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

[Lord Raven]

I do, because if the spirit is changed too much, is it even the series I used to love anymore? It's happened to plenty of games in the past, I wouldn't want it to happen to Fire Emblem too. That may be selfish, but I do ultimately care about my enjoyment with the series over anyone else's.

How do you define the "spirit" of the series here, then? Because Berwick Saga has many, MANY divergences from Fire Emblem in terms of gameplay, but I still feel it keeps within the "spirit" due to being a turn based game with relatively simple commands/stats (though Berwick has more complex mechanics) and class/weapon structure.

Well, Dark Souls doesn't have an easy mode, so eh, lol. TBH I wouldn't mind an Easy Mode in Dark Souls if it wasn't.... well, TOO easy. Like instead of getting killed by a boss with 2 hits, you can take 3 or 4, hurr hurr. Either way, I'm of the opinion that people that want to experience the lore and atmosphere of Dark Souls without the challenging gameplay are missing the point and are out of luck. There's no obligation to make the game accessible, especially when again, the difficulty is part of the whole allure of the series. But we're getting off topic, lol, this is about Fire Emblem, not Dark Souls.

It's the same concept though - should easier modes be included for people who aren't in it for the challenge that others are in it for?

A "wounded" system would be pretty awesome tbh. If a character falls, they get a stat reduction for X chapters and if they die again while wounded, they stay dead. Along with aforementioned limited "lives", or bringing back a useable but limited resurrection system - these are all far better ways to soften Fire Emblem's hardball permadeath system without invalidating it.

What did you think of my rant/thing about why Casual Mode exists though? Because like a wounded system would be fine, but even new players who have played a chapter perfectly until some bullshit happened would find FE discouraging without a sort of casual mode.

[The DanMan]

Actually, my first post in the thread was a giant wall of text explaining why I dislike Avatars, Waifu Wars, Reclassing, special skill creep, and how the series doesn't take itself as seriously as it used to. Also, despite the fact I never intended to argue my points so hard with people, I've been rather civil with discussing things with other people and they've been chill in turn.

So it seems to me you moreso just wanted to be a dirt-slinger with nothing of value to contribute to the topic. Take your hate and anger somewhere else, punk. Let the moderators decide if someone is being obstructive to the conversation or not, yeah?

Hmm. I didn't specifically remember that, and was going off of the post you recently linked (which you described as your "first post").

And please; I did not mean to directly insult you (as you are doing to me). I highlighted my reasoning and explained in the same post (though via edit) that I hadn't seen your post at the top of the page and that it changes things-- enough that I basically obliterated my original response to you via edit.

I just don't really take well to hyperbole, and indeed my original response was pretty knee-jerk.

[saisymbolic]

I don't know what's going on above me, but I thought I might chip in on the original point of the topic.

Considering I entered the FE series through PoR in about 2005-2006, it does indeed hold a special place in my heart. And, while I know the game isn't perfect, the thing I liked most about the storytelling and world building that I personally believe was a bit lacking in the previous and newer games that I have played - that being only FE7, FE8, FE13 and FE14 - is that each country within the world felt as if it had a purpose for being (or not being) a part of the conflict that tied in neatly enough to gain a bit of insight about each country at the same time. For example, the kindgom of Goldoa having a strict stance of neutrality or Daein tactfully invading Crimea to begin their assault. Each little thing that every participant did felt genuine, in my opinion. I mean, even the storytelling of RD was pretty good in that I hadn't played through PoR for years, yet the way the story was told and information was given, it could have very well stood as a standalone title, in my opinion.

,

Now, I won't pretend that I'm not a fan of shipping or Avatar characters. Hell, I love just about any game with those two elements. I'm not ashamed. But, what does bother me about the current FE games - that is, Awakening and Fates to varying degrees - is that the characters and world building seems to have taken a backseat in order to accommodate the shipping and the Avatars.

