Regarding Permadeath in FE

[AnonymousSpeed]

14 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

(I do not support the killing of any amount of people for any reason)

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

13 hours ago, gnip said:

I literally brought up examples of gameplay/story integration in my previous post. I don't know why I bothered, but I did.

dunno either, you have managed to talk about anything but what was specifically asked of you

come back after lvl 22, that might help.

Spoiler

8 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Spoiler

lol

 

[Eltosian Kadath]

17 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

ey, considering you got all meta up in ´ere instead of answering the question I´m puttin that down as no story, mhmkay?

Your insistence that gameplay is incapable of telling stories is a meta argument. You opened the door to this meta discussion.

 

17 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

That whole story you wrote is so cute, all up to the point you write it in a thread where someone complains that that is specifically not explicit enough and the entirety of it´s meaning is derived from the game building up Ashnard as the BBEG, which is told through cutscenes and supports and not attacking with an iron sword.

Ashnard being built up as the BBEG does not indicate that he dies, nor does it indicate where in the story he dies. Not all BBEGs die in stories, some have redemption arcs, other return in future sequels, others are simply too powerful to be fully killed, take for example Fire Emblems most recurring villain Medius, whose "death quotes" state that he will return, so long as there is still darkness in the hearts of men. Even if being setup as a BBEG meant the character dies, it wouldn't indicate when in the story they would die, as having someone setup as a BBEG be replaced by an even bigger bad evil guy is also a common story beat, even in Fire Emblem games (see FE3 for that one in a game made before Path of Radiance), or for the story to cover events after the BBEG's death (see FE6 for that one). It is the gameplay that tells the story of Ashnard's death.

 

17 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

I got the location wrong, so what? Do you hold victory speeches when the death of your nr 1 enemy in a place you should be plenty familiar with is unclear, or what?

It is rather relevant in this case, as having a speech when you retake your home castle, regardless of whether your no. 1 enemy is alive or not, is a very common occurrence in Fire Emblem stories in particular (see FEs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 for Fire Emblem games that have this story beat with the BBEG still alive in them made before Path of Radiance). Having this kind of speech doesn't indicate whether or not Ashnard died, the gameplay does.

 

18 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

The story is nothing but a justification for the gameplay, otherwise people would be complaining about why we do what we do, where we do it and how we do it, as is the case regardless but worse. 

If that were true, people would be praising the superiority of Engage's story over Three Houses, as it does a better job of introducing the gameplay, without distracting from it. Some games don't have a story connecting the gameplay at all (someone already mentioned tetris as an example of that), or tells the entirety of its story through gameplay (see Journey as a classic example of this), but most tell their stories using as many tools available to them, gameplay included.

 

19 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

So you lost a unit and as a result your gameplan changed for the better for you as a player. That may be the case, considering you moved the discussion from how FE engages with permadeath to what you personally like, as many who have nothing relevant to add will do.

I moved this discussion away from your guesswork about things you have no experience with, and towards actual examples I have experienced, and how they served as counter points to your wild speculation, and guesswork. Whether or not I like it, is as irrelevant as your own blatant dislike of it.

 

19 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

you are dealing with less than before, for replacements are largely inferior,

This is the fundamental part of your counter argument that falls apart. The old maxim is that you loss your good growth units, and get inferior prepromted replacements, but that idea was codified back when people generally thought growths were universally better than bases, and as general opinion has shifted away from that sentiment, thanks to people actually playing the games, and experiencing the things they were talking about, so too do I think the idea that replacements are generally inferior needs reassessing. Sure it is possible for the replacement unit to be inferior, but there are also plenty of examples where the replacement is superior, for example replacing an Amelia that you were training into an armor knight with Duessel; the initial unit could have missed key benchmarks due to growths not being consistent, making the more consistent bases of the replacement superior; the initial unit simply being inferior due to people overvaluing growths; or sometimes people use units for sentimental reasons, and when they lose that unit they have to field a more practical one, etc. It could even be a case where units fill very different niches that it is hard to directly compare, like replacing Pent with Jaffar, or fill the same niche in different ways, like Effie's higher strength compared to Benny's higher defense as armored knights. This isn't as clear cut as you act, and if replacements aren't largely inferior like you claim, your whole counter point falls apart.

