FEIF Phoenix Mode.

[MoonlitSonata]

Phoenix mode... I'll likely never use it in my first few playthroughs, although if I attempt Lunatic/+ (assuming it was as annoying to deal with as it was in Awakening) I'll definitely put it to use. Regardless, I can only dread the amount of turdslinging that Phoenix Mode will cause.

I can imagine it being useful in Hoshido for training low level/freshly reclassed units though. Get through bronze ranks without too much hassle!

[MajorMajora]

Woah. I think people misunderstood me. Did I write something incorrectly? I was saying that I don't mind the catering towards the casual crowd and that a lot of good can happen if we couple the added accessibility with more advanced options and potential for depth (in other words, classic mode). I never said we should get rid of classic mode. Unless I had some critical failure in what I wrote. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Edited May 13, 2015 by MajorMajora

[Yula]

I'm tired of this purist attitude of complaining about something that helps people get into a series, maybe people will want to use this Phoenix mode because they're new to the series. Maybe it's a way to introduce new people into this franchise, but when they come to fansites like this, they're going to get driven off because some people decided to be smug and call them not true fans. All that Phoenix mode is, is an optional setting that you have the CHOICE to set up. No one is forcing you, no one is coming to your home and grabbing your hand and forcing you to select Phoenix mode. This is the same exact thing that I saw in the Megaman fanbase with Megaman 10 and it's the same kind of crap that goes on in the Sonic fanbase!

I've seen it before in the past and it's not any less obnoxious here. I could understand if you were complaining about something that was forced. I have to look at painfully ineffective armor designs, oversized and overdesigned weapons(As well as incomplete weapons), but the one thing I don't have to do is play the game on Phoenix mode. Stop complaining about it, it's not ruining the franchise, they're adding a setting that can be turned on so that people who have never had to play a strategy game before can get into the genre. They're keeping almost everything else as is except for as far as we know the weapon durability, which though slightly annoys me, you don't see me running to the top of a mountain with a megaphone just to shout "Betrayal!" as if I was Noah Antwiler!

Edited May 13, 2015 by Yula

[Bovinian]

Can anyone who believes Phoenix Mode will introduce new people to the franchise actually come up with a compelling argument as to how this would work? A person who is swayed by Phoenix but not by Casual is most likely the type of person who does not like to worry about things like strategy when playing games. Even if they were interested purely for the story and characters, the gameplay at its core is still that of a strategy RPG, and would probably not be very fun for them. I realize this is just my opinion, but if IS really wanted to cater to people who don't want to deal with strategical gameplay, wouldn't it be better for them to release, like, an FE visual novel spinoff or something?

[Loki Laufeyson]

I have never seen such passionate resistance to easier difficulty levels than I have from this fanbase.

Seriously.

I cannot be arsed about Phoenix Mode. I do hope the units respawn at 1hp however. I doubt ill be using this mode unless im tackling an uber difficult mode like Nohr Lunatic or some junk. Casual was enough cushion for me. Im more concerned about weapon durability being nonexistent, unless theres some sort of other way of balancing that out. (like the return of weapon weight)

[Yula]

Can anyone who believes Phoenix Mode will introduce new people to the franchise actually come up with a compelling argument as to how this would work? A person who is swayed by Phoenix but not by Casual is most likely the type of person who does not like to worry about things like strategy when playing games. Even if they were interested purely for the story and characters, the gameplay at its core is still that of a strategy RPG, and would probably not be very fun for them. I realize this is just my opinion, but if IS really wanted to cater to people who don't want to deal with strategical gameplay, wouldn't it be better for them to release, like, an FE visual novel spinoff or something?

Can you provide evidence that it will not? Because if you want any sort of compelling argument, Megaman 10, the Zero collection, XCOM with Enemy Unknown's Easy Mode, it allows people to get into an otherwise brutally difficult game. And if you want to go into Fire Emblem, Fire Emblem Awakening's sales were bolstered by the fact that it had a causual mode and thus was more accessable.

[Book Bro]

Can you provide evidence that it will not? Because if you want any sort of compelling argument, Megaman 10, the Zero collection, XCOM with Enemy Unknown's Easy Mode, it allows people to get into an otherwise brutally difficult game. And if you want to go into Fire Emblem, Fire Emblem Awakening's sales were bolstered by the fact that it had a causual mode and thus was more accessable.

What he's saying is that casual already fulfills the "more accessible difficulty" mode that allows newcomers or less skilled players to get into the game. I mean, there's always a way to make it even easier, but like are we going to defend a hypothetical even simpler mode below Phoenix? Following the same logic, it would also make it easier for people to get into the game or complete the game if Phoenix was too hard for them.

