Nym Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) You would be surprise how a ''small'' debuff can do the difference between life and death, specially in this game. Also, there is something that you seem to forget about Casual: You can be outnumber in the actual battle which also mean that you can actually lose the game. Not only that your units lose exp by being out of the battle temporarely (and you may lose the game because of that) but you want also add a permanant debuff each time your units retreat? Casual mode would be even more harder than Classic mode itself whic mean goodbye newcomers. Edited August 23, 2015 by Nym Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 are you implying that i play like a casual every point of stat is necessary for shaving turns, but don't let's pretend that the kind of player who would be turned off by minor transient casual mode death penalties is going to care about shaving turns lol Pfft, you're about as casual as a suit and tie at a fast-food joint. But I figured you'd understand numbers! When I took my stroll through Awakening's Lunatic, I gave zero fucks about turn counts. However, I did take note of those times where an enemy was left alive with 1-2 HP/my units died by taking (damage + 7) HP (that warrants a def/res tonic and/or a HP tonic). If an attack boost is noticeable, then an attack reduction will be equally noticeable, and in a bad way. This, in turn, will affect strategy, and teaching people to modify strategies around an attack deficit seems completely backwards, especially if the goal is to get them into the older games. I can't think of too many situations where someone's base attack stat dropped pre-Fates (Speed, at least, could be lowered thanks to CON/weapon weight, so there's some precedent for that. . .but I thought that was the wrong way of forcing a choice). That's why I think a gold penalty would be better - it doesn't affect the core of the game as much, and most characters should come with their own weapon. . .unless you're Sue or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) I think it's fine as it is. I see no need to further penalise those players who aren't as good as the veteran players here are. That's why I think a gold penalty would be better What happens if the player doesn't have much in the way of gold? Or any gold for that matter? Edited August 24, 2015 by NinjaMonkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChildofDain Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) I'd personally be very annoyed if a new Fire Emblem game locked endings behind difficulty level. I've been playing Fire Emblem for a long time but now I don't have as much disposable time to play video games anymore. Fire Emblem games are often long and challenging and I don't have the time to keep restarting a map when I lose a unit (something I used to do in the snes/gba days). I abuse save-states in older titles these days and ever since casual mode has been introduced that's how I choose to enjoy the game. I do up the difficulty to 'hard' mode so it's not too easy but if IS suddenly comes in and restricts what content I can access because I want to enjoy the game without having to reset the whole map. If they make a change that locks content then I at least want to see FE4's in-battle save feature return so I can save every other turn and reload from there rather than have to restart the entire map on classic. I don't believe there should be any 'penalty' to playing on Casual mode. Yes, it allows players to be more reckless with their units but the units also lose chances to gain EXP if you just use them as cannon fodder and it's still easy to back yourself against a wall because of that if you're not mindful (which is why Phoenix Mode is introduced in FE14, besides 14 being more difficult than 13 and 12.) Edited August 23, 2015 by ChildofDain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gradivus. Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Come on guys, the exp you lose by sacking a unit mid-chapter is trivial, unless they're underleveled or something, and it's not like all units have equal priority at being sacked. It's so easy to circumvent that the exp isn't really a "limitation/restriction" like you are hyping it. Edited August 23, 2015 by Gradivus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChildofDain Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Come on guys, the exp you lose by sacking a unit mid-chapter is trivial, unless they're underleveled or something, and it's not like all units have equal priority at being sacked. It's so easy to circumvent that the exp isn't really a "limitation/restriction" like you are hyping it. No one's really 'hyping' anything, just pointing out that it's possible to leave certain units in the dust and never be able to level them up if you're playing a title that doesn't have a lot of grinding options like Awakening does. Plus, I don't see why there should be any penalty to playing casual mode. Sure, I can beat a game on Classic mode and I most certainly have many times back before 12 came out but I honestly prefer not to these days. Locking another ending or maps or other content behind difficulty ranking would just be unfair to those of us who have jobs and other things in our life that prevent us from playing a lengthy amount every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) It's like endings in Touhou. They encourage moving up to the higher difficulty, you get the good ending and access to the Ex on Normal + or the