 

10 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

friendly reminder that you are arguing this in the same thread a guy is crying that this isn´t clear enough

Are you intentionally misrepresenting my point, or did this whole thing make you cry? It has always been my contention that this is all perfectly clear if gameplay is capable of telling a story, and only isn't clear if gameplay isn't story.

10 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

after all he could just have escaped through some unknown means, whilst being surrounded by enemies, in a palace that was home and seat of power to said enemies and his flying mount is in the process of dying which is followed by an interaction between it and differing people present

I´m sure if the death of your magically enhanced BBEG is uncertain you just stand around in a familiar environment you should have the advantage in and knowledge of and hold a victory speech. What´s a loose end, right, we need to set up a hook for the sequel right?

Well done pointing out how ridiculously many holes there would be in Path of Radiance's story, if gameplay were incapable of telling even a part of the story, like you pretend to contend. You seem to understand my point, but have so far proven incapable of dispelling it, because gameplay is story.

 

12 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

My result so far is that neither of you two have been able to come up with a story for the most miniscule moment in gameplay, which allegedly still constitutes a story. Naturally if the act of equipping Oboro with an iron sword and a vulnerary is a simplistic component to a story then in how limited an action it is, it shouldn´t be that diffcult to come up with something, anything at all, either a simple reasoning or considering this to be a simple and individual part of something greater, yet this is something you have managed to fail not only twice you are also trying to spin it such, that me not bringing up evidence  backing up your claim is my fault and a shortcoming of my arguments?

This is just factually inaccurate. You have been shown multiple times ways that gameplay is a part of telling a story, and will then make extremely flimsy (and often embarrassingly dismissive, and snarky) claims that fail to counter that, and it is the flimsiness of those claims that are the shortcoming of your argument.

 

13 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Furthermore of course your incessant need to, instead of giving an - allegedly - simple answer to the question asked, you felt the need to unsuccessfully elevate the discussion to a meta level, which indicates you just plain don´t have anything of note to say. Don´t worry, your concerns have been noted, laughed at quietly and dismissed.

You almost immediately opened with the meta argument that gameplay isn't storytelling...

 

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

57 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

You almost immediately opened with the meta argument that gameplay isn't storytelling...

57 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Your insistence that gameplay is incapable of telling stories is a meta argument. You opened the door to this meta discussion.

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

This is just factually inaccurate. You have been shown multiple times ways that gameplay is a part of telling a story, and will then make extremely flimsy (and often embarrassingly dismissive, and snarky) claims that fail to counter that, and it is the flimsiness of those claims that are the shortcoming of your argument.

Bro doesn´t know the difference between going meta and talking about meta ☠️

I also started this specific part of the discussion in my 4th reply, after having to deal with your shoddy rogue like metaphors. Surprise, surprise, the core of the comment back then remains unanswered by you and gnip, whilst you continually insist answering it would be easy.

I will repeat it again, like a hamster enjoying it´s wheel, but only what is officiated through the author is story, everything else is headcanon.

Spoiler

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

On 9/6/2023 at 10:43 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

That whole story you wrote is so cute, all up to the point you write it in a thread where someone complains that that is specifically not explicit enough and the entirety of it´s meaning is derived from the game building up Ashnard as the BBEG, which is told through cutscenes and supports and not attacking with an iron sword.

Ashnard being built up as the BBEG does not indicate that he dies, nor does it indicate where in the story he dies. Not all BBEGs die in stories, some have redemption arcs, other return in future sequels, others are simply too powerful to be fully killed, take for example Fire Emblems most recurring villain Medius, whose "death quotes" state that he will return, so long as there is still darkness in the hearts of men. Even if being setup as a BBEG meant the character dies, it wouldn't indicate when in the story they would die, as having someone setup as a BBEG be replaced by an even bigger bad evil guy is also a common story beat, even in Fire Emblem games (see FE3 for that one in a game made before Path of Radiance), or for the story to cover events after the BBEG's death (see FE6 for that one). It is the gameplay that tells the story of Ashnard's death.

