I don't feel entirely satisfied with the current direction of FE

[Thane]

How is permadeath not set high on FEs nature? Sure, it isn't removed. But the implementation of Casual and Phoenix Mode basically kills it, because while the main idea of FE is setting an army to defeat the enemy and keep everyone alive, now you simply can throw everyone to a slaughter and get them back in the next turn or chapter. So what's the point? Where the strategy core of the game. Believe it or not, they are slowly fainting the light of strategy. You whine about a 2% crt killing your lord on turn 1000? Man, that's the nature of FE and you basically have to deal with it, it is part of the learning process of the game and there's nothing wrong in it. I'm not saying that because I lived it, I have to make other people live it as well; but rather that such feature is slowly killing the core of the game. And tbh counter arguing it by saying "it is optional, so if you don't want to, just don't" is kind of a weak argument, isn't this a debate?

= EDIT =

I'm not saying as well what is the way to play FE, but it is a fact that new additions are killing the pure FE experience. You can play as you want to, but that's how I see it.

Some people might start on casual and then move on to having perma death on, others will play on casual because they primarily care about the characters, and would've reset the game had any single on of them died in a game where casual wasn't an option, some might just want to experiment or play around without the stress of a potential character dying, and then finally there's the group that just isn't good at video games.

There are many reasons for why casual mode is a thing, and we bring it up because so long as that remains optional, it's not hurting the rest of us. Lots of different people play this series for equally many reasons, which is why saying there is a "pure" experience is folly, because there is none.

[Magical Glace]

I reset for all deaths (except NPC!Treck, screw him and his stupid AI), because Casual destroys the point of "perfect victory" as Roy puts it.

I honestly prefer resetting maps to bringing units back and have no desire for that to change.

Casual mode, in practice, removes the incentive to be "perfect."

[Jotari]

Some people might start on casual and then move on to having perma death on, others will play on casual because they primarily care about the characters, and would've reset the game had any single on of them died in a game where casual wasn't an option, some might just want to experiment or play around without the stress of a potential character dying, and then finally there's the group that just isn't good at video games.

There are many reasons for why casual mode is a thing, and we bring it up because so long as that remains optional, it's not hurting the rest of us. Lots of different people play this series for equally many reasons, which is why saying there is a "pure" experience is folly, because there is none.

I think this should be encouraged with the games via extra content that can only be accessed in classic (either by having certain characters dead or just by being in the mode).

[Jave]

I still don't understand why people here even care how others play the game.

[Irysa]

It's less about how others play the game and more about not just viewing the game as a toy that people should neccessarily be able to experience on their own terms. Even if Casual Mode is completely harmless (debatable, won't get sucked into that again though), it's still possible to argue about it's inclusion from a minimalistic design perspective, as it could constitute uneccessary bloat, or something that compromises other aspects of the game.

FE has made plenty of other moves forward in other areas into defining itself as as a toy or service as opposed to an artistic labor at this point though so it's hardly a singular issue.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Irysa

[CappnRob]

Conversely, I don't understand why you seem to care what other people think about how other people play the game? To each their own, right, why do you care if I'm an elitist prick who thinks Casual Mode and Reclassing are counter-intuitive design choices that run against the grain of the series' roots and enable people to play the game cheesy?

Yes, I would say permadeath is a selling point. Or at least a trademark standard of the series - it was a huge part of what made FE1 stand out at the time, and it persisted unchallenged until what, Awakening? Casual cheapens the experience. If people play Casual and still restart when someone gets taken down, what's even the point of Casual? People either defy it - thereby invalidating its existence, or they don't - thereby playing a diluted, watered down experience. Neither of these are preferable.

Yes, variety is good, when it doesn't conflict with what the game's core is about. FE3 changed a LOT from FE1. FE4 didn't have promotion items and weapons/items were basically unlimited provided you had the dosh to upkeep them, and huge maps. FE5 practically reinvented Fire Emblem for the time. FE6 introduced support conversations, FE7 had a tutorial campaign and 2 branching alternations of the main story. FE8 had a traversable overworld and branching promotions and monster hunting. FE9 also changed promotion. The series has gone through a LOT of changes, giving plenty of variety along the way. I'm not saying every game needs to play the same - I'm saying that changes should gel with the game's core design philosophy, that philosophy being "you have a limited amount of characters, each that fit a certain specific role, sometimes some do better than others, and if any of them die they're gone forever". Manage your assets well, and you succeed to victory. Screw up, and you have to start over. Unless of course, its casual mode or the game lets you reclass. The strategy is cheapened, and in a game BUILT around strategy, that's no good.