fact EoSD has no Easy Stage 6. This is a bad way to pad out of a game, just saying. It's an old 90's gaming tradition that needs to die. Edited August 23, 2015 by Jedi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deviddo Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 It's a means to encourage people to try it out. You don't have to do it. But it's a way for the game to encourage playing FE the way IS says its meant to be played. It also rewards playing on the higher difficulty. You go through more to clear the higher difficulty, why should your reward not be proportioned to that? Because taking away chapters just because someone prefers an easier experience is honestly, ridiculous. Especially since no other Fire Emblem game that had casual mode has done that. I imagine playing FE15, selecting casual mode, and then the game telling me, "On Casual Mode, you won't experience all the chapters the game has to offer, you will get the easier experience, but to get the full content of the game, please play on Classic Mode." I'd be really upset! There's encouraging someone to play Classic Mode, then there's more or less forcing them to do so just so they can get the rest of the content. Making players play on harder difficulties of a game for anything else other than extra unlockables is just bad game design, if you ask me. If it's unlock extra content, like an extra mode or something (Harder difficulties) then sure. But if I have to play on Classic just to be able to view the entire story or all the sidequest chapters, then why even even play in the mode that makes me feel comfortable? Yes, that's your point, but my point is that I would no longer be able to play the game the way I want to play it, the way that makes me feel at ease and not stress out, because certain story content is locked to the harder difficulites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Honestly... There really is no reason to penalize casual mode at all. People who want to challenge themselves can always opt for higher difficulties and the like. It's like trying to make every pokemon play through a Nuzlocke run. Sure, it makes things DIFFICULT and other such things, but imagine if the game withheld the last badge or made it so you could only capture 6 pokemon if you did anything BUT a Nuzlocke run. How many people would buy the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 You would be surprise how a ''small'' debuff can do the difference between life and death, specially in this game. i am really not surprised at all lol Also, there is something that you seem to forget about Casual: You can be outnumber in the actual battle which also mean that you can actually lose the game. Not only that your units lose exp by being out of the battle temporarely (and you may lose the game because of that) but you want also add a permanant debuff each time your units retreat? my goodness do people even read all of this outrage at something that i clearly did not say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Fire Emblem has a history of encouraging better play through manipulating player psychology. Most pre-Awakening Western fans started with Blazing Sword. Lyn Mode is a protoype of casual, where units who reach zero hit points are wounded for the rest of the campaign but available later. Players are taught that making critical mistakes will cost them units short-term. When the main story begins, players are taught that making critical mistakes will lose them units who also die (usually) and will not return, so there's natural progression here. The stakes become higher. Peramdeath itself is in large part psychological. Rarely will a player lose critical units, since core members of a team tend to have better stats and lower chance of death. Killed units are typically superfluous and plenty of replacement prepromotes are available. But virtually all players reset when any fighter is lost because they feel guilty. That character has a name and a face and a death quote. His/her death is entirely on you. Don't you feel bad? Why did you make that mistake? So even though it's rarely necessary, players reset and play the map better. They improve. They improve because the game guilted them into making fewer mistakes. Casual mode lacks this psychological component. No wonder so many new players struggle to transition from Awakening to earlier titles: they were not given incentive to improve! Casual also reinforces bad habits regarding unit placement and lack of attention to detail, since unit death is of little consequence. I'd prefer casual and phoenix were cut entirely, and I don't care if that means the player base becomes smaller. Games can't be for everyone. If such modes must be included, psychological manipulation is important. dondon's idea of a token statistical penalty is a start. I also wouldn't mind locking content behind classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Well feplus congratulations on getting FE cancelled with your ideas. I mean having games you're not fond of is definitely worse than not having any games at all right. I don't believe any way of playing a video game is the correct way as you seem to be insinuating. furthermore, I played a bit of casual (stopped at chapter 2 because it just felt wrong) and there's still the impact of not having that character there for the remainder of the chapter. You just also get less stressed out if you mess up one small thing towards the end of the map and have to restart because of a dead character, because they come