 

On 9/6/2023 at 10:43 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

I got the location wrong, so what? Do you hold victory speeches when the death of your nr 1 enemy in a place you should be plenty familiar with is unclear, or what?

It is rather relevant in this case, as having a speech when you retake your home castle, regardless of whether your no. 1 enemy is alive or not, is a very common occurrence in Fire Emblem stories in particular (see FEs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 for Fire Emblem games that have this story beat with the BBEG still alive in them made before Path of Radiance). Having this kind of speech doesn't indicate whether or not Ashnard died, the gameplay does.

The weakness of your argument lies in your reaching to the entirety of stories ever told, instead of focusing at the example at hand, as PoR is not all stories ever told but a self contained one. Continue ignoring the entire rest of the game to try and make a point, why don´t you.

Why do you think I asked you who killed Freddy 2 of Babenberg and Otto 2 of Bohemia? 

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

If that were true, people would be praising the superiority of Engage's story over Three Houses, as it does a better job of introducing the gameplay, without distracting from it. Some games don't have a story connecting the gameplay at all (someone already mentioned tetris as an example of that), or tells the entirety of its story through gameplay (see Journey as a classic example of this), but most tell their stories using as many tools available to them, gameplay included.

Exhibit 1# of not understanding quality and execution. (2023.09.07, w.L.)

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

15 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

friendly reminder that you are arguing this in the same thread a guy is crying that this isn´t clear enough

Are you intentionally misrepresenting my point, or did this whole thing make you cry? It has always been my contention that this is all perfectly clear if gameplay is capable of telling a story, and only isn't clear if gameplay isn't story.

15 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

after all he could just have escaped through some unknown means, whilst being surrounded by enemies, in a palace that was home and seat of power to said enemies and his flying mount is in the process of dying which is followed by an interaction between it and differing people present

I´m sure if the death of your magically enhanced BBEG is uncertain you just stand around in a familiar environment you should have the advantage in and knowledge of and hold a victory speech. What´s a loose end, right, we need to set up a hook for the sequel right?

Well done pointing out how ridiculously many holes there would be in Path of Radiance's story, if gameplay were incapable of telling even a part of the story, like you pretend to contend. You seem to understand my point, but have so far proven incapable of dispelling it, because gameplay is story.

Go back to "what the author acknowledges is story" do not receive 200.

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

On 9/6/2023 at 10:43 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

So you lost a unit and as a result your gameplan changed for the better for you as a player. That may be the case, considering you moved the discussion from how FE engages with permadeath to what you personally like, as many who have nothing relevant to add will do.

I moved this discussion away from your guesswork about things you have no experience with, and towards actual examples I have experienced, and how they served as counter points to your wild speculation, and guesswork. Whether or not I like it, is as irrelevant as your own blatant dislike of it.

 

On 9/6/2023 at 10:43 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

you are dealing with less than before, for replacements are largely inferior,

This is the fundamental part of your counter argument that falls apart. The old maxim is that you loss your good growth units, and get inferior prepromted replacements, but that idea was codified back when people generally thought growths were universally better than bases, and as general opinion has shifted away from that sentiment, thanks to people actually playing the games, and experiencing the things they were talking about, so too do I think the idea that replacements are generally inferior needs reassessing. Sure it is possible for the replacement unit to be inferior, but there are also plenty of examples where the replacement is superior, for example replacing an Amelia that you were training into an armor knight with Duessel; the initial unit could have missed key benchmarks due to growths not being consistent, making the more consistent bases of the replacement superior; the initial unit simply being inferior due to people overvaluing growths; or sometimes people use units for sentimental reasons, and when they lose that unit they have to field a more practical one, etc. It could even be a case where units fill very different niches that it is hard to directly compare, like replacing Pent with Jaffar, or fill the same niche in different ways, like Effie's higher strength compared to Benny's higher defense as armored knights. This isn't as clear cut as you act, and if replacements aren't largely inferior like you claim, your whole counter point falls apart.