[Thane]

Conversely, I don't understand why you seem to care what other people think about how other people play the game? To each their own, right, why do you care if I'm an elitist prick who thinks Casual Mode and Reclassing are counter-intuitive design choices that run against the grain of the series' roots and enable people to play the game cheesy?

Allow me to break down how you come across in the form of an allegory:

Me: Boy, I sure do love eating two scoops of ice cream as opposed to only having one, but I can see why someone wouldn't want to eat that much.

You: What?! No way, didn't you know the Italian gelato is meant to be enjoyed with two different flavors? People who only eat one at a time miss all the good stuff and aren't eating ice cream correctly!

Me: Alright, but what about those who can only finish one scoop, or don't care about the history and just want to eat whatever?

You: Woah?! Why do you care about my opinion on the matter?

Edited December 10, 2016 by Thane

[NekoKnight]

I reset for all deaths (except NPC!Treck, screw him and his stupid AI), because Casual destroys the point of "perfect victory" as Roy puts it.

I honestly prefer resetting maps to bringing units back and have no desire for that to change.

Casual mode, in practice, removes the incentive to be "perfect."

This is my opinion, and I'll also agree with the Dark Souls sentiment stated before that lowering the difficulty in this way, even as an option, takes away the spirit of the game. I didn't even dip my toes into the fandom until around the time of Radiant Dawn but I've played for the "perfect victory" since the release of Blazing Sword. I consider it a core aspect of the game.

[CappnRob]

Allow me to break down how you come across in the form of an allegory:

Me: Boy, I sure do love eating two scoops of ice cream as opposed to only having one, but I can see why someone wouldn't want to eat that much.

You: What?! No way, didn't you know the Italian gelato is meant to be enjoyed with two different flavors? People who only eat one at a time miss all the good stuff and aren't eating ice cream correctly!

Me: Alright, but what about those who can only finish one scoop, or don't care about the history and just want to eat whatever?

You: Woah?! Why do you care about my opinion on the matter?

Except that's not what I'm saying at all.

I certainly DO care about how people play Fire Emblem. I'm simply questioning why, if someone wonders why I care about this, why do they care that I care about this? Clearly if they question why I care, then they do not think it is important or really my business about how other people play the game. Henceforth, if they think I shouldn't care, why do THEY care? Seems to be a bit of backwards logic to me.

Make no mistake, if you eat your gelato wrong, I will surely tell you why its wrong and how you are missing the point :P

[CappnRob]

Seems the server/cloud derped on me while posting and my post got posted twice, ignore this.

Edited December 10, 2016 by CappnRob

[Quintessence]

Some people might start on casual and then move on to having perma death on, others will play on casual because they primarily care about the characters, and would've reset the game had any single on of them died in a game where casual wasn't an option, some might just want to experiment or play around without the stress of a potential character dying, and then finally there's the group that just isn't good at video games.

There are many reasons for why casual mode is a thing, and we bring it up because so long as that remains optional, it's not hurting the rest of us. Lots of different people play this series for equally many reasons, which is why saying there is a "pure" experience is folly, because there is none.

No it is not folly, it certainly exists. If people have different reasons or ways to play, it is different, but the pure experience is the classic, original and designed way of experiencing FE. Why people get mad at it? It's like how people say Conquest is the closest to classic FE, what's the matter there? How is it a matter here?

Everything is designed with a purpose in mind of how to use/play/experience it. People just adapt it to them, whether this adaptation matches the original or not is another thing, but the original one still exists.

I think this should be encouraged with the games via extra content that can only be accessed in classic (either by having certain characters dead or just by being in the mode).

Inb4 Casual Mode users will be enraged questioning why the extra content isn't included in Casual Mode. Chances are that Casual Mode users will most likely stay in that mode. I think this will cause more harm rather than incentivating them at progressing to Classic Mode.

