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

[Shoblongoo]

I don't mind them adding dumb-down options for the newbies and the casuals, so long as the game still has higher difficulty modes for experienced players. I'm never going to use casual mode. But if the game isn't forcing me to use it, I have no reason to get worked up about it being there. What I care about is cutting corners on storytelling and map design, while more and more resources go into turning Fire Emblem into a soft dating sim. That's what's going to ruin the franchise.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Shoblongoo

[Dayni]

Long post, mostly on Birthright, but it does concern my thoughts on the most recent entries and the future of the series.

Here's the thing.

I'm likely someone you'd have considered (Maybe might still consider) one of these noobs not so long ago. I'm still nowhere near a good player for ironmanning (certainly not LTCing), and Casual mode, while certainly not great from the purist perspective, is fine for just charging through the game. It's not like I started with Awakening (First title bought, but not the first I played). I'm not someone who'd tend to chase ranks, difficulties or perfectionism. Story matters enough that I'm willing to charge through. I do like the characters in Awakening to be honest. So my thoughts on the series's direction from Awakening weren't too concerned, though the story does need work.

So let me be clear: I'm not sure what to think after finishing Birthright this week. While things like dual strike/guard have certainly improved, I actually find things like the weapon weight system interesting but flawed and potentially imbalanced. I think the story feels pretty standard (the CGs are either alright, bit eh or Chapter 14. We did not need that), and frankly Corrin was less necessary than any other avatar (I can articulate further, but this post is already long). Children are so extraneous and unjustified that it amazes me they just rolled with it. Support wise some of the characters are amazingly stock (e.g. Diviner Ricken, sorry, Hayato). The S-rank really didn't matter much except to make me feel awkward (seriously, just.... do not want the skinship stuff in even a cut down version again). Some of the Castle stuff otherwise seems odd to have (the records hall (especially the music being accessing in a file and not from the main menu), hot spring, Lilith's temple) and are just there. Online stuff is nice, but the continent map is terrible, most of the countries and lore don't matter and the main conflict is so Black and White, even for what FE has done before. I'll have to see what I think with the other Fates paths, but based on what I've seen Fates might just roll downhill overall.

Least Lost in thoughts all alone is nice. It's one fricking song though. The amount of times it's used (Like Roy's Journey) is a bit much, and I think the way it has been written makes it seem a bit off, either an issue when translating or with the Japanese writing in the first place.

Something I have to say is that the series has changed over time. We saw these changes with each generation, as the game changes from console to console, with titles of the same generation being more similar mechanically. So I wonder would we see changes with new releases (the FEmobile, or a possible Switch title). As if we don't, that's when I'd be concerned about the series stagnating. Despite all my issues with Birthright, I don't consider it condemnable. But I'd be concerned it leads to that title that kills any interest in the series.

Also, making Normal the lowest mode screams at me.

Also, @Ping: How much are the soups where you are?

[Lord Raven]

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.

1.

act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.

How is this a cheat? Because you don't like it?

[Augestein]

It's not a cheat. Casual Mode ironically enough is how MOST SRPGs are anyways. And most games that have death in them you have to have things go south very, VERY far before a unit dies. I honestly see nothing wrong with Casual Mode. If anything, people should be happy about things like Phoenix Mode and Casual Mode, because it means that the game is more accessible and the devs can make the game harder without having to worry too much about the lowest common denominator because they can always opt to create an easier difficulty.

[Jotari]

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.

I don't doubt that people will complain but it's still how I'd prefer things to go. I'm not as damning of casual mode as some people on this thread are but I do think there is a quintessential spirit of Fire Emblem that should be encouraged in the game's design by featuring risk reward scenarios that permadeath entails.

[Florete]

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).

Sometimes it's the raw difficulty, sometimes it's the concept alone. I've heard of plenty of people who didn't bother with FE because they just don't like permadeath.

And honestly, I think casual mode should have been around as early as FE4. That's when we started getting smaller, more developed casts, and many players began resetting for character deaths. A mechanic that encourages resetting is not a good mechanic. That's not to say FE should never do permadeath, but no FE has done permadeath in a way that doesn't encourage resetting because the grand majority of deaths don't change anything other than not being able to use that unit anymore. Even the concept of an "iron man" run is flawed because 1) it's completely on the player and 2) the main character dying forces a reset anyway.