As a gamer, the things that impact my personal enjoyment of a game is: game play > story/characters > graphics. The core game play is still good, and the graphics are good as well - but, the characters and the story are so severely lacking that it just bums me out. Fates, in particular, is just a game full of missed opportunities, and it hurts my very soul because it could have been so great.

So, in that respect, I'm also not entirely satisfied with the direction the series is going, but I can't help but have a bulb of hope that the developers and writers will get it together and give us something great one of these days.

Edited December 12, 2016 by saisymbolic

[Quintessence]

I think the idea of giving stat penalties to units that died in Casual Mode will actually work as a way to stimulate new players to slowly progress through the game. This is a nice way to make Casual Mode not be an unforgiving mode. I'm aware that Casual Mode is also used by experienced players as a test room for their strategies and such (including suicidal tactics which are indeed ingenious, although they don't appeal to me), but I can think of them preferring it mostly due to the Battle Save access. In fact, I loved battle saves in RD and abused the hell of them in so many ways to test strats, units, moves, etc., even rigged procs, crts, levels and whatnot because it is fun to play the game in so many ways. I hope, as well as eclipse, that this feature comes back accesible to Classic Mode.

I think the negative bias I have for Casual Mode is also due to how it was packaged among the new stuff and thrown at Awakening & Co., that I really disliked. Not necessarily the mechanics in itself, but rather how they were mixed and used to a point that I rejected them.

For instance, Avatar is not bad in itself, children and marriage is not bad by itself (FE4 did it well with balancing issues but that's a different story), fanservice is not bad in itself (earlier installments already have them, but Boobzilla is a bit too much), class change is not bad in itself (Sacred Stones and TMS#FE are my best examples), grinding is not bad in itself (for instance, the Harakuju Idolasphere Arena is fantastic and has good limits), and so on. When Fates was announced and Nintendo insisted on the choice stuff in the game, I thought the Avatar would be its best implemented mechanic, but it was a missed opportunity. I think if they tone stuff in appropriate levels they will make FE a much better franchise and much better games.

[CappnRob]

What did you think of my rant/thing about why Casual Mode exists though? Because like a wounded system would be fine, but even new players who have played a chapter perfectly until some bullshit happened would find FE discouraging without a sort of casual mode.

Honestly, I think they can afford to suck it up a little bit :Y I played Fire Emblem first when I was 13, and I sucked hard at it, but I endured and made it through to the end with only one casualty (RIP Florina, it was past midnight, and I couldn't bare to restart Noble Lady of Caelin again when I was so close to the end ;_; ) and beat the game. Yeah, that's just my experience, but I don't claim to be a great gamer (I never did an S rank run or Ironman runs or anything like that). If my dweeby 13 year old self could do it, I think most anyone can with some application of themselves.

It's the same concept though - should easier modes be included for people who aren't in it for the challenge that others are in it for?

Easier modes are fine when they don't dilute the experience too much. Yeah I've thrown that around a lot, but there's a difference between say, reducing the overall stats of enemies in a game to make the challenge easier, and what casual mode does (that being reducing a core mechanic to a nuisance). I really don't know how else to word or phrase it - easier modes are fine when they don't alter or remove core mechanics of something.

How do you define the "spirit" of the series here, then?

The spirit of Fire Emblem is as I said before, tactical role playing where mistakes have consequences and assets must be utilized effectively to succeed. Death being permanent with no or little means of reversing it is a part of that. Managing characters of different classes is part of that. Managing limited items and resources among your army is part of that. Fire Emblem is not meant to be flexible on these matters, imo: you git gud or people die, and if the wrong people die too much and you go on without them, you only have yourself to blame.

Yeah, there can be some RNG screwage in there (lord knows I've had my bouts with the RNG in my 13 year long career with the franchise), and yeah, shit like that can be afforded to be tweaked (although I personally rather liked the single RN system because I'm a tryhard), and has been tweaked (aforementioned single RN turning into the double RN true hit system), but that never got in the way of the core foundations. Hell, FE4 got rid of random crits (sort of anyway. you needed the critical skill for it), and I love FE4.