[MCProductions]

Casual Mode, while I myself don't use it, was, like it or not, a necessary addition to the formula. Not everyone is willing to reset because X character died to a crit after all, and hell, while I love the ironman playstyle, I can't exactly reccommend it to anyone unless their playing FE1 or 11. It was a needed addition to make the game more accessible, and so long as Classic mode is still an option, I see no issue with it existing.

[Jave]

No it is not folly, it certainly exists. If people have different reasons or ways to play, it is different, but the pure experience is the classic, original and designed way of experiencing FE. Why people get mad at it? It's like how people say Conquest is the closest to classic FE, what's the matter there? How is it a matter here?

Everything is designed with a purpose in mind of how to use/play/experience it. People just adapt it to them, whether this adaptation matches the original or not is another thing, but the original one still exists.

Inb4 Casual Mode users will be enraged questioning why the extra content isn't included in Casual Mode. Chances are that Casual Mode users will most likely stay in that mode. I think this will cause more harm rather than incentivating them at progressing to Classic Mode.

Exactly. Why are people getting mad at those who choose to play on Casual mode?

[Quintessence]

Exactly. Why are people getting mad at those who choose to play on Casual mode?

At least me, I'm not mad nor care about how others play the game. My issue is how these mechanics are slowly ruining and killing FE's core.

[Jave]

At least me, I'm not mad nor care about how others play the game. My issue is how these mechanics are slowly ruining and killing FE's core.

Pffft. FE was ruined as early as FE2 when they introduced grinding and infinite weapons.

FE4 then added waifus and an overpowered lord.

FE8 reintroduced grinding and gave you a unit that can solo the game since the Prologue.

FE9 added BEXP.

One could argue that all those things are "Playing the game wrong" or "Ruined the core FE experience".

[Thane]

Except that's not what I'm saying at all.

I certainly DO care about how people play Fire Emblem. I'm simply questioning why, if someone wonders why I care about this, why do they care that I care about this? Clearly if they question why I care, then they do not think it is important or really my business about how other people play the game. Henceforth, if they think I shouldn't care, why do THEY care? Seems to be a bit of backwards logic to me.

Make no mistake, if you eat your gelato wrong, I will surely tell you why its wrong and how you are missing the point :P

The reason why everyone's asking you that is because you're advocating the removal of, or at least consider it inferior, something that does not affect you or is even marketed towards players like you, yet is used by others.

Your arguments are all about what you consider to be the superior experience, something incredibly abstract, and even though I've brought up reasons for why casual mode is a good thing for a lot of different groups of people, you've offered no retort. You come across as a bit of a child when all you do is pound your chest and call yourself an elitist.

No it is not folly, it certainly exists. If people have different reasons or ways to play, it is different, but the pure experience is the classic, original and designed way of experiencing FE. Why people get mad at it? It's like how people say Conquest is the closest to classic FE, what's the matter there? How is it a matter here?

Does "classic" mean pure? Then, what, does it have to be just like it was in the first game? Do we count Gaiden as a deviant too, since you can revive (more) people, weapons didn't break, you could grind and it had an overworld map? I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Where is the line between classic/pure and innovation/new features drawn?

Everything is designed with a purpose in mind of how to use/play/experience it. People just adapt it to them, whether this adaptation matches the original or not is another thing, but the original one still exists.

Exactly, everything is designed with a purpose in mind, hence why easier modes - also present in Gaiden though in a different form - were introduced in order to expand the franchise and attract people who would be stressed by the idea of permadeath or wanted to see what the franchise was about before trying classic.

It also says a lot if a game can be experienced in many different ways; what makes one superior? It's a single player game where the only one's enjoyment that matters is one's own.

I don't play casual since I think it would negatively affect the enjoyment of the game. However, I can see that it was not meant for me, someone who plays a lot of games and strategy games in particular. What I do know is that I have a friend who plays mostly for pairing characters up, and she takes her sweet time doing so; why should her enjoyment of the game be sacrificed for the removal of an optional feature?

[CappnRob]

Your arguments are all about what you consider to be the superior experience, something incredibly abstract, and even though I've brought up reasons for why casual mode is a good thing for a lot of different groups of people, you've offered no retort. You come across as a bit of a child when all you do is pound your chest and call yourself an elitist.