The way I see it is that FE only has permadeath, it does not use permadeath, and that's why I think the inclusion of casual mode was only natural.

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.

You're exaggerating but what's funny is that I think Phoenix mode should have been exactly that. My problem with Phoenix mode wasn't that it's too easy, but that it's not easy enough. I think the idea of a mode where the player can just focus on the story alone is great, but Phoenix mode as it is still makes you actually play the game. If you want a mode like that, go all out and let the player just watch.

Well, I think Fates does have the auto mode but I've never tried that so I'm not sure how well it works.

[Azure Sen]

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.

"Trial-and-error" implies that some human error was involved in the failure and not that you got screwed over by the AI scoring an unlucky 1% crit chance. There's nothing to learn from a random crit except maybe to never enter a fight where the enemy has a crit chance if you can help it, and even then that's not always possible. Fire Emblem's always been just as much about luck as it has been about strategy, and I can't blame people for not wanting to have to lose anywhere from ten minutes to half an hour's worth of progress because the RNG screwed them over, even if I myself find that aspect part of what makes the experience enjoyable for me.

Augustein has it right, Causal mode is a boon for people who enjoy the higher difficulties because now IntSys doesn't have to pull an FE7 and lock difficulty settings behind one playthrough so newbies can get acclimated to the series easier.

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.

While you could maybe argue this for Phoenix mode (which I don't think should be in the games simply because it's pretty redundant with the existence of Casual), it's unfair to claim that Casual requires no strategy. You can still very realistically lose on Casual, especially in harder maps or maps with objectives that don't involve simply killing all enemies (see also: Conquest 10 and 12), or even just because there's tough enemies/bosses your army can't handle.

[Dark Sage]

Casual Mode tends to be create pretty bad habits for players when they get to Classic. I think Casual would be improved if each unit was limited to three deaths before permanently being killed.

[Jedi]

Well, I think Fates does have the auto mode but I've never tried that so I'm not sure how well it works.

It does, it works pretty similar to Awakenings, but I think you can control how your units behave a little better. I'd need to check again to confirm this though.

[Quintessence]

Sometimes it's the raw difficulty, sometimes it's the concept alone. I've heard of plenty of people who didn't bother with FE because they just don't like permadeath.

And honestly, I think casual mode should have been around as early as FE4. That's when we started getting smaller, more developed casts, and many players began resetting for character deaths. A mechanic that encourages resetting is not a good mechanic. That's not to say FE should never do permadeath, but no FE has done permadeath in a way that doesn't encourage resetting because the grand majority of deaths don't change anything other than not being able to use that unit anymore. Even the concept of an "iron man" run is flawed because 1) it's completely on the player and 2) the main character dying forces a reset anyway.

The way I see it is that FE only has permadeath, it does not use permadeath, and that's why I think the inclusion of casual mode was only natural.

You're exaggerating but what's funny is that I think Phoenix mode should have been exactly that. My problem with Phoenix mode wasn't that it's too easy, but that it's not easy enough. I think the idea of a mode where the player can just focus on the story alone is great, but Phoenix mode as it is still makes you actually play the game. If you want a mode like that, go all out and let the player just watch.

Well, I think Fates does have the auto mode but I've never tried that so I'm not sure how well it works.

There's something I agree with and is that why was it 20 years after the first release that they introduced the mechanic? Did people complained about permadeath for 20 years? Or where they silent? This is what leads me to believe that Casual Mode was just introduced as a last resort option to make FE the mainstream IP it is nowadays.

If permadeath is a flawed mechanic, why is it still in the game? Idk if I agree on whether a mechanic that promotes resetting is a good mechanic or not. For instance, take natures introduced in Pokemon. If I want a pokemon with a specific nature and I didn't get it after catching the pokemon (and for the example's sake), so I reset to try again, does this mean that natures are flawed by itself because it encourages resetting on a player rigging a pokemon with specific parameters? I know the best way is to find a friend that has it already In FE's case it is relative, because the player might as well choose to continue with the game if they don't care about the unit or don't need it.