[Yula]

What he's saying is that casual already fulfills the "more accessible difficulty" mode that allows newcomers or less skilled players to get into the game. I mean, there's always a way to make it even easier, but like are we going to defend a hypothetical even simpler mode below Phoenix? Following the same logic, it would also make it easier for people to get into the game or complete the game if Phoenix was too hard for them.

There are ways to get total party killed in Casual. My problem with all this complaining is that no one is coming to your house and forcing you to choose it, it's an option. This means that you don't have to use it, you never had to use Casual, and I'll bet my bottom dollar people were complaining about that too.

[Book Bro]

There are ways to get total party killed in Casual. My problem with all this complaining is that no one is coming to your house and forcing you to choose it, it's an option. This means that you don't have to use it, you never had to use Casual, and I'll bet my bottom dollar people were complaining about that too.

The difference is casual removed a mechanic that made many people hesitant to play FE, so it did allow more people to get into the game, while still keeping some element of strategy. Phoenix doesn't do that. Before it was announced, no one was saying "gee, I really want to play FE Awakening, but your units retreat if their HP goes to 0? Sounds too complicated, I wish they came back right away instead".

I mean it's there now, so by all means use it if you want, but I don't think it was necessary. As was said earlier, "more options aren't always a good thing".

[Florete]

I'm not one to complain about Phoenix mode, but I do think it's a bit ridiculous. If they want a mode where a player can just enjoy the story without having to worry about playing the game, they might as well just have a full skip mode of some sort where your units are invincible and you can set the game to auto. I actually would like this, myself, as I sometimes would like to just experience the story of a game again, but don't necessarily want to "play" it.

[Book of Ereshkigal]

Phoenix mode is a bit silly, if they're going that route I'd rather just have infinite HP mode.

I'll probably use that mode for a support grind run or something, though.

[iavasechui]

I'd say it exists because of the hell that is the first few chapters of lunatic +....

[goodperson707]

^^ However we already have a (pretty close to it) infinite hp mode in awakening, its called normal. Once again i have to say Casual/Phoenix can and might actually be of better use on higher modes than normal. I would even say hard casual would have been a better option to start my little sister off.

[Venterqua]

Famitsu scans leaked today and there was an interview. According to that, if I can sum up the translator correctly, Phoenix mode was added as kind of a way so if players get stuck in the more difficult settings, they can bring the difficultydown, permanently, and still complete the game. I assumed something like this was the case as I guessed Phoenix mode was a way to get newer/less experienced players into the Nohr path as it would be the more difficult. From what I've gained, the creators don't expect anyone to play the entire game in Phoenix mode, but for players to use as a crutch in case they ran into any insurmountable obstacles later in the game.

And even if this wasn't the case, someone said earlier that the inclusion of Casual mode enticed them to try more strategies. While I don't personally think Casual would cause someone to limit their strtegies, Phoenix is a whole new experience and will more than likely originate new innovative strategies and ways to play the game due to how easy the mode would be to experiment with.

[Baldrick]

@Refa, RFoF, L95; my guess is that they still want you to feel like a strategist leading an army, (even if there's no risk), since the avatar system is still around.

@Venterque; Source? That'd be interesting development, but I thought I read the opposite was true, you weren't able to switch between the three modes. You couldn't switch between Classic and Casual in Awakening without starting a new file iirc.

[goodperson707]

^^ yeah Phoenix seems to be at least in part to be an attempt to prevent you from getting stuck on Nohr with under-levelled characters.

Also i too like the fun ideas that Phoenix makes possible, non-promoted runs, saving weak units for later, a team of just archers and unequipped meat shields ,ect

Edited May 13, 2015 by goodperson707

[Venterqua]

@Refa, RFoF, L95; my guess is that they still want you to feel like a strategist leading an army, (even if there's no risk), since the avatar system is still around.

@Venterque; Source? That'd be interesting development, but I thought I read the opposite was true, you weren't able to switch between the three modes. You couldn't switch between Classic and Casual in Awakening without starting a new file iirc.

It's in one of the other threads

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=53693&page=2

Shadowofchaos is the one that explains it on this and later pages. Unless I'm confusing things, you can only switch to lower difficulties, once, and that the change is permanent.

[3Comrades]

The difference is casual removed a mechanic that made many people hesitant to play FE, so it did allow more people to get into the game, while still keeping some element of strategy. Phoenix doesn't do that. Before it was announced, no one was saying "gee, I really want to play FE Awakening, but your units retreat if their HP goes to 0? Sounds too complicated, I wish they came back right away instead".