[shadowofchaos]

Honestly, I think they can afford to suck it up a little bit :Y

Yes they could do that. But since you've already given them the option to relax and not worry about strategy just for the sake of having fun with the game with supports or messing around in general... taking it away seems detrimental.

I play Classic 95% of the time.

And I can say I found enjoyment in trying Casual for playthroughs I didn't want Lunatic Conquest level frustration on.

Is it wrong for me to enjoy Fire Emblem contrary to the vision of old?

In that sense, me hacking the old FEs to have a pseudo-casual mode is also wrong?

Is it wrong to have the option to play the game with the spirit of old or not?

Edited December 11, 2016 by shadowofchaos

[Thane]

Uh, no. It is a fact, it is not an opinion. Classic FE is classic FE and modern FE is modern FE whether you began playing through FE7 or FE13. It's the same thing if you play Pokemon Red/Blue and play Pokemon X/Y; classic is classic, modern is modern.

Yes, but you said "pure" experience and listed arbitrary critera for what makes the experience "pure" for you, and I explained to you that it's not an objective thing that has no room in a debate such as this.

Incidentally, Pokémon provides a perfect example of this: from the very first game, the goal is to catch all Pokémon and complete the Pokédex. However, I, even as a kid, never gave a shit about that. Does that mean I did not enjoy the "pure" experience? I had other things I enjoyed doing, showing the game could be enjoyed in many different ways from the very onset.

Can you imagine what it would sound like if someone walked up to you, possibly as a kid, and said you played Pokémon the wrong way because you didn't catch 'em all? That's how this entire debate about casual mode comes across.

By classic I think of something that sticks to its original form, or close to it. Not like when one refers to a classic novel, or a classic of ages or something, which is mostly referred to something set up on high regards and standards (which is also interpreted as superior). When I say classic I'm not intending to say that it strictly is superior than any other form of experience because in the end it is subjective. But one feels when something feels classic and when something feels innovative or offers a brand new experience.

= EDIT =

And it is not like FE1 IS CLASSIC REST IS A DISTORTION OF ITS ORIGINAL FORM

But...again, that's just your opinion. You listed the things that you think belongs to the core Fire Emblem experience, which also seemed to imply that you don't consider Gaiden a core Fire Emblem experience, but for others that might not be true.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Your critera are strictly your own and can't be applied to everyone, thus the definition of a "pure" or "classic" experience is ambiguous.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Thane

[Jave]

A lot of games with an easy mode don't let you get the best endings if you play easy mode, why not do that?

This is fine for short games or stuff like Arcade mode in fighting games, since they can be done in one sitting. But for games like Fire Emblem which can take around 40 hours to beat, it really feels like a slap in the face that all the time and work you put on that was for nothing or an incomplete ending.

If we're going to add penalties to using Casual mode, it really shouldn't be in any way related to the story. I mean, one of the big reasons people play Easy Mode in many games is because they just want to enjoy the story more. Maybe in Casual Mode, characters get "injured" if they die, and you can bring them back only by buying a very expensive item on the Armory. Stuff like that could work (not that I care much since I don't normally play Casual), but don't cut the story for those who want to enjoy it more, it really doesn't feel fair.

And no, I wasn't a fan of FE10 locking the full ending on a 2nd playthrough.

[Baldrick]

My 2c; Casual Mode actually hurts accessibility for the series as a whole. Battle saves would take away the frustration aspect and the intimidation aspect of permadeath.

The older games are mostly played through VC or emulation these days, so new players wouldn't even have to adapt to a lack of battle saves.

This is relevant to anyone who prefers Conquest's gameplay to Birthright's: the better the old games sell on VC, the more financially viable it is for IS to continue making Conquest modes.

EDIT: for clarity

Edited December 12, 2016 by Baldrick

[shadowofchaos]

You mean Battle Saves?