Regarding Auto Mode, I don't know if it is really useful on FE with the current settings. The mode as I see it is a practical way of grinding, for instance, skills. Like, it can be good in TMS#FE where you have the chance to go around a big list of weapons and learn and power up (or relearn) skills in order to have a bigger bank of better skills. But in FE's case I don't know if it works well, since anyways as you're grinding you're most likely overleveled and will gain very few experience in order to learn new skills and sets. In fact, the mode iirc is in Awakening. I haven't tried it, but I do know about it since I saw an experimental draft where people used the mode for shits and giggles.

"Trial-and-error" implies that some human error was involved in the failure and not that you got screwed over by the AI scoring an unlucky 1% crit chance. There's nothing to learn from a random crit except maybe to never enter a fight where the enemy has a crit chance if you can help it, and even then that's not always possible. Fire Emblem's always been just as much about luck as it has been about strategy, and I can't blame people for not wanting to have to lose anywhere from ten minutes to half an hour's worth of progress because the RNG screwed them over, even if I myself find that aspect part of what makes the experience enjoyable for me.

Augustein has it right, Causal mode is a boon for people who enjoy the higher difficulties because now IntSys doesn't have to pull an FE7 and lock difficulty settings behind one playthrough so newbies can get acclimated to the series easier.

While you could maybe argue this for Phoenix mode (which I don't think should be in the games simply because it's pretty redundant with the existence of Casual), it's unfair to claim that Casual requires no strategy. You can still very realistically lose on Casual, especially in harder maps or maps with objectives that don't involve simply killing all enemies (see also: Conquest 10 and 12), or even just because there's tough enemies/bosses your army can't handle.

Trial and error implies human error but also may imply you ran out of luck for a second. What I mean with trial and error is the process where you draw a strat, execute it, if it fails try again and reset, else go ahead. I mean, reset is all over the place, unit death or not. But the learning process involves knowing where one failed and try again in a different manner, be it a lucky enemy crt or not, but it is a process as a whole. There was even a thread in the Debate forum bringing up skill procs and discussing about the luck factor in the game. It feels already as a trend that people want to play in the most safe way possible reducing effort and strategizing to the minimum at the cost of playing a mainstream game, this is what I mean.

Now, if Casual Mode is a boon to players that enjoy higher difficulties (which means the player is, according to the same game, either an experienced or veteran player seeking a challenge) then what is the role of Casual Mode there? In higher difficulties, the chances of you failing at a strategy are most likely higher than in easier modes, which means that your units are more likely to die if you screw something up or you're victim of either an enemy proc skill or crtkill. And if one unit dies and you're basically in a strategy lab testing alternatives, chances are you're still resetting to try again. So the point of Casual is basically none there, unless you're just dealing with the boss, get unlucky and let your unit die but you defeat the boss in the next phase, which, granted, is a valid point. But for such reasons, isn't it better to just use power saves? After all, they were in FE10 and imo were pretty good. FE11 and 12 had mid battle saves which I found pretty good too. Why didn't they stay afterwards?

Edited December 11, 2016 by Quintessence

[Jotari]

Sometimes it's the raw difficulty, sometimes it's the concept alone. I've heard of plenty of people who didn't bother with FE because they just don't like permadeath.

And honestly, I think casual mode should have been around as early as FE4. That's when we started getting smaller, more developed casts, and many players began resetting for character deaths. A mechanic that encourages resetting is not a good mechanic. That's not to say FE should never do permadeath, but no FE has done permadeath in a way that doesn't encourage resetting because the grand majority of deaths don't change anything other than not being able to use that unit anymore. Even the concept of an "iron man" run is flawed because 1) it's completely on the player and 2) the main character dying forces a reset anyway.

The way I see it is that FE only has permadeath, it does not use permadeath, and that's why I think the inclusion of casual mode was only natural.

You're exaggerating but what's funny is that I think Phoenix mode should have been exactly that. My problem with Phoenix mode wasn't that it's too easy, but that it's not easy enough. I think the idea of a mode where the player can just focus on the story alone is great, but Phoenix mode as it is still makes you actually play the game. If you want a mode like that, go all out and let the player just watch.

Well, I think Fates does have the auto mode but I've never tried that so I'm not sure how well it works.