I mean it's there now, so by all means use it if you want, but I don't think it was necessary. As was said earlier, "more options aren't always a good thing".

There are several people who I know who quit the game due to difficulty on Normal/casual and loved it beforehand. Things like loosing the child units and some maps they found difficult to master, made frustration where they were perfectly fine before, and enjoyed it. if you haven't heard people say Normal/casual was frustrating, they probably are not on here. For a few people, my normal/casual scrub self was thought of as a master, and they would hand me the game to beat some maps because they were on the verge of quitting otherwise.

Many of them played the game, and was drawn to it for the same reason i was. Match up the characters, beat the story (I know many may claim its hardly beaten when that easy, but I can assure you pride and elation can come regardless of difficulty setting), enjoy the characters and what they have to say, and feel rewarded after a map.

In fact one friend was really happy with the news, as soon as I mentioned it would be included, because she could finish it by herself and not feel like a loser, and she really loves the idea of 2 separate stories making a larger one, and I say the game won't be out in at least a year, but she doesn't mind and loves new details.

Also, many casual gamers are getting enough from it from the main games, of what a real gamer is and other stuff. Calling someone worse for what they do in a single player game? That is the no thinking mode, it's also just malicious. I know so many impassioned gamers who get really involved with these games but have no interaction with the gaming community because so many people in it are snobs or bullies.

I mean me? I play on easy and am bad at gaming and I don't care, but many people who have been gaming most of their lives are really uncomfortable about being bad, and like modes where they can feel great. It's an optional feature, I don't understand why people have to make their own fandom so toxic for newcomers.

[Baldrick]

If it's a one-off, permanent switch, you would need to play the whole game in Phoenix mode if you switched to it.

I would reassess if you can change as many times as like.

[Book Bro]

There are several people who I know who quit the game due to difficulty on Normal/casual and loved it beforehand. Things like loosing the child units and some maps they found difficult to master, made frustration where they were perfectly fine before, and enjoyed it. if you haven't heard people say Normal/casual was frustrating, they probably are not on here. For a few people, my normal/casual scrub self was thought of as a master, and they would hand me the game to beat some maps because they were on the verge of quitting otherwise.

Many of them played the game, and was drawn to it for the same reason i was. Match up the characters, beat the story (I know many may claim its hardly beaten when that easy, but I can assure you pride and elation can come regardless of difficulty setting), enjoy the characters and what they have to say, and feel rewarded after a map.

In fact one friend was really happy with the news, as soon as I mentioned it would be included, because she could finish it by herself and not feel like a loser, and she really loves the idea of 2 separate stories making a larger one, and I say the game won't be out in at least a year, but she doesn't mind and loves new details.

Also, many casual gamers are getting enough from it from the main games, of what a real gamer is and other stuff. Calling someone worse for what they do in a single player game? That is the no thinking mode, it's also just malicious. I know so many impassioned gamers who get really involved with these games but have no interaction with the gaming community because so many people in it are snobs or bullies.

I mean me? I play on easy and am bad at gaming and I don't care, but many people who have been gaming most of their lives are really uncomfortable about being bad, and like modes where they can feel great. It's an optional feature, I don't understand why people have to make their own fandom so toxic for newcomers.

I get that some people may struggle if they're new to this type of game or gaming in general, and that's fine. Everyone has different skill levels, and everyone starts somewhere, so I'm not about to call someone a noob or a scrub for it. But I like to think that most people can appreciate somewhat of a challenge, maybe that's wrong of me to assume. When I started FE on the GBA I was pretty bad and lost/missed units too, that didn't make me give up on the game because the characters and story still hooked me and I did enjoy the gameplay even if it was tough for me. The game allowed me to learn from my mistakes and get better at it which made me enjoy it even more. I feel like adding this mode is robbing new players of that opportunity since they can just go "screw it, I'm switching to Phoenix" at any moment instead of thinking about why a certain chapter is giving them a hard time.

It's their prerogative to use the mode and I dont presume to stop anyone from doing whatever they want with the game, these are just my thoughts.

[Bovinian]

There are several people who I know who quit the game due to difficulty on Normal/casual and loved it beforehand. Things like loosing the child units and some maps they found difficult to master, made frustration where they were perfectly fine before, and enjoyed it. if you haven't heard people say Normal/casual was frustrating, they probably are not on here. For a few people, my normal/casual scrub self was thought of as a master, and they would hand me the game to beat some maps because they were on the verge of quitting otherwise.