True, not like I have made some threads in which I complain specifically about losing certain units (Marcia, Gilbert) which thankfully doesn´t happen often due to my overly cautios playstyle, or have done 2 playthroughs of SD to see the named replacement units and one wherein I peruse the 31 replacements.

Granted, if my argument, like yours, relied on calling out another persons playstyle and experience without knowing said person or playstyle and making my own experience the measurement of the world, I would shut the fuck up, but you do you, as you do.

Damn you really just recounted my own metaphor with a lot more words, the only thing to see here is how interesting a thread on the requirements of when to consider a unit a replacement is would be, considering your confusion with Amelia/Duessel.

[ping]

Yeah, not going to elaborate for a third time why I reject the loaded question. Dunno if the guy is just a terrible poster or trolling (which, of course, falls into the first category most of the time), but when somebody makes a hot take, does the worst possible job of presenting it, blames their own ineptitude on the readers, ignores or dismisses all brought up counterpoints, and does all of that with the most annoying tone of hostile, smug arrogance... it has to be one of the two.

[Eltosian Kadath]

11 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Continue ignoring the entire rest of the game to try and make a point, why don´t you.

What in the "story" am I ignoring (barring gameplay for the sake of argument) then?

 

24 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

Why do you think I asked you who killed Freddy 2 of Babenberg and Otto 2 of Bohemia? 

What would historical figure have to do with fictional stories? Is this a I can't distinguish reality from fiction moment for you?

 

19 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Go back to "what the author acknowledges is story" do not receive 200.

First off, the gameplay was designed intentionally by the game's "author". Second we see our gameplay acknowledged by the "author" as it playing out on the screen, as the "author" intended it to. Both are points I have made in this thread (admittedly not immediately, as they seemed obvious, and I pointed out the second point first, and later pointed out the first), which you ignored.

 

52 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

Granted, if my argument, like yours, relied on calling out another persons playstyle and experience without knowing said person or playstyle and making my own experience the measurement of the world, I would shut the fuck up, but you do you, as you do.

You made clear through your words that you were ignorant about the topic at hand, literally suggesting the series should do things with Permadeath in "the story" that they already had, suggesting only SoV changes dialogue with deaths, when the only FE games that I played where I can't think of at least one place where there isn't changed dialogue, or different scenes is Awakening (and even then, I mostly put that down to me finding that game mind numbing, not that there isn't something there), and half truths about how it functions mechanically in the OP, and then couched all of your comments about the gameplay in brash theoretical arguments, so distanced from any experience that they barely conform to the experience of actually playing a game with permadeath. It wasn't even clear if you had even watched someone play with permadeath, or simply heard a few factoids about it.

1 hour ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

True, not like I have made some threads in which I complain specifically about losing certain units (Marcia, Gilbert) which thankfully doesn´t happen often due to my overly cautios playstyle

Did losing Marcia make you pose the question to yourself "am I softlocked?" like you hypothesize in the OP? Sure losing what was probably the best unit in the game made her difficult to replace, but did you really think replacing the best unit in the game was the norm for replacing units?

 

34 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

Damn you really just recounted my own metaphor with a lot more words, the only thing to see here is how interesting a thread on the requirements of when to consider a unit a replacement is would be, considering your confusion with Amelia/Duessel.

If you are using Amelia, and after she dies, you replace the deployment slot with Duessel, wouldn't that be a replacement? If not, what would a "replacement" for Amelia be?

 

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

On 9/7/2023 at 2:09 PM, gnip said:

Yeah, not going to elaborate for a third time why I reject the loaded question. Dunno if the guy is just a terrible poster or trolling (which, of course, falls into the first category most of the time), but when somebody makes a hot take, does the worst possible job of presenting it, blames their own ineptitude on the readers, ignores or dismisses all brought up counterpoints, and does all of that with the most annoying tone of hostile, smug arrogance... it has to be one of the two.

lmao, "only what I aks must be answered, else I go away"

considering your posts didn´t amount to anything beyond selfenlightened rehearsels, nothing of value was lost

With that, I wish you all the best coping somewhere else.👋

On 9/7/2023 at 2:13 PM, Eltosian Kadath said:

If you are using Amelia, and after she dies, you replace the deployment slot with Duessel, wouldn't that be a replacement? If not, what would a "replacement" for Amelia be?

