboard from them just in terms of communication between people.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Irysa

[Soapbar]

How would you feel about the proposal that Phoenix Mode can't be selected normally, but is "unlocked" (or the game suggests the player to swap to it) if the player game overs enough?

(aka DMC easy automatic)

Sort of like Armored Core's Human PLUS upgrades (You got them after accumulating 50,000 Credits in debt)? I think that would work.

[Refa]

Pokemon Black 2 and White 2 done it -- Easy mode and Challenge mode have to be unlocked first.

We do not speak of those games when referring to positive implementations of difficulty settings ever.

[Tamanoir]

I just thought there would be some joke to be madeabout Phoenix Mode and Phoenix Games

(Like Phoenix Mode is to FE what Phoenix Games is to video games/Disney Movies/anything...)

Anyway it's clear they trying to have their cake and eat it here.

And please don't put Casual and Phoenix together.

There's even more difference between Casual and Phoenix than between Classic and Casual. (The strategy is for each map instead of for the whole game but it's there)

We do not speak of those games when referring to positive implementations of difficulty settings ever.

While the way of obtaining the mode was stupid, the mode themselves were good.

I had my best Pokemon experience with Pokemon White 2 in Challenge Mode.

[Refa]

Yeah, I was referring to how to obtain them rather than the actual modes themselves.

[ShadowSlayer]

Can't wait for people to brag about beating the game on Lunatic+ / Phoenix - while conveniently leaving out the Phoenix part.

[shadowofchaos]

Can't wait for people to brag about beating the game on Lunatic+ / Phoenix - while conveniently leaving out the Phoenix part.

I apologize if I sound like I'm trying to start something again like the other thread on the first day, but...

Seriously, why do people want the opportunity to crap on someone?

Why are you so eager to compare your achievements to someone?

You sound like you just WANT a newcomer to waltz in here and be rude with their little "achievement" for you to talk down on them.

Yeah, I was referring to how to obtain them rather than the actual modes themselves.

Their actual value as difficulty settings were great... if unlocking them weren't such a hurdle.

Edited May 17, 2015 by shadowofchaos

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

first off, if they are a newcommer, they aren't going to pick lunatic in the first place.

second off, if there is nothing wrong with beating it on phoenix mode, like you said, which is fine with me, then why would the "newcommer" feel like they'd have to lie about beating it on lunatic without it?

lying is far worse then being a casual, or a phoenix.

[shadowofchaos]

My issue with them is they're on the very hostile mindset of expecting someone to brag "I BEAT LUNATIC+" on Phoenix mode.

Why...? Like why would you expect people to lie as their first thought of using the mode?

It's literally taking a shot at the mode because people can lie about their achievements? Like... seriously?

People are literally that offended at the thought of people playing the mode any easier?

If they brag, just brush it off?

For one thing I plan on using Phoenix if Lunatic+ in unlocked.

Edited May 17, 2015 by shadowofchaos

[Bovinian]

People who could only beat Awakening Lunatic/Lunatic+ by grinding their units to capped stats and trivializing the game generally don't try to pretend they beat it without grinding. Isn't it kind of the same thing?

[eclipse]

My issue with them is they're on the very hostile mindset of expecting someone to brag "I BEAT LUNATIC+" on Phoenix mode.

Why...? Like why would you expect people to lie as their first thought of using the mode?

It's literally taking a shot at the mode because people can lie about their achievements? Like... seriously?

People are literally that offended at the thought of people playing the mode any easier?

If they brag, just brush it off?

For one thing I plan on using Phoenix if Lunatic+ in unlocked.

As long as Phoenix isn't used as an excuse for why Lunatic+ is easy, I'll be happy.

[B.Leu]

As long as Phoenix isn't used as an excuse for why Lunatic+ is easy, I'll be happy.

Meanwhile in the future... :p

You know it's going to happen sooner or later.

[eclipse]

Meanwhile in the future... :p

You know it's going to happen sooner or later.

Yeah, and it's not fair to either mode. However, there isn't much that can stop that, short of demanding all modes be judged on Classic play.

[Florete]

As long as Phoenix isn't used as an excuse for why Lunatic+ is easy, I'll be happy.

For these purposes, I expect Lunatic+ Phoenix and Lunatic+ Classic to be considered separately.