I disagree. Because an immense amount of masochistic fun can be derived from resetting after playing for an hour. It mind sound strange but the fact that people do it means people enjoy it. Though I also agree that Fire Emblem should try and use permadeath more as a mechanic. That's why I think there should be alternate rewards if certain players are dead (though NOT like it was handled in Shadow Dragon). Path of Radiance has some great alternate support conversations if certain characters have died but so few people will ever know about them since there's so little incentive to continue on after a character dies.

[Jave]

Now, if Casual Mode is a boon to players that enjoy higher difficulties (which means the player is, according to the same game, either an experienced or veteran player seeking a challenge) then what is the role of Casual Mode there? In higher difficulties, the chances of you failing at a strategy are most likely higher than in easier modes, which means that your units are more likely to die if you screw something up or you're victim of either an enemy proc skill or crtkill. And if one unit dies and you're basically in a strategy lab testing alternatives, chances are you're still resetting to try again. So the point of Casual is basically none there, unless you're just dealing with the boss, get unlucky and let your unit die but you defeat the boss in the next phase, which, granted, is a valid point. But for such reasons, isn't it better to just use power saves? After all, they were in FE10 and imo were pretty good. FE11 and 12 had mid battle saves which I found pretty good too. Why didn't they stay afterwards?

Those are still around. They're now just exclusive to... *drumroll* ...Casual Mode!

Edited December 11, 2016 by Jave

[Augestein]

If permadeath is a flawed mechanic, why is it still in the game? Idk if I agree on whether a mechanic that promotes resetting is a good mechanic or not. For instance, take natures introduced in Pokemon. If I want a pokemon with a specific nature and I didn't get it after catching the pokemon (and for the example's sake), so I reset to try again, does this mean that natures are flawed by itself because it encourages resetting on a player rigging a pokemon with specific parameters? I know the best way is to find a friend that has it already In FE's case it is relative, because the player might as well choose to continue with the game if they don't care about the unit or don't need it.

This doesn't work, because that assumes that it remaining in the game is somehow *not* flawed, which I think is not a good idea to thinking about it. Critical hits in FE are a huge flaw, but they haven't been tweaked to a point that I think it isn't flawed (really, making them x2 would fix them A LOT in several instances). HMs are flawed, and it took them six generations to finally remove the buggers. Natures themselves aren't comparable in Pokemon as natures in and of themselves allow for customization of a Pokemon through its personality. The mechanic behind how natures are obtained-- randomness, is flawed, but not the idea of natures affecting it.

Trial and error implies human error but also may imply you ran out of luck for a second. What I mean with trial and error is the process where you draw a strat, execute it, if it fails try again and reset, else go ahead. I mean, reset is all over the place, unit death or not. But the learning process involves knowing where one failed and try again in a different manner, be it a lucky enemy crt or not, but it is a process as a whole. There was even a thread in the Debate forum bringing up skill procs and discussing about the luck factor in the game. It feels already as a trend that people want to play in the most safe way possible reducing effort and strategizing to the minimum at the cost of playing a mainstream game, this is what I mean.

That's because Fire Emblem's "failure" numbers result in a unit you have being wiped off the map, so the only response IS to actually play as defensively as possible. If casual mode were the standard mode, you can guarantee that people would take more risk on the account that a unit being OHKOed or just plain dying would be a minor nuisance rather than a frustrating waste of time on the player's behalf. It's not like say, XCOM where a unit dying is 1 of 50 and you have 2 of that same unit in the barracks so even if it does irritate you, nothing of consequence was actually lost. Losing a unit in Fire Emblem doesn't give you as easy of an option to replace them. If someone like Azura dies for instance? You've just lost an effect that you can never duplicate.

Now, if Casual Mode is a boon to players that enjoy higher difficulties (which means the player is, according to the same game, either an experienced or veteran player seeking a challenge) then what is the role of Casual Mode there? In higher difficulties, the chances of you failing at a strategy are most likely higher than in easier modes, which means that your units are more likely to die if you screw something up or you're victim of either an enemy proc skill or crtkill. And if one unit dies and you're basically in a strategy lab testing alternatives, chances are you're still resetting to try again. So the point of Casual is basically none there, unless you're just dealing with the boss, get unlucky and let your unit die but you defeat the boss in the next phase, which, granted, is a valid point. But for such reasons, isn't it better to just use power saves? After all, they were in FE10 and imo were pretty good. FE11 and 12 had mid battle saves which I found pretty good too. Why didn't they stay afterwards?