I think whether a unit is a replacment unit or not would depend on the role/niche the unit plays, the join time and the quality of the unit alltogether and with that what the devs gave any unit - as cavaliers SD Abel/Kain get replaced by Matthis, Vyland, Roshea yet I wouldn´t consider them additions ot the squad, but Hardin would probably be an addition and with that also a replacement to the army? I don´t think that Midia/Arran are good enough to be additions to the army, assuming healthy and trained Kain/Abel/Hardin but would probably work as replacements. Same with Ogma-Caesar, Navvare-Radd, but Athena might be considered an addition? I don´t know. I guess Lena is a replacement for Wrys, that outperforms it´s predecessor, same for Wendell (relative to Wrys)?

I don´t think Amelia,  as a growth unit and growth units in general anyway, has a replacement, but I think the comparison between her and Duessel, who may join just a chapter later depending on route is especially extreme. 

I was originally considering asking about Caeda relative to Palla/Catria, but refrained since Caeda does have a niche weapon that Palla/Catria can´t as easily fill (well Ridersbane). There´s Minerva as well, as of Caedas promotion she basically closes most stat gaps to Minerva, at the same time Minerva is probably the only other unit, besides a really, really used chapter 2 axeboy with the rank to use Hauteclere.

On 9/7/2023 at 2:13 PM, Eltosian Kadath said:

Did losing Marcia make you pose the question to yourself "am I softlocked?" like you hypothesize in the OP? Sure losing what was probably the best unit in the game made her difficult to replace, but did you really think replacing the best unit in the game was the norm for replacing units?

No, it didn´t "softlock me yet", since there is one or two more units in the game, the yet being a pretty important part of that initial statement, but that is ignorant on the whole "capable of less" which resulted in, myself also being at fault here, underestimating the movement cost of beach or sand tiles in chapter 10 and losing out on goodies. Is it a lot? Probably not. Is it gamebreaking? Obviously not. But it is less.

On 9/7/2023 at 2:13 PM, Eltosian Kadath said:

What would historical figure have to do with fictional stories? Is this a I can't distinguish reality from fiction moment for you?

Because they were also KIA during battle and noone knew whodunnit, back when the uncertainty of Ashnards death and who did it came up. 

On 9/7/2023 at 2:13 PM, Eltosian Kadath said:

Y) First off, the gameplay was designed intentionally by the game's "author". X) Second we see our gameplay acknowledged by the "author" as it playing out on the screen, as the "author" intended it to. Both are points I have made in this thread (admittedly not immediately, as they seemed obvious, and I pointed out the second point first, and later pointed out the first), which you ignored.

Y) This holds true for the first Kaga games, since to my understanding he was the big boss behind most everything and I dunno how game development works, but 2 things: Fire Emblem is an established franchise, with a set MO on how it plays, aside from the warriors offshots and TMS and Cipher. And I don´t think the gameplay is dictated by the writers responsible for the story? But again, no clue on game development.

If a game was sold as Fire Emblem, but played like Minecraft people would probably be upset (I imagine), that doesn´t mean you couldn´t tell a FE story. It´d be whack as all hell, but probably not impossible. Hell we have 3 FE games that don´t play like FE´s and I think the warrior offshoots tell the usual FE story? 

X) That´s not what I meant. I don´t think the writer behind the story of FE particularly cared about Oboro with my Iron Sword and Vulnerary. Acknowledging gameplay in FE means, in my opinion, that gameplay decision are acknowledged in writing.

You kill the Immculate One with Hunters Volley from Sniper Felix? Get a quote from Felix, cue epilogue, whole shebang. Do the same but with Paladin Ferdinand? Get a quote from Ferdinand, cue epilogue. Specifcally whack Immaculate One with Aymr from Edelgard? Get that specific cutscene, since Edelgard is slightly more relevant than either Felix or Ferdinand and cue epilogue. That´s my idea of story/gameplay integration. Getting that cutscene with Edelgard/Byleth doubleteaming the Immaculate One regardless of whoever did the last digit of damage? That goes against that as well.