​My retort is that it is an incomplete, inferior experience. It IS abstract, yes, but I never claimed to be preaching empirical truth, only my feelings on the matter. What is childish about that? I haven't insulted anyone for it. I can think you're doing something I feel is wrong without thinking you're dumb/stupid/wrong etc. What I believe the superior experience is rooted in the entire history of the FE franchise. It worked for a very long time and as other people have said, adding casual mode, even as an option, merely dissuades people from playing the game as intended.

Why are people getting mad at those who choose to play on Casual mode?

Is anyone made? Noone here has expressed anger. I think its wrong, but I'm not mad about it.

[ping]

Pffft. FE was ruined as early as FE2 when they introduced grinding and infinite weapons.

FE4 then added waifus and an overpowered lord.

FE8 reintroduced grinding and gave you a unit that can solo the game since the Prologue.

FE9 added BEXP.

One could argue that all those things are "Playing the game wrong" or "Ruined the core FE experience".

Arena Abuse was possible in Dark Dragon, so the series was ruined from the very start. ;)

I love that post though, it's pretty much what I tried to say earlier.

​My retort is that it is an incomplete, inferior experience. It IS abstract, yes, but I never claimed to be preaching empirical truth, only my feelings on the matter. What is childish about that? I haven't insulted anyone for it. I can think you're doing something I feel is wrong without thinking you're dumb/stupid/wrong etc. What I believe the superior experience is rooted in the entire history of the FE franchise. It worked for a very long time and as other people have said, adding casual mode, even as an option, merely dissuades people from playing the game as intended.

But you claimed that using the reclass feature or playing casual/phoenix mode was "playing the game wrong" (post #155). That's a pretty strong and definite statement and kinda implies that your idea of "superior experience" is objectively true.

I never said you did, relax, I find it funny that you say that yet you were saying I came off as an elitist, that's not making shit up is it?

I found the tone of your posts rather elitist because as I said - you implicitly claim that your idea of ideal gameplay is more viable than someone else's and you denounce changes in the FE formula, even if they don't affect your playstyle whatsoever (which basically means that you don't want the game to be accessable to players that aren't as good as the game as you are).

And sorry if I misinterpreted you, but I assumed that your post (#163) was wholly adressed towards me.

[Quintessence]

Pffft. FE was ruined as early as FE2 when they introduced grinding and infinite weapons.

FE4 then added waifus and an overpowered lord.

FE8 reintroduced grinding and gave you a unit that can solo the game since the Prologue.

FE9 added BEXP.

One could argue that all those things are "Playing the game wrong" or "Ruined the core FE experience".

You missed my point. Will answer you as well as part of Thane's post. Particularly me, the closest pure/classic FE experience I think of (because I haven't played FE1-3 and 5), is the GBA era, specifically FE7. In 3 words: a simple game. A standard story, mid sized cast, a straight forward/linear experience, a small (and limited) room for grinding, varied classes, etc. What I define as a modern experience is right from the 3DS era where they introduced a bunch of features (most of them in a flawed way) that makes FE feel overloaded: grinding without boundaries, loads of class changing, (the debated) casual mode (don't remember if it was in fe12), a children system pulled off kinda meh, dlc (further grinding), etc. I feel it is being ruined because it feels way too artificial and overloaded of stuff that wipes out its simplicity and twists in so many ways the strategic part.

Now regarding Casual Mode, I wonder: why, in terms of difficulty, was it needed to be introduced? I'm not 100% convinced that it had to be introduced to save the franchise, I don't attribute it the glory. But in terms of difficulty, is FE, or more precisely, was FE THAT hard that IS had to use Casual Mode? If the answer is because it was way too hard for newcomers, so hard that they found a wall set up so high that made it unaccessible to them, what is the purpose of the game having Easy mode?

@Thane Regarding your friend's example, do one find death so frequently in FE? It's ok that some might find it stressful to avoid death by coming up with different strategies. But the point of the game is to strategize and overcome the enemy, there are plenty of tutorials, tutorial modes that soften the difficulty. If she wants to play FE for pairing up characters, building supports up and whatnot, it's totally ok, but permadeath doesn't ruin her experience at all if she progresses through the game because units don't automatically die nor the game kills you every turn. For some reason there are difficulty modes.

I'm not convinced that Casual Mode had to be introduced because newcomers found FE extremely hard and punishing. For instance, I faced so many times failed strategies, dead characters and such, but each time I wanted to be better in the game, learned from mistakes, came up with better strategies and played it in a complete way (or 'perfect' as Glaceon said).