Casual Mode is a boon to players that enjoy higher difficulties, because the "highest" difficulty doesn't have to be reduced to an easier level to allow inferior players a chance to play the harder difficulties. What's that? Lunatic mode is too hard for you? Well play Lunatic Casual. It's just as hard as Lunatic Classic in terms of enemies, but slightly easier to make it less frustrating. Several players for instance switched to casual mode to get through Lunatic in Awakening. It also has the consequence of making more difficulties without having to make more modes. Let's use an example here: let's say that Casual Mode is always one step below Classic in difficulty but is always more difficult than a higher difficulty. That means that something like Fire Emblem Awakening has 8 difficulty modes instead of 4. That's the role of Casual Mode. And no, Power Saves are not better than Casual Mode. And using your own logic we can see that Casual Mode > Power Saves because they've abandoned Power Saves in favor of Casual Mode on the account that it works. No time is wasted for people that simply want to casually play the game, and people that don't can play Classic Mode without having the game interfere.

Those are still around. They're now just exclusive to... *drumroll* ...Casual Mode!

Ironically enough, this just drives the point home that Casual Mode > Power Saves. Because just having them means that people that don't play casual aren't even aware that they are still there. So it's like the developers covered themselves so someone couldn't be offended by Power Saves existing in their classic mode like before.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Augestein

[Florete]

There's something I agree with and is that why was it 20 years after the first release that they introduced the mechanic? Did people complained about permadeath for 20 years? Or where they silent? This is what leads me to believe that Casual Mode was just introduced as a last resort option to make FE the mainstream IP it is nowadays.

If permadeath is a flawed mechanic, why is it still in the game? Idk if I agree on whether a mechanic that promotes resetting is a good mechanic or not. For instance, take natures introduced in Pokemon. If I want a pokemon with a specific nature and I didn't get it after catching the pokemon (and for the example's sake), so I reset to try again, does this mean that natures are flawed by itself because it encourages resetting on a player rigging a pokemon with specific parameters? I know the best way is to find a friend that has it already In FE's case it is relative, because the player might as well choose to continue with the game if they don't care about the unit or don't need it.

The developers are human beings and sometimes they will do things that may not be for the best. Ultimately, permadeath is still around because it's a big part of FE's identity. That doesn't mean it isn't flawed, they just don't want to get rid of it.

I don't see how that Pokemon comparison is relevant. Resetting in that scenario is only required for a very specific way of playing that won't apply to the grand majority of players. It could certainly be improved, but it's not a mechanic that encourages resetting by itself.

I disagree. Because an immense amount of masochistic fun can be derived from resetting after playing for an hour. It mind sound strange but the fact that people do it means people enjoy it. Though I also agree that Fire Emblem should try and use permadeath more as a mechanic. That's why I think there should be alternate rewards if certain players are dead (though NOT like it was handled in Shadow Dragon). Path of Radiance has some great alternate support conversations if certain characters have died but so few people will ever know about them since there's so little incentive to continue on after a character dies.

Some people enjoy it, but I'd argue more people don't. And even some of the people who do reset probably hate it, but they'd hate having an imperfect run even more, or they just don't feel like they can continue without that character.

[Troykv]

It's so hard to dediced what to say in a there like this... With every one having good points of view... it's really hard to be in a side...

I'm not even sure if Casual Mode is actually a boon or a bane for the game's identity? It's confusing me a lot...

[Locke087]

Casual Mode tends to be create pretty bad habits for players when they get to Classic. I think Casual would be improved if each unit was limited to three deaths before permanently being killed.

This is really my only problem with casual mode it can teach bad habits. perma-death is a very serious part of why I love fire emblem, could it be implemented even better sure... Really I just think the play style that says you must reset every single time someone dies is somewhat misguided it is actually quite fun to play semi Iron Man. No death runs are fun don't give me wrong, but it would be cool with all the options there are for lower difficulties if maybe they could you do some options for higher ones like an Iron Man mode.