Many of them played the game, and was drawn to it for the same reason i was. Match up the characters, beat the story (I know many may claim its hardly beaten when that easy, but I can assure you pride and elation can come regardless of difficulty setting), enjoy the characters and what they have to say, and feel rewarded after a map.

In fact one friend was really happy with the news, as soon as I mentioned it would be included, because she could finish it by herself and not feel like a loser, and she really loves the idea of 2 separate stories making a larger one, and I say the game won't be out in at least a year, but she doesn't mind and loves new details.

Also, many casual gamers are getting enough from it from the main games, of what a real gamer is and other stuff. Calling someone worse for what they do in a single player game? That is the no thinking mode, it's also just malicious. I know so many impassioned gamers who get really involved with these games but have no interaction with the gaming community because so many people in it are snobs or bullies.

I mean me? I play on easy and am bad at gaming and I don't care, but many people who have been gaming most of their lives are really uncomfortable about being bad, and like modes where they can feel great. It's an optional feature, I don't understand why people have to make their own fandom so toxic for newcomers.

How would your friends feel about a hypothetical FE game that was completely driven by character interactions, dialogue, and a full-fleshed story, with no strategy-based gameplay at all? Because honestly, if enough people are becoming interested in Fire Emblem as a franchise but are scared by the difficulty of the games, a spinoff series of this sort can probably bring a lot more casual gamers into the franchise than the addition of new modes can. I think the franchise is becoming big enough that this could be a viable option.

[Irysa]

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.

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.

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.

Fair, I understand where you're coming from now, sorry for distracting from the point. But seeing as you did type out a response, I do hope you don't mind me replying further on this tangent of design philosophy hyperbabble? I mean if you don't want to talk about it or think it's irrelevant, just ignore it.

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.

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".

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

Forgive me for being excessively pithy and ever interested in reaching for the abstract. It's easier to argue there for one.

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

Well it worked! Kind of.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…)

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.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Irysa

[3Comrades]

How would your friends feel about a hypothetical FE game that was completely driven by character interactions, dialogue, and a full-fleshed story, with no strategy-based gameplay at all? Because honestly, if enough people are becoming interested in Fire Emblem as a franchise but are scared by the difficulty of the games, a spinoff series of this sort can probably bring a lot more casual gamers into the franchise than the addition of new modes can. I think the franchise is becoming big enough that this could be a viable option.

Believe it or not, while they would enjoy it, they would miss the combat, what you are proposing sounds fun, but is very different, and needs voice actors not to feel like a read the text game. And while many of my friends enjoy VNs, they enjoyed fire emblem awakening more due to an interactivity and that the characters and story are rewarded and broken up by fighting, the hard thing to understand is many of these people like combat, they just dont enjoy it the most or are necessarily good at it.

The problem is when you aren't good enough to enjoy it or make it a fun past time and more of a frustration and issue. They view these games as combat is something you have to beat to get the good stuff, a trial and then reward. The fun is being able to beat the game to get the good stuff, failing over and over just makes them feel bad and eventually an insurmoutable obstacle that is no longer worth it.

I know if Pheonix mode can be turned on and off, there would still be a sense of fun because when it got too hard in a fight or 2 they could easily manage and still keep enjoying it. A game where the Combat is the obstacle for the reward, rather than a reward in itself can make it more fun, even if the difficulty of the obstacle is arbitrary.

As for characters dying, since that is the reward, for me and many gamers, Permadeath is just not an option for a fun game, since every time a character dies, the fun of the game for us gets reduced. Even one character dead can feel like we lost the game, and I imagine like a usual Lunatic + player coming back and only being able to win it again except on hard, the sense of enjoyment we get from the game is tainted.

[nocturne]

Isn't the permanent death thing one of the things that set Fire Emblem apart from other SRPGs? The fact that your units are not expendable? I can understand making the game more accessible but I don't think this is the way to do it. I feel like they are sacrificing a lot of what made the series great to make it more user-friendly. I realize no one HAS to play in this mode but the fact that it exists cheapens the whole experience

[eclipse]

Isn't the permanent death thing one of the things that set Fire Emblem apart from other SRPGs? The fact that your units are not expendable? I can understand making the game more accessible but I don't think this is the way to do it. I feel like they are sacrificing a lot of what made the series great to make it more user-friendly. I realize no one HAS to play in this mode but the fact that it exists cheapens the whole experience

Pretty sure FE isn't the only series to feature permanent death. Also, "not expendable" is subjective - your units were plenty expendable in the Archanea remakes!

Anyway, the lack of perma-death was taken care of thanks to Casual, which was way back in FE12-land.