[geraq]

Well, about the Casual vs Classic thing, one could argue it is like being a fan of a TV series that had good three seasons, and then turned into a soap-opera. Some people like it, it is more casual and gets to more people, but let's assume I don't like it. So I don't watch it, and don't consider it part of my series anymore. However, this is not the same case as what we have here because I have the choice to play my game in whatever way I want. More options is always good. (I sadly didn't have a choice with my TV series). I like being able to Rescue units, and I miss it in the games I can't. I like being able to Shove units, and I miss it in the games I can't. And these mechanics also allow to avoid cheap deaths and resets. Not to mention Battle Saves. Are these features wrong too? Do they rob the player from the "true experience"?
Even if I agree with CappnRobb about the series identity and such, I seem pointless to force casual players into our play-style, because it is not meant for them. And even if saying "if you don't like it then Fire Emblem isn't for you" is a (debatable) opinion for us, sadly it is not an option for the companies. They will always cater to greater audiences, for better or worse.

This reminds of what happened with Castlevania Symphony of the Night and its sequels: I read some diehard fans questioned all the RPG elements introduced into the classic action platforming series, and how it cheapened the experience because you could just grind your way to victory. But also you had the choice to not do it. SOTN was my first Castlevania, and I loved it, and made me want to play all other games. And once I was ready enough, I tried the older and harder titles, even the NES ones, and I enjoyed them inmensely in their own way, even if they were very different from my first experience. Who cares if Casual makes bad habits? If the player is "casual at heart", he/she won't mind, and if he/she is not, then will eventually find his/her way into the "true" series. Not to mention SOTN was the most successful entry to the series up to that time.

I think we have to understand that if we don't like Casual Mode (I never tried it myself as I haven't played FE13-14), then it is because such feature was not meant for us as its target audience. The important thing is that we don't have to use it, we have a choice. Some people like to play their games with the soundtrack turned off, something I cannot understand. But I don't really care, and I don't want to force other players to listen to the soundtracks if it is not in their hearts. Same for re-classing. I don't think it is an attractive idea (again, never tried it myself), but I'm okay with that as long as I'm not forced to do it. (Talking about permadeaths, even if I'm okay with it and the emotion/thrill/fear/concern it provokes, times like when Ashera killed four of my characters make me less prone to defend it being mandatory...)

An another example, at first I was skeptical about the idea of Skills. It felt too much like traditional RPGs, and in my opinion was just another level of meta-management I was not particularly interested in. I'm not that fond of maximizing stats, managing equipment, level grinding and such RPG stuff as I am fond of outlining the formation, blocking corners or corridors, choosing classes of characters to bring to battle, or planning my moves in my turn. I ignored such feature for most of FE9 and FE10, and there was only one or maybe two instances in which I had to actually use it. And when I had to use it, I was glad the game let me equip/unequip such Skill, and that didn't punished me for a "mistake" I made 10 or 15 chapters before. I accepted it, and I was glad the game didn't punished me for my decision. The point is that I had a choice.

I guess the main point is what Shoblongoo and saisymbolic said, that we should be worried if the focus is being set in this whole Avatar and datesim thing instead of bringing compelling stories, characters, and gameplay. Apparently, as gameplay is still good, the harm isn't yet that bad. But I guess it will only get worse, as my (real life) TV series example. And when we don't have a choice, that's when we should be angry.

This is just my opinion, I don't intent to offend nor antagonize to anyone.

Edited December 12, 2016 by geraq

[Baldrick]

@soc; yeah, someone called them that earlier so I went with that term. If it means something different, then I meant battle saves.

[shadowofchaos]

@soc; yeah, someone called them that earlier so I went with that term. If it means something different, then I meant battle saves.

Power Saves are cheats, just to be clear. It involves editing the save on the cart via a device by Datel.

A more user friendly alternative to, and doesn't require homebrew.

Edited December 12, 2016 by shadowofchaos

[Quintessence]

Yes, but you said "pure" experience and listed arbitrary critera for what makes the experience "pure" for you, and I explained to you that it's not an objective thing that has no room in a debate such as this.