You're fully in your right to enjoy whatever you enjoy but don't try to say that perma-death is pointless because you refuse to actually let it happen. This is a totally optional play style choice and should not come on the head a perma-death itself because people choose to play this way. If intelligent systems just would introduce an Iron Man mode I think a lot of people's complaints about perma-death being pointless would be revealed to be stupid.

On another possibly unrelated note, I don't know why people keep saying that casual mode does not promote different tactics... just because you place rules on yourself not to use suicidal tactics while playing casual mode does not mean that casual mode doesn't promote different tactics. If you played casual mode without a classic mindset it's gonna look very different than someone learning through casual mode, believe it or not suicide tactics are legitimate and sometimes superior, especially in casual.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Locke087

[Refa]

Casual Mode tends to be create pretty bad habits for players when they get to Classic. I think Casual would be improved if each unit was limited to three deaths before permanently being killed.

Just as long as it doesn't give an achievement for never getting your units downed, don't play me like that LUCT. =(

I think it'd be interesting that instead of permadeath, your units could get downed and they'd only die if an enemy captured them and ran off the map. Probably too much effort to put into an alternative game mode, though.

[Jotari]

The developers are human beings and sometimes they will do things that may not be for the best. Ultimately, permadeath is still around because it's a big part of FE's identity. That doesn't mean it isn't flawed, they just don't want to get rid of it.

I don't see how that Pokemon comparison is relevant. Resetting in that scenario is only required for a very specific way of playing that won't apply to the grand majority of players. It could certainly be improved, but it's not a mechanic that encourages resetting by itself.

Some people enjoy it, but I'd argue more people don't. And even some of the people who do reset probably hate it, but they'd hate having an imperfect run even more, or they just don't feel like they can continue without that character.

Well I don't have the stats on who does and doesn't reset (might be a good poll for a dedicated thread however) but the people that don't can enjoy casual and the people that do can enjoy classic. Wanting to get that perfect run and maintain all the characters (even the ones you don't plan on using) is all part of that experience. If they weren't deriving some enjoyment from the frustration than they simply wouldn't play Classic at all.

[CappnRob]

Regardless of all that's been said, I am staying firm in my position that casual mode (and reclassing) are bad ideas that cheapen the experience about what I feel Fire Emblem is all about. You can disagree with me all you want, but that's my take on things. I believe that when one plays a game there are expectations to be met, just like any hobby, and if you find those expectations too overbearing then maybe that game or hobby just isn't for you. If you don't like it, well, that really isn't my concern, this thread isn't about making people agree with one's contrarian POV on what they dislike about Fire Emblem, its simply about expressing it, and I have more than expressed it enough.

You're exaggerating but what's funny is that I think Phoenix mode should have been exactly that. My problem with Phoenix mode wasn't that it's too easy, but that it's not easy enough. I think the idea of a mode where the player can just focus on the story alone is great, but Phoenix mode as it is still makes you actually play the game. If you want a mode like that, go all out and let the player just watch.

... I'm sorry, but what? Why even buy a VIDEO GAME, an INTERACTIVE MEDIUM, if you're going to let it PLAY ITSELF. Watch a freakin' Let's Play if losing scares you so much. Video games aren't movies and they aren't books, they're not meant to be passive passtimes. This is the most baffling thing I've ever seen anyone say about Fire Emblem. Yeah sure the games have decent enough stories most of the time, but its still a VIDEO GAME in the end and the main appeal is TOUGH TACTICS SIMULATION (or so the cheesy theme song opera would say anyway).

[Florete]

... I'm sorry, but what? Why even buy a VIDEO GAME, an INTERACTIVE MEDIUM, if you're going to let it PLAY ITSELF. Watch a freakin' Let's Play if losing scares you so much. Video games aren't movies and they aren't books, they're not meant to be passive passtimes. This is the most baffling thing I've ever seen anyone say about Fire Emblem. Yeah sure the games have decent enough stories most of the time, but its still a VIDEO GAME in the end and the main appeal is TOUGH TACTICS SIMULATION (or so the cheesy theme song opera would say anyway).