On 9/7/2023 at 2:13 PM, Eltosian Kadath said:

You made clear through your words that you were ignorant about the topic at hand, literally suggesting the series should do things with Permadeath in "the story" that they already had, suggesting only SoV changes dialogue with deaths, when the only FE games that I played where I can't think of at least one place where there isn't changed dialogue, or different scenes is Awakening (and even then, I mostly put that down to me finding that game mind numbing, not that there isn't something there), and half truths about how it functions mechanically in the OP, and then couched all of your comments about the gameplay in brash theoretical arguments, so distanced from any experience that they barely conform to the experience of actually playing a game with permadeath. It wasn't even clear if you had even watched someone play with permadeath, or simply heard a few factoids about it.

Where does it do something like this,

Spoiler

On 7/26/2023 at 7:36 PM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

If Minerva dies in SD, and this is yet again a thought experiment divorced from the narrative reality of her relevant games, we lose not just a comrade, we also lose a Princess of Macedon, defector as she may be, the wielder of Hauteclere, an axe that rivals the Regalia of Archanea and last but not least the commander of the Whitewings. If Catria and Palla are recruited after Minerva were to fall we get a short "ah shit, she dead huh" from the two, but none of the above, not her being royalty with apparently some claim to the throne and no discussion in regards who will use a weapon of Hautecleres caliber. With Minerva gone, do the Whitewings just stop being the Whitewings? Would Palla perhaps try to take up the mantle? Maybe Minervas Wyvern didn´t die and Marth decides, you know what, we still need the Altean Airforce and bestows the Hauteclere onto Palla and boom, non-mastersealed Wyvern Palla, with an Axe rank but also a penalty to using Hauteclere because she´s got no experience with a weapon of this caliber. Of course, this completely omits the existence of Maria, and I´m not under the impression she´d give no commentary on her sisters passing.

And yes, I understand that shit like: "no discussion in regards who will use a weapon of Hautecleres caliber." is iffy because at the end of the day who uses what is up to player discretion.

 

hm? 

How come, why should something like mourning, like a subordinate or comrade taking up arms in another persons name, fall to the player? Why does it not affect people for more than one support, I ask knowing that this is a game with "limited" time to do/dwell on things.

In my eyes, there is pretty good potential in terms of gameplay to incorporate death, be it skills, mechanics, inherting classes, new unique classes alltogether, dedicated maps and I don´t think/feel FE does death as one of it´s supposed impactful driving forces justice. 

I dunno what mechanical halftruths I spread about permadeath.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Imuabicus der Fertige

[Samz707]

I have had no idea what's going on trying to understand what anyone has been saying for the past page.

I'll just say:

More FE7 Matthew situations where the game makes me feel guilty for getting a unit killed please.

[Eltosian Kadath]

37 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

With that, I wish you all the best coping somewhere else.👋

Its embarrassing when you pretend you won an argument you didn't.

 

On 9/12/2023 at 8:51 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

I think whether a unit is a replacment unit or not would depend on the role/niche the unit plays, the join time and the quality of the unit alltogether and with that what the devs gave any unit - as cavaliers SD Abel/Kain get replaced by Matthis, Vyland, Roshea yet I wouldn´t consider them additions ot the squad, but Hardin would probably be an addition and with that also a replacement to the army? I don´t think that Midia/Arran are good enough to be additions to the army, assuming healthy and trained Kain/Abel/Hardin but would probably work as replacements. Same with Ogma-Caesar, Navvare-Radd, but Athena might be considered an addition? I don´t know. I guess Lena is a replacement for Wrys, that outperforms it´s predecessor, same for Wendell (relative to Wrys)?

I don´t think Amelia,  as a growth unit and growth units in general anyway, has a replacement, but I think the comparison between her and Duessel, who may join just a chapter later depending on route is especially extreme. 