Incidentally, Pokémon provides a perfect example of this: from the very first game, the goal is to catch all Pokémon and complete the Pokédex. However, I, even as a kid, never gave a shit about that. Does that mean I did not enjoy the "pure" experience? I had other things I enjoyed doing, showing the game could be enjoyed in many different ways from the very onset.

Can you imagine what it would sound like if someone walked up to you, possibly as a kid, and said you played Pokémon the wrong way because you didn't catch 'em all? That's how this entire debate about casual mode comes across.

But...again, that's just your opinion. You listed the things that you think belongs to the core Fire Emblem experience, which also seemed to imply that you don't consider Gaiden a core Fire Emblem experience, but for others that might not be true.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Your critera are strictly your own and can't be applied to everyone, thus the definition of a "pure" or "classic" experience is ambiguous.

I think you're overthinking this or confused (or I wasn't clear enough, in which case, my apologies). Because what you're talking about here is the notion one has about a game, and what the game is or means to them (and what they consider important in the game). What I'm referring to here are the differences between old school vs modern. That's about it. I haven't messed up with whether one plays the game in the correct or wrong way ~

In fact when one plays a game the wrong way it means you're hitting the wrong button or giving a wrong command (imo).

Edited December 12, 2016 by Quintessence

[MCProductions]

Holy hell guys, how long is this fanbase going to bicker about an OPTIONAL mode. Hell, I don't even get the spirit of FE arguements, FE2, 3, and 4 basically had ways to remove permadeath without casual mode. Sure, FE5 onward had it unavoidable until FE12, but that's AWFULLY late into the franchise to force something as truly mandatory imo. Can we please just enjoy the games for what they are worth and STOP bitching about something you NEVER have to use.

[NinjaMonkey]

I think the idea of giving stat penalties to units that died in Casual Mode will actually work as a way to stimulate new players to slowly progress through the game.

In my opinion giving stat penalties to unit that retreated will probably have the opposite effect, and turn off new players instead. Casual Mode is fine as it is. Stop trying to change it just because you, as a veteran, aren't happy with it!

[Lord Raven]

Holy hell guys, how long is this fanbase going to bicker about an OPTIONAL mode. Hell, I don't even get the spirit of FE arguements, FE2, 3, and 4 basically had ways to remove permadeath without casual mode. Sure, FE5 onward had it unavoidable until FE12, but that's AWFULLY late into the franchise to force something as truly mandatory imo. Can we please just enjoy the games for what they are worth and STOP bitching about something you NEVER have to use.

Are people not allowed to complain about things they dont like or feel could be improved?

Saying things like this is completely countering the idea of a forum, since some practical discussion did happen.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Augestein]

Are people not allowed to complain about things they dont like or feel could be improved?

Saying things like this is completely countering the idea of a forum, since some practical discussion did happen.

I think he believes that there's no point in arguing about the spirit of "FE" when we've had revivals in the series beforehand. And technically, even FE7 had revivals although it was only for every non-Lyndis unit for the first 11 chapters.

Although the Casual Mode stat penalty idea I think it just kinda dumb to be honest. At that point you may as well have Casual, "Sorta Casual" and Hardcore. I don't see the point on imposing something like that on someone. It's like saying that if a person doesn't play the hardest difficulty, they're not going to learn from their mistakes, so it shouldn't be there. This is a pretty nonsensical argument in my opinion.

[Jotari]

For a while now I've wanted to see a Retreat Skill that would allow a unit to survive a killing attack but put them out of comission for three chapters. The idea would be to have it come locked to plot important units for the duration where they need to stick around in the story and then when they are free to die you can unequip it and give it to whomever you want. I just feel like retreating would gel better with the plot if it was an actual game mechanic. Always feels a bit odd for a character to receive a life threatening injury only for them to hang around no worse for wear throughout the story. Just a little thought of mine I wanted to share. Not even sure if it's even relevant at this point.