Ever heard of a visual novel? These exist and people buy them. The high budget ones can be quite pricey, too. Why are you trying to dictate how people interact with their entertainment?

[Lord Raven]

Regardless of all that's been said, I am staying firm in my position that casual mode (and reclassing) are bad ideas that cheapen the experience about what I feel Fire Emblem is all about. You can disagree with me all you want, but that's my take on things. I believe that when one plays a game there are expectations to be met, just like any hobby, and if you find those expectations too overbearing then maybe that game or hobby just isn't for you. If you don't like it, well, that really isn't my concern, this thread isn't about making people agree with one's contrarian POV on what they dislike about Fire Emblem, its simply about expressing it, and I have more than expressed it enough.

There's a difference between expressing a different opinion and going on a soapbox about it. There's no point to discussing anything if you'll just whittle it down to "it's my opinion," which is what I've seen you do, as well as making claims like how casual mode is "cheating." You have not described how it is cheating, you just created some arbitrary metrics about how you play the game, and filled in how Casual Mode does not fit those metrics, even if others may not agree.

What are you in here for? Preaching that Casual mode sucks? Or have a discussion about its merits and drawbacks? It sounds like you're trying to say the former, and you aren't even subtle about trying to guise it as the latter.

Even regardless, many of your posts sound like angry ramblings rather than actual points - I legitimately cannot parse the full statement I am responding to, I can only respond to the general vibe that "casual mode sucks" or some shit like that. What are you trying to say? When you say "there are expectations to be met" what are those expectations? Do you believe in taking away choice from a video game and making it more exclusive to appeal to the more "hardcore" crowd? Gaming isn't a hobby that needs to contort itself to your standards.

[eclipse]

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.

I'm waiting for battle saves to make it over to Classic. Right now, that's Casual's biggest selling point for me. The other being those fun screw-around playthroughs where you use the AI to control all the units or something.

Besides, if permadeath really was meant to be permadeath, explain the Aum staff in FE1.

I don't mind them adding dumb-down options for the newbies and the casuals, so long as the game still has higher difficulty modes for experienced players. I'm never going to use casual mode. But if the game isn't forcing me to use it, I have no reason to get worked up about it being there. What I care about is cutting corners on storytelling and map design, while more and more resources go into turning Fire Emblem into a soft dating sim. That's what's going to ruin the franchise.

I don't really care too much about the story, because I can skip that, too. While I agree that screwing with the maps too much is to FE's detriment, it looks like IS has some ideas as to how to make it challenging (Conquest). I also like how the harder modes are less about stat inflation, and more about enemy placement/skills. Though Chapter 20 Conquest can bite me, because it's another form of numbers inflation with an unfun gimmick on top.

Casual Mode tends to be create pretty bad habits for players when they get to Classic. I think Casual would be improved if each unit was limited to three deaths before permanently being killed.

I play other things, where "bad habits" make the entire FE experience look like a walk in the park. What I've found is that those that actually give a rip about these bad habits will unlearn them eventually, while those that don't will continue to not care.

In other words, this is a moot point.

[CappnRob]

Ever heard of a visual novel? These exist and people buy them. The high budget ones can be quite pricey, too. Why are you trying to dictate how people interact with their entertainment?

Visual novels still require player input in the form of choices and a lot of them have branching pathways? There's player agency involved. Not the same thing as letting a strategy RPG play itself with characters that can't die.

There's a difference between expressing a different opinion and going on a soapbox about it. There's no point to discussing anything if you'll just whittle it down to "it's my opinion," which is what I've seen you do, as well as making claims like how casual mode is "cheating." You have not described how it is cheating, you just created some arbitrary metrics about how you play the game, and filled in how Casual Mode does not fit those metrics, even if others may not agree.

What are you in here for? Preaching that Casual mode sucks? Or have a discussion about its merits and drawbacks? It sounds like you're trying to say the former, and you aren't even subtle about trying to guise it as the latter.

Even regardless, many of your posts sound like angry ramblings rather than actual points - I legitimately cannot parse the full statement I am responding to, I can only respond to the general vibe that "casual mode sucks" or some shit like that. What are you trying to say? When you say "there are expectations to be met" what are those expectations? Do you believe in taking away choice from a video game and making it more exclusive to appeal to the more "hardcore" crowd? Gaming isn't a hobby that needs to contort itself to your standards.