Edited December 10, 2016 by Quintessence

[CappnRob]

But you claimed that using the reclass feature or playing casual/phoenix mode was "playing the game wrong" (post #155). That's a pretty strong and definite statement and kinda implies that your idea of "superior experience" is objectively true.

Because I believe it is playing the game wrong. It is my subjective truth. I'm full aware I can't "prove" it with objective, empirical evidence, but this thread isn't about objectively proving what is wrong with Fire Emblem: it's what we FEEL is wrong with Fire Emblem. I casual mode is doing it wrong. It's like playing an adventure game that solves the puzzles for you. Eating a steak well done. It defeats the purpose of a core game aspect of the franchise.

As for this...

Pffft. FE was ruined as early as FE2 when they introduced grinding and infinite weapons.

FE4 then added waifus and an overpowered lord.

FE8 reintroduced grinding and gave you a unit that can solo the game since the Prologue.

FE9 added BEXP.

One could argue that all those things are "Playing the game wrong" or "Ruined the core FE experience".

I already addressed the difference between your strawman and adding variety to the game.

Yes, variety is good, when it doesn't conflict with what the game's core is about. FE3 changed a LOT from FE1. FE4 didn't have promotion items and weapons/items were basically unlimited provided you had the dosh to upkeep them, and huge maps. FE5 practically reinvented Fire Emblem for the time. FE6 introduced support conversations, FE7 had a tutorial campaign and 2 branching alternations of the main story. FE8 had a traversable overworld and branching promotions and monster hunting. FE9 also changed promotion. The series has gone through a LOT of changes, giving plenty of variety along the way. I'm not saying every game needs to play the same - I'm saying that changes should gel with the game's core design philosophy, that philosophy being "you have a limited amount of characters, each that fit a certain specific role, sometimes some do better than others, and if any of them die they're gone forever". Manage your assets well, and you succeed to victory. Screw up, and you have to start over. Unless of course, its casual mode or the game lets you reclass. The strategy is cheapened, and in a game BUILT around strategy, that's no good.

Adding things to the formula is not bad. But these additions did not change the CORE of Fire Emblem. It was still turn based strategy role playing with permanent death if you misused your characters or made bad choices, and you had to either deal with that or restart. FE1's arenas, FE2's unlimited weapons, FE4's generation system, FE8s monster hunting, FE9s battle experience did nothing to alter that. They gave options for players to empower their characters within the bounds of the game's architecture. No matter how much Bexp you pumped into someone, if you left them alone near the Black Knight, they died, end of story. (Furthermore because FE9 removed promotion items save for a rare few master seals, Bexp is necessitated further by needing it to promote). No matter how OP your G2 kids were, if you let Isthar crawl all over them, they died, end of story. Mistakes had consequences, these changes throughout the Fire Emblem series' meta were simply tools to assist in overcoming adversity. Casual mode is not a tool, it is a cheat.

[Jave]

Now regarding Casual Mode, I wonder: why, in terms of difficulty, was it needed to be introduced? I'm not 100% convinced that it had to be introduced to save the franchise, I don't attribute it the glory. But in terms of difficulty, is FE, or more precisely, was FE THAT hard that IS had to use Casual Mode? If the answer is because it was way too hard for newcomers, so hard that they found a wall set up so high that made it unaccessible to them, what is the purpose of the game having Easy mode?

@Thane Regarding your friend's example, do one find death so frequently in FE? It's ok that some might find it stressful to avoid death by coming up with different strategies. But the point of the game is to strategize and overcome the enemy, there are plenty of tutorials, tutorial modes that soften the difficulty. If she wants to play FE for pairing up characters, building supports up and whatnot, it's totally ok, but permadeath doesn't ruin her experience at all if she progresses through the game because units don't automatically die nor the game kills you every turn. For some reason there are difficulty modes.

I'm not convinced that Casual Mode had to be introduced because newcomers found FE extremely hard and punishing. For instance, I faced so many times failed strategies, dead characters and such, but each time I wanted to be better in the game, learned from mistakes, came up with better strategies and played it in a complete way (or 'perfect' as Glaceon said).

