Fire Emblem 'Casual mode'

[ninjapenguin1414]

I usualy play games through several types of dificulty, starting with normal and eventualy beating hard mode, sutch is the case with No More Heroes, Devil May Cry 3 : Special Edition, and i have no problem with this game having an easy difficulty mode. I remember losing so many characters in fire emblem 7, that made the game a bit of a pain for me sometimes.

The only problem i have with Fire Emblem: Awakening, is that they don't use those awesome sprite animations, that were in the GBA games.

soo cool...

I had the same reaction to Shadow Dragon on the DS the 3D sprites made me want to stop playing the game, I'm really glad Awakening is at least consistent with the background and everything else being 3D

 

[recruit00]

First off, the Dark Souls thread is that way.

Second, difficulty for some games, higher levels are what it should be like permadeath in FE and Dark Souls.

Third, is the difficulty in this one more like Sacred Stones of FE 7. If it is the latter, I may pass because although I do like difficulty, that type of difficulty feels too much like, "If you don't make the exact move, you will lose". Sacred Stones was good because it was difficult and challenging yet possible. Gave up on trying to save that idiot Franz though...

 

[Eliwood10]

I adore Fire Emblem, and I had to make an account just to chime in on this thread, so... hi.

I echo with what most everyone has been saying here; no one is forcing you play on casual mode (unless you're playing the demo interestingly enough.) and it's a good way to attract players that may have been put off by the permadeath feature.

I would like to add though that just because your characters don't die permanently on casual, doesn't mean there is no punishment for letting them die. If a character dies in the middle of a chapter you lose any potential growth for that character in that chapter, making them less effective in the future. You also find yourself short on forces within the chapter making clearing it that much more difficult.

Is it as bad as losing a character permanently? No, but it's still a punishment, and it's actually more of a punishment than restarting a level completely, where all you lose it time.

 

[Yopaz]

I agree with almost everything you say, but it's hardly save scumming when you go back 30 minutes in progress over a mistake. That's one of the things you can do in casual though. In classic you save at the start of a mission and if you have to quit you get to make a save point where you can start from the next time, but this is not a save point, it's more to keep you from losing progress.

But it's hardly respecting the mechanic of consequentialism included in the game. The game intends that your decisions have lasting consequences, and that mistakes make the game different, and potentially more challenging. If you think you've got to respect the game, you have to respect that mechanic. Which OP clearly doesn't.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't savescum, and I've certainly done my share of it. Particularly in Shogun 2. I've got absolutely no trouble with it. But, I wouldn't argue against a casual mode in that game, that say, allowed you to reverse time. But I'm saying, the argument about not including this casual mode can't be made unless similar styles of play are also accepted as invalid. Having more than one attempt at the fight is clearly not the intended way to go through, so the argument about purity and respecting the game is invalid.

I'm not arguing against what you're saying now. I am simply pointing out that this isn't save scumming. If you save before sending a unit to fight another unit then reload when the result isn't as good as you wanted, that is savescumming. If you save only after doing especially well, that is savescumming.

If you save once and only go back to that point once things go very bad meaning half an hour or more of your progress is lost from it, that is not savescumming. It might not respect the game, but it's not savescumming. If you want to accuse someone of savescumming, try to consider if it actually is savescumming first. He was in fact annoyed at the fact that it's possible to savescum in casual. Now he is an elitist fan and I am really annoyed that he doesn't want the game to have casual mode despite this not affecting game one bit, so I could probably make some accusations myself out of annoyance.

 

[Kilo24]

Frankly, I'm fairly happy with the addition. Based on my play of Sacred Stones, Fire Emblem (on Hard Mode) forces you to take attacks that may kill your characters in one hit if they make a 1-3% or so crit. You can mitigate a lot of risk in the game, but you can't do all of it - you run the not-insubstantial possibility of permanently losing characters to pure luck. That forces you to either lose the character permanently or reset the mission.

This isn't Dark Souls. In Dark Souls, you lose a few minutes of progress, and run the risk of losing your currency if you die twice (but you can get it back fairly easily.)

This isn't Spelunky. Spelunky is incredibly random, but it's very short and designed around it.

FTL is fair enough, and crew members can be replaced. Dungeons of Dredmor has enough items and skills to avoid death if you're careful.

This is closer to Nethack, where you can walk on a random tile and get insta-killed by the poison in a spiked pit. There's always a non-zero chance of that for anybody until they get poison resistance.

Permadeath can be a great mechanic, but it's not a good fit for Fire Emblem IMO. Other people have different opinions, and that's fine - the mode doesn't need to be for them.

 

[The Hero Killer]

I'm not sure where I stand on this. I normally instantly restart or reload my file if a unit that I cared about died on past games but I dont like the inclusion of this casual mode.

I suppose the difference lies in that I am actually taking the time to start the entire chapter over, where the casual mode players can just keep going and get their characters back at the end without putting in the work to see what went wrong.

 

[V8 Ninja]

You're wondering whether or not you should be angry over completely optional difficulty sliders. It's not as if the game is pandering to the audience that disliked the perma-death either; the game just has an extra mode that allows for those that did hate the perma-death to enjoy the other content of the game.

 

[TreuloseTomate]

If you play Casual Mode in Fire Emblem, you are not playing Fire Emblem.
If you play Easy Mode in Dark Souls, you are not playing Dark Souls.
If you play Kids Mode in Viewtiful Joe, you are not playing Viewtiful Joe.

If all that matters to you is the difficaulty your not worth talking to

OT: i gotta say im in favor of this cause its getting my nephew to actually play the games.