1: I haven't been soapboxing? Yeah, I think casual mode is doing it wrong. I've laid out, several times, why I feel this way. Is that soapboxing? It isn't arbitrary metrics, I've posted big fat paragraphs about what the core concepts I think Fire Emblem is about, what makes it stand out as a game, what its built on, and how Casual Mode and Reclassing go against those concepts. You just seem to be coming off as someone who is mad that I said something you disagree with, even though I never even voiced nor targeted my opinions as an attack on you or anyone else. At this point I'm just repeating myself, and its tiresome, so I'm leaving it at that.

2: I'm here to post what I don't like about modern Fire Emblem. Kinda the point of the thread. Again, if you don't like that, it really isn't my concern. I've laid out my points in several posts past, and if you disagree with them, well, you disagree with them. I can't make you change your mind.

3: What was angry about any of my posts? I've been calm, I've been cool, I've been collected, and I've been concise. Yes, I've used some mildly strong sentiments, but never expressed these sentiments hostilely. If anything, you and others have been hostile to me for disagreeing with my opinion, as if my belief that casual mode is a bad idea is an affront to your very existence.

4: What am I trying to say? I've already said it several times - casual mode and reclassing dilute and cheapen the core strategy elements of Fire Emblem and detract from the intended experience the franchise is built upon. I've been saying that since my first post in this thread (along with some other stuff noone seems to have been upset about). Yes, actually, I think in this specific case, this isn't a choice players should have. Fire Emblem isn't a game that's supposed to hold your hand and tell you it'll be ok if you make a mistake. Its a game where choices have consequences, and those consequences can not be easily rectified without giving something up. I've made the Dark Souls comparison before, and that's how I feel about it. No, gaming is not a hobby that needs to contort to my standards, not as a whole, but I'd rather like it if games with established reputations didn't lower their standards either.

Besides, if permadeath really was meant to be permadeath, explain the Aum staff in FE1.

You mean that single use staff that only a specific character can use in a single specific chapter at the very end of the game whose most practical application is at best to revive someone who got killed in said chapter?

A more practical comparison would be the Valkyrie staff in FE4. I actually -like- that, because the staff implements the ressurection into the mechanics of the game: you can revive anyone, but only one at a time. The staff breaks, but can be repaired, but this repair costs a substantial amount of gold. Said staff comes late, but not TOO late in the game to have impractical use. It's meant to break you out of a bind, but it can not be easily abused either. Spamming the Valk Staff requires large amounts of gold which means either some serious Arena power on the user's end (which isn't likely because they'll be Claude or Claude's child and Claude has no skills for fighting with), a lover with serious arena power, pre-planning village visits, or making good use of your thief, or some combination thereof all this. It isn't just a handicap - its part of the strategy, part of the game. You can use it to undo a mistake, but you better be ready to pay the price for it. That is good game design. That is implementing a safeguard crutch as a MECHANIC. That is giving both incentive and consequence to your actions. That is what casual mode lacks, and is why I dislike it.

[Jotari]

Regardless of all that's been said, I am staying firm in my position that casual mode (and reclassing) are bad ideas that cheapen the experience about what I feel Fire Emblem is all about. You can disagree with me all you want, but that's my take on things. I believe that when one plays a game there are expectations to be met, just like any hobby, and if you find those expectations too overbearing then maybe that game or hobby just isn't for you. If you don't like it, well, that really isn't my concern, this thread isn't about making people agree with one's contrarian POV on what they dislike about Fire Emblem, its simply about expressing it, and I have more than expressed it enough.

If IS took that stance on the subject then the series literally wouldn't exist any more. It's a plain and simple fact that the series was on the verge of cancellation until they reworked their formula to appeal to a wider audience.

[CappnRob]

Yes, and while I'm glad Awakening saved the series, I'm not so sure I'm happy with the changes it brought with it. Not to say Fire Emblem would've been better off canceled (though it would've had a good run and while I'd have been sad I wouldn't be disappointed), but yeah. Awakening changed the field, the series, and the fandom, for better and worse.