To a lot of people, yes, yes it was. I tried to introduce FE to a lot of friends (Online and real life), and a lot of them could never get into the series due to the frustrating nature of the permadeath feature. Some of those people actually got into the series when Awakening came along, it felt like a godsend.

It needs to be remembered that we're discussing these features and difficulty levels in a forum about this series, so OF COURSE we won't find the games too hard when played traditionally. However, for the average gamer, FE is not a particularly easy series to dive into, so these features exist to make the series more global. Heck, it's not just Fire Emblem that does it, but Mario (Fail at a level too much and you have the option to skip it), Zelda (Check the hints with pictures or pay the ghost to get the solution to the puzzle) and Pokemon (Much earlier access to the Exp. Share) as well.

[Quintessence]

To a lot of people, yes, yes it was. I tried to introduce FE to a lot of friends (Online and real life), and a lot of them could never get into the series due to the frustrating nature of the permadeath feature. Some of those people actually got into the series when Awakening came along, it felt like a godsend.

It needs to be remembered that we're discussing these features and difficulty levels in a forum about this series, so OF COURSE we won't find the games too hard when played traditionally. However, for the average gamer, FE is not a particularly easy series to dive into, so these features exist to make the series more global. Heck, it's not just Fire Emblem that does it, but Mario (Fail at a level too much and you have the option to skip it), Zelda (Check the hints with pictures or pay the ghost to get the solution to the puzzle) and Pokemon (Much earlier access to the Exp. Share) as well.

Then what is easy mode for?

I know that for newcomers, more specifically new videogame players, they find it hard at first. But there's something called trial and error? There are people that aren't skilled at videogames because it's not their thing and fail at them, and that's ok (my sister is one of those), but a regular gamer has all the means to succeed in the game.

What's next? Let's all play Auto Mode where all your units move automatically because it is so damn hard to use a unit? (Ok I'm exaggerating but I hope you know what I mean). In fact, said mode is in 13 and 14 and idk why.

[Jave]

Then what is easy mode for?

Apparently not needed anymore. We haven't had one since FE10 (And if you only count the original Japanese versions, FE8).

[ping]

But the regular gamer still has access to the classical mode, so everyone should be happy, right?

(€: directed at Quintessence)

Because I believe it is playing the game wrong. It is my subjective truth. I'm full aware I can't "prove" it with objective, empirical evidence, but this thread isn't about objectively proving what is wrong with Fire Emblem: it's what we FEEL is wrong with Fire Emblem. I casual mode is doing it wrong. It's like playing an adventure game that solves the puzzles for you. Eating a steak well done. It defeats the purpose of a core game aspect of the franchise.

What's next? Let's all play Auto Mode where all your units move automatically because it is so damn hard to use a unit? (Ok I'm exaggerating but I hope you know what I mean). In fact, said mode is in 13 and 14 and idk why.

What you're describing is basically a movie that requires pressing one button in regular intervals to move on to the next scene. Do you honestly feel that Fire Emblem in classical mode has no gameplay aspect whatsoever?

To add another allegory to what seems to be a competition: It's as if the waiter in the restaurant asks you if you want a dessert and you complain that since the dessert is a key component in any meal he might as well have asked if you don't want any food at all. Because having dinner but no dessert is functionally identical to just watching someone else eat, giving the option not to have dessert ruins the very concept of going to the restaurant. After all, it's just the first step towards not serving soup and ultimately no main course, either.

Am I doing it right?
Disclaimer: I, too, enjoy the occasional hyperbole. :D
Additional disclaimer: I'm not exactly rich, so I rarely have dessert or soup at a restaurant.

Edited December 10, 2016 by ping

[DoctorSpectrum]

Then what is easy mode for?

I know that for newcomers, more specifically new videogame players, they find it hard at first. But there's something called trial and error? There are people that aren't skilled at videogames because it's not their thing and fail at them, and that's ok (my sister is one of those), but a regular gamer has all the means to succeed in the game.

Because playing a game and having to restart a level only once or twice versus having to restart it ten-plus times makes for quite a different experience and therefore opinion towards the game. Saying, "Oh, you can try again, it's not that big a deal if you die," means that every single video game should only have one difficulty that's the hardest it can get, right? Because if you're not willing to learn a game through trial and error, you're not a regular gamer, right? Who the hell would want a game in which they can try and succeed at something on their first try?