back anyway. I like a penalty to a randomized non-Lck stat idea, but at the same time I don't think we should properly eliminate casual mode. I don't think people will really even care about a small penalty to a stat if they're playing casual mode as is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nym Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Calm down here, I'm not a native speaker. I admit, I made a mistake but no need to be mean. But you're talking about people even read, yet: You would be surprise how a ''small'' debuff can do the difference between life and death, specially in this game. Also, there is something that you seem to forget about Casual: You can be outnumber in the actual battle which also mean that you can actually lose the game. Not only that your units lose exp by being out of the battle temporarely (and you may lose the game because of that) but you want also add a permanant debuff each time your units retreat? Casual mode would be even more harder than Classic mode itself whic mean goodbye newcomers. But I never said that you said that, I only asked you a question. And you also know that we can play Lunatic in Casual mode, right? Adding a debuff even for just one battle could be a huge disavantage specially in the early game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricwolf Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Casual mode lacks this psychological component. No wonder so many new players struggle to transition from Awakening to earlier titles: they were not given incentive to improve! Casual also reinforces bad habits regarding unit placement and lack of attention to detail, since unit death is of little consequence. I'd prefer casual and phoenix were cut entirely, and I don't care if that means the player base becomes smaller. Games can't be for everyone. If such modes must be included, psychological manipulation is important. dondon's idea of a token statistical penalty is a start. I also wouldn't mind locking content behind classic. Imagine every time somebody burns food while cooking they get their hand burned too. Now they've got a burnt hand and burnt food. Some people will try cooking again with more care and will get better. Others will probably never cook again. Overall the amount of people cooking at a good level is higher but the amount of people cooking is lower. If someone has paid £32/$39 for the opportunity to enjoy cooking and is not able to fully enjoy it, they are going to be annoyed. Cooking analogies aside, everyone starts somewhere. Einstein wasn't born a highly influential theoretical physicist, he worked his way up. Elitists need to realise that they alone are not funding the production and release of pretty much any large-scale game. Keep casual as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Well feplus congratulations on getting FE cancelled with your ideas. Fire Emblem would've survived without casual mode. The "feel" of losing units for a few turns is unimportant. What matters is whether casual mode makes players better. It does not. In fact, it makes them worse. Imagine every time somebody burns food while cooking they get their hand burned too. Now they've got a burnt hand and burnt food. This is a weak analogy. Here's a better one: imagine every time somebody burns food while cooking, s/he is scolded for the mistake. Would this create better cooks? Yes. Some would-be chefs might be discouraged and abandon the hobby, but those who stick around will improve. I want better players, not merely more players. Fire Emblem can become more accessible without instilling bad strategic habits. Edited August 25, 2015 by feplus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Being opposed to Casual Mode or suggesting it have penalties does not mean you're not in favour of increased accessability. Disagreeing with the methods employed to alleviate player frustration and/or tension isn't the same as being elitist. Personally, I'd rather Casual Mode didn't exist either and there was simply a constantly saving rewind feature within a seperate mode that allowed players to go back and rectify their mistakes. If you make a mistake then you can always fix it, but the point is learning to recognise mistakes and from there, learning to avoid making the same mistakes by fixing the problem. Well feplus congratulations on getting FE cancelled with your idea Reaaaaaaallllly doubt FE would have been canceled without Casual Mode given it had little to no impact on FE12's sales in Japan compared to previous titles. If FE12 had come out in English with Casual Mode it wouldn't have done that much by itself either; Awakening's success is a result of combination of factors. I mean having games you're not fond of is definitely worse than not having any games at all right. It's a hypothetical with two scenarios; X mode exists in the series or it does not. He simply said he would prefer the latter, you're leaping to conclusions. And you also know that we can play Lunatic in Casual mode, right? Adding a debuff even for just one battle could be a huge disavantage specially in the early game. Shock, Horror, you may end up resetting anyway. You're sort of forfeiting your right to complain about the game being too punishing when you're playing on Lunatic in the first place. Edited August 25, 2015 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricwolf Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Would this create better cooks? Yes. Some would-be chefs might be discouraged and abandon the hobby, but