I was originally considering asking about Caeda relative to Palla/Catria, but refrained since Caeda does have a niche weapon that Palla/Catria can´t as easily fill (well Ridersbane). There´s Minerva as well, as of Caedas promotion she basically closes most stat gaps to Minerva, at the same time Minerva is probably the only other unit, besides a really, really used chapter 2 axeboy with the rank to use Hauteclere.

A lot of those replacements you stated are plenty usable, I have seen multiple people showing off their endgame Matthises on this very board for instance, with the original units they are made to replace given higher ranking thanks to higher availability, and people not giving the replacements a chance. Sure some take some extra care at first due to distinctly low levels (I am looking at Rad with this one), but even then I have seen people turn them into key units even on H5.

Although I do think this rigid approach to replacements misses one of the important aspects of replacing a dead unit, that you don't have to fill the empty deployment slot with a unit in the same niche. If you don't think Rad is good enough to replace Navvare due to that low level, you could instead replace him with Wendell or Roger, and that changes how you play without it necessarily being a decrease in power.

 

55 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

I don´t think Amelia,  as a growth unit and growth units in general anyway, has a replacement,

Even in your rigid approach to replacements I don't think this really holds water, as growth units fill recognizable roles, their main distinction with other units usually being that their quality varies far more with level of investment.

 

55 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

but I think the comparison between her and Duessel, who may join just a chapter later depending on route is especially extreme. 

It was an extreme example to emphasize the point, but I don't think it necessarily an unrealistic example either.

 

1 hour ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

No, it didn´t "softlock me yet", since there is one or two more units in the game, the yet being a pretty important part of that initial statement, but that is ignorant on the whole "capable of less" which resulted in, myself also being at fault here, underestimating the movement cost of beach or sand tiles in chapter 10 and losing out on goodies. Is it a lot? Probably not. Is it gamebreaking? Obviously not. But it is less.

Usually you have so much potential on the bench that you can't access due to deployment limits, that losses aren't noticeably reducing your capability, although it is potentially forcing you to change them. Even in the few where it doesn't, the way low manning works in these games complicates the question as well. It takes a lot of death before "am I softlocked yet" isn't a ridiculously overblown question, like asking if this papercut will kill you yet, even if enough of them might.

 

58 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Because they were also KIA during battle and noone knew whodunnit, back when the uncertainty of Ashnards death and who did it came up. 

And Ashnard's death is fiction, a prominent figure going KIA during a battle without people (read audience in the fictional case) knowing who done it is far more normal in reality, and a very rare, and deliberate decision to make in a story, and anyone not actively ignoring the gameplay as a part of the story would recognize that isn't what is going on here. The gameplay restricts the characters capable of killing Ashnard to ensure the one that kills him is an important character with clear reasons to do so, to further emphasize that who kills him is important.

 

2 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

If a game was sold as Fire Emblem, but played like Minecraft people would probably be upset (I imagine), that doesn´t mean you couldn´t tell a FE story. It´d be whack as all hell, but probably not impossible. Hell we have 3 FE games that don´t play like FE´s and I think the warrior offshoots tell the usual FE story? 

I do not see your point here. If they did insist on a Fire Emblem game that plays like Minecraft, that would still be a deliberate decision by the game's "author".

 

2 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

And I don´t think the gameplay is dictated by the writers responsible for the story? But again, no clue on game development.

Usually both are dictated to by a director of the game, as are the people responsible for cutscene, the people responsible for the music, the people responsible for the gameplay, and people responsible for other visual elements like the modeling, etc. Things can get messy when multiple companies are involved (and they usually are), and it tends to be a collaborative process with multiple people working on each of these fields, but the writers aren't the master of the story, any more than the creators of the visuals, or the sounds are.

 

2 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

That´s not what I meant. I don´t think the writer behind the story of FE particularly cared about Oboro with my Iron Sword and Vulnerary. Acknowledging gameplay in FE means, in my opinion, that gameplay decision are acknowledged in writing.