[shadowofchaos]

For a while now I've wanted to see a Retreat Skill that would allow a unit to survive a killing attack but put them out of comission for three chapters.

Sounds like Valkyria Chronicles.

[The DanMan]

To finally contribute to the topic (since I've lurked it off and on and made a stupid kneejerk response):

I see nothing wrong with Casual Mode. Heck, I use it myself-- or at least "Casual Challenge". Restarting an entire chapter because of one mistake, to me isn't fun. It was forgivable in FE7 and SS due to them being fairly easy overall, and SD had map-saves that helped that. Awakening and Fates don't have any of that, and Fates (well, Conquest and Revelation) is much harder to boot.

If I had not been able to fire off battle-saves and learn from trial-and-error and plan out my strategies, I would've dropped Conquest all together.

I seem to have a very unique voice here, as most people tend to be pretty exclusive with one or the other..

Anyways, as for the topic as a whole:

My favorite game in the series is SD (my first). You can probably glean a lot of my philosophy about video games from that alone.

If it has good gameplay, it's a good game. A great game does more than just gameplay right (or, if it's solely concerned with gameplay, does it extremely well).

I'd argue that Awakening is not a good game, because its base gameplay is flawed and the execution is lacking. Meanwhile, Fates is a good game because it vastly improves on Awakening's core gameplay and, despite some overly-gimmicky maps, kept me engaged and entertained throughout. It also (despite relying a bit too much on one leitmotif) has a better soundtrack, and a more optimized engine with much better combat animations.

I'm not really passionate about this debate because I started the series later than most of you (heck, as Lord Raven even stated some of you have been on the internet longer than I've been in school). Do I like fanservice, player pandering, and bad writing? No. But do they unduly bother me? No.

The series' direction could certainly be better, but as long as the gameplay stays pretty good and nothing too cringey makes it into a localized title I'm fine.

[SageHarpuiaJDJ]

I will agree that the current FE direction is flawed in some ways, but nothing, from what I've played, has changed how the games feel.

This whole "Core of FE" thing that started with casual mode being brought up is, no offense, a very silly notion. The core gameplay, aside from a few mechanics added and/or removed, never felt borderline, 100% different. If a few things are added to appeal to another audience, why it should be a problem? I know that people won't like them for reasons stated, but they honestly hasn't hurt the series as much as stated.

I'm not good with paragraphing, especially for a game series that I've only played for like 2-3 years and only played 7 out of the 16 games, but this whole idea that FE is ruined because of a few mechanics is silly. And who wouldn't wanna try new things if you have the space to do so?

[NekoKnight]

I think there should be a halfway point between Casual and Classic. I think character death should remain a series stable but measures could be added to make it less frustrating. A mode with battle saves and a limited supply of revival items would make the permadeath more approachable but also not fundamentally change the nature of the game.

[Florete]

If players are deriving enjoyment from it then it is good game design. And if players aren't deriving enjoyment in it (in some way, even if its subconscious) then they simply wouldn't do it so it wouldn't even be a feature of the design.

I don't believe most players are doing it because they enjoy it, but because not doing it will cost them enjoyment and/or satisfaction later. It's certainly how I always felt.

[Jotari]

I don't believe most players are doing it because they enjoy it, but because not doing it will cost them enjoyment and/or satisfaction later. It's certainly how I always felt.

That is still is a form of enjoyment even if it's not apparent. People are deriving fun from playing until things are perfect. The tension and possibility of failure is as much part of the system as the eventual success. If that wasn't the case then people simply wouldn't play classic (or reset at all. Nothing about the game actually forces a reset). It's like saying a puzzle isn't designed well because people get frustrated half way through. Sure looking at that in an isolated state it doesn't seem like a good time but the design of a puzzle is larger than any one given moment. Both the time taken to figure out the system and the moment of solving where everything makes sense are critical aspects. A puzzle that can be solved in an instant isn't fun nor is one that takes too long to solve.