those who stick around will improve. I want better players, not merely more players. Fire Emblem can become more accessible without instilling bad strategic habits. But the 'would-be-chefs' have paid money. If you pay money to do something then it's not good for business if you can't fully enjoy what your money has paid for, will tell others that you have not enjoyed what you paid for, and will not pay for any similar products in the future. If you want better players for the past, that is fine. I would rather have players for the future. I was not suggesting that anyone against elements of casual mode qualified them as elitist, rather that the single-minded pursuit of better players (over actually letting people have fun with products they paid for) did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 But the 'would-be-chefs' have paid money. If you pay money to do something then it's not good for business if you can't fully enjoy what your money has paid for, will tell others that you have not enjoyed what you paid for, and will not pay for any similar products in the future. The real-world counterpoint to this argument is how Fire Emblem survived for eleven games without casual mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nym Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) And the counter- counterpoint is that FE would be dead already if Awakening would not have sold enough games. And guess who bought most of the games? Newcomers! Edited August 25, 2015 by Nym Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 That argument requires the claim that casual mode brought in enough players to save the series, players who would otherwise not have purchased the game were casual mode excluded. Awakening sold well in large part because of its advertising budget, high production value, large 3DS install base, and positive word-of-mouth. It almost certainly would've met its modest targets without casual mode. Neither here nor there. Again, there are ways to make Fire Emblem more accessible without coddling players and rewarding bad play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) my opponents have to provide evidence or rhetoric to substantiate the claim that my suggestion of a minor transient debuff to a non-random stat (because people will bitch about randomness) as a penalty for casual mode death would've killed the series somehow, i'm not seeing it Edited August 25, 2015 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagged Jagen Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 For what it's worth, a system similar to the one in the OP was implemented in the indie SRPG Telepath Tactics, but featured decreases in Max HP as opposed to other Stats. The system itself recieved praise for taking away the stress of permanent death whilst still maintaining a focus on unit survival. If it worked in a game similar in style and approach to FE, I fail to see why it wouldn't work if a similar system would be implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azz Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Who said Casual was rewarding bad play?When has Casual rewarded bad play?Casual is simply put letting newcomers or people who do not wish to play Classic play the game the way they feel comfortable. While I will not deny, do should find some form of way to entice players to move to up to Classic, but they should not entice them to do so by removing story content, optional or not, from the game simply because players are playing an easier setting. In my opinion, there should not be any penalty for players who choose to play Casual in a game such as Fire Emblem that can be frustrating regardless of difficulty level.I don't get why people feel the need to penalize people who wish to play a simpler difficulty.I mean they are not gonna bother you, if you don't want to play that difficulty, it is quite easy to avoid playing it, it is not like IS is shoving it down your neck. I will agree that Phoenix mode is quite pointless and did not need to exist especially since it is locked to Normal which is easy regardless of Casual or Classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nym Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) That argument requires the claim that casual mode brought in enough players to save the series, players who would otherwise not have purchased the game were casual mode excluded. Awakening sold well in large part because of its advertising budget, high production value, large 3DS install base, and positive word-of-mouth. It almost certainly would've met its modest targets without casual mode. Neither here nor there. Again, there are ways to make Fire Emblem more accessible without coddling players and rewarding bad play. When you start a new game in a game that you have no idea how to play, do you really start by the hardest mode? A normal person would not do it. my opponents have to provide evidence or rhetoric to substantiate the claim that my suggestion of a minor transient debuff to a non-random stat (because people will bitch about randomness) as a penalty for casual mode death would've killed the series somehow, i'm not seeing it I never said it would kill the game, it will ruin the game experience of some players. Edited August 25, 2015 by Nym Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I never said it would kill the game, it will ruin the game experience of some players. you still need to provide evidence as it is, the null hypothesis stands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.