I find this as silly as insisting an adlibbed line in a movie isn't a part of the movie's story, as the writers aren't the ones in ultimate control of a game's story, just as the screenplay writer isn't the master of a movie's story. Side note, I am specifically thinking of the iconic dying monologue from Blade Runner when I made that comparison. These are collaborative stories even before the player's inclusion, and how much the player is included in the story telling is a deliberate aspect of the game's design.

 

On 9/12/2023 at 8:51 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Where does it do something like this,

  Reveal hidden contents

On 7/26/2023 at 10:36 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

If Minerva dies in SD, and this is yet again a thought experiment divorced from the narrative reality of her relevant games, we lose not just a comrade, we also lose a Princess of Macedon, defector as she may be, the wielder of Hauteclere, an axe that rivals the Regalia of Archanea and last but not least the commander of the Whitewings. If Catria and Palla are recruited after Minerva were to fall we get a short "ah shit, she dead huh" from the two, but none of the above, not her being royalty with apparently some claim to the throne and no discussion in regards who will use a weapon of Hautecleres caliber. With Minerva gone, do the Whitewings just stop being the Whitewings? Would Palla perhaps try to take up the mantle? Maybe Minervas Wyvern didn´t die and Marth decides, you know what, we still need the Altean Airforce and bestows the Hauteclere onto Palla and boom, non-mastersealed Wyvern Palla, with an Axe rank but also a penalty to using Hauteclere because she´s got no experience with a weapon of this caliber. Of course, this completely omits the existence of Maria, and I´m not under the impression she´d give no commentary on her sisters passing.

And yes, I understand that shit like: "no discussion in regards who will use a weapon of Hautecleres caliber." is iffy because at the end of the day who uses what is up to player discretion.

 

hm? 

 I have already pointed out how this could play out in the gameplay

 

1 hour ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

How come, why should something like mourning, like a subordinate or comrade taking up arms in another persons name, fall to the player?

First off, moments of mourning comes up a fair bit with script changes influenced by permadeath, but I don't see why it would be so wrong for these kind of things to fall to the player. Taking up arms in another person's name has a distinctly gameplay feel to it, and even if they tried to force it through the scripted scenes, it is going to fall very flat if they don't suddenly force deploy the unit taking up the cause

 

1 hour ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Why does it not affect people for more than one support, I ask knowing that this is a game with "limited" time to do/dwell on things.

In honor of Samz707 's comment, I think I will let Hector explain this one.

(admittedly the scene a bit later where Hector talks about burying Leila beside her beloved Matthew might be what they were thinking of)

 

On 9/12/2023 at 8:51 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

In my eyes, there is pretty good potential in terms of gameplay to incorporate death, be it skills, mechanics, inherting classes, new unique classes alltogether, dedicated maps and I don´t think/feel FE does death as one of it´s supposed impactful driving forces justice. 

If you include the Kaga Sagas, you see a little bit of that show up...

 

On 9/12/2023 at 8:51 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

 

I dunno what mechanical halftruths I spread about permadeath.

I was thinking of

On 7/24/2023 at 10:49 AM, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Also paralogues can be lost if the corresponding parent is gone. Bohoo, no child soldiers.

When the Fates games give you access to the child paralogues, even after both parents have died, even when fathers are usually force deployed. This is at most true in half the games with child paralogues (and if you interpret Fates as multiple games, either by route, or by distinct games sold, it could be as low as a quarter of the games), and there are ways to interpret that statement as somewhat true, hence more of a half truth.

[Samz707]

22 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

First off, moments of mourning comes up a fair bit with script changes influenced by permadeath, but I don't see why it would be so wrong for these kind of things to fall to the player. Taking up arms in another person's name has a distinctly gameplay feel to it, and even if they tried to force it through the scripted scenes, it is going to fall very flat if they don't suddenly force deploy the unit taking up the cause

 

In honor of Samz707 's comment, I think I will let Hector explain this one.

(admittedly the scene a bit later where Hector talks about burying Leila beside her beloved Matthew might be what they were thinking of)

 

 

I was thinking of the later scene but that scene is cool also.

Having the game remind you that people are dead due to your mistakes hits harder than forced cutscene deaths. (Especially awful ones that some of the games are so fond of for some reason.)