Thank you. Where did I say, that difficulty is all that matters?

im sorry but your post read like this to me:

"if you cant play the game at the same level as me your not really playing it"

and if you go back and read your post youll notice it comes off like that.

I didn't mean it like that. I don't care how anybody plays their games. If you think, you'll have more fun with casual mode, go ahead, hf. All I'm saying is, that's not Fire Emblem. Like diet coke is not real coke. The tension is part of the design.
Also, if you are so interested in video games that you are discussing it on the escapist forums, you are probably "experienced" enough to enjoy Fire Emblem's normal mode. They didn't include casual mode for you. It's just there to widen the audience, to get people playing that normaly don't play video games.

 

[Cpu46]

It increases the target audience to those who aren't in it for the same reasons as you or I. I'm fine with it existing and being in the game, I won't use it ever for my own playthroughs but if I am trying to introduce someone to the game I'll start them on it.

Your avatar wtf? Suplexing a deer..

To be completely honest this anime is one of my all time favorites. I mean I still have no clue what 90% of the story was but it sure was fun watching it.

Spoiler: abandon hope all ye who enter here

Nichijou cares not for logic!​

 

[Talyn Wulf]

I think that the name of the easiest mode in Deus Ex: Human Revolution sums up my feelings on all this: Tell me a Story. It's why I am a gamer instead of a bookworm. I get more engrossed and like a story better if I can interact with it. If the gameplay is good, I will replay it on harder settings, but I ALWAYS begin by beating it on the easiest mode so I can experience the story. Therefore, I cannot "detract from my own experience" by playing with all the ease I want because that makes my first playthrough experience what I want.
On a related note, about the first post in this quote chain, because of this I can't even "play" Dark Souls, period. The story is, shall we say.... Not up to par with the stuff I'm used to. Plus the game is exercise in patience for the reward of having done it rather than getting more exposition. I really couldn't carry on with after a while because I had no motivation to beat the next creature. However, I do not think that it's a bad game, just not one that I can enjoy.
In summary, there are a lot of ways to play and yours is not the "best". If you say it is, you're wrong. Play it your way, I'll play it mine and we'll both have the most amount of fun that we possibly could with that game. And that's what gaming is all about: having fun. And I will hunt for games that give me that fun. Games that tell a compelling or at least interesting/funny story. And are fun to play, or else they just become an exercise in frustration.

What are you talking about? I never said anything about difficulty in other games.

I said that I think that playing the game on classic mode is required for the best experience in Fire Emblem. Reread my post and look at my points before ranting about other games.

Oi. YOU never said anything about difficulty in other games but the rest of the quote chain did, and stop telling me how to have fun. Classic mode will make some people too mad to keep playing, and therefore will not be the best experience for everyone in Fire Emblem. It's probably why they added it in the first place, so more people would be able to have fun with the game.

 

[Talyn Wulf]

Oi. YOU never said anything about difficulty in other games but the rest of the quote chain did, and stop telling me how to have fun. Classic mode will make some people too mad to keep playing, and therefore will not be the best experience for everyone in Fire Emblem. It's probably why they added it in the first place, so more people would be able to have fun with the game.

Ugh... You still didn't read my post... No one's telling you how to have fun, and if classic mode makes you too mad, then you really shouldn't be playing computer games as a whole and should instead be working on improving yourself as a person. You know what? Find me one person who's played Classic mode in Fire Emblem and gotten too stressed and I'll realize your point as being remotely valid.

Now... Read this part carefully, and yes I am being condescending here because you've failed to read my post twice now. Pay special attention to the BIG LETTERS as those words are IMPORTANT.

I. DON'T. CARE. IF. YOU. PLAY. ON. EASY.

HOWEVER! Fire Emblem is a franchise that has been designed around the death system. THE DEATH SYSTEM IS A KEY FEATURE OF FIRE EMBLEM and it is so for IMMERSION and INVESTMENT. When permanent death is in place, you build an EMOTIONAL CONNECTION to your characters, so when they die, IT HAS AN IMPACT ON YOU AS A PLAYER.

If you REMOVE all of the above, then THAT PORTION OF THE EXPERIENCE IS COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE GAME.

So from this, I DO NOT care if you play on easy mode, however, to a new player, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IT.

Fire Emblem has never been the hardest game series unless you play hard mode, which I still think is worse than normal mode in Fire Emblem,[footnote]The reason I think this is because the game hits a difficulty where you HAVE to restart the game, and treat your characters like spreadsheets instead of playing for fun and having the possibility of continuing the game with them deceased[/footnote] If you were to label the normal mode of Fire Emblem as easy mode, I don't think people would see the difference.

Ugh. You are missing my point. You can't recommend anything with regards as to which difficulty a random player should play on and people are looking for different things from a game. The experience of a game is what people want to make of it, which why it's such a popular thing. I, for one, hate permadeath unless you get rewarded for dying (see Realm of the Mad God for how that works). I admit that I have little patience for games like Fire Emblem or XCOM: Enemy Unknown, but I might play them if my units didn't get killed of for good with nothing to help alleviate the issue of being down a strong unit. By saying what difficulty I should play on to get the "whole" experience, you are in fact telling me how I should have fun with the game. Maybe I am missing some part of the game, but what if I don't care about that part? It doesn't detract from the most important part of the game: how I choose to experience it for maximum fun, for me personally. Also, your point about how I shouldn't be playing computer games and should be improving myself as a person? Wow, man, just wow. There's a big difference between being able to and wanting to. I CAN play most any game on the hardest setting, I just don't want to because then I can't advance the story at a good pace. If the gameplay is worthy, I will replay it later on harder settings for the challenge, but I view games as a storytelling medium first and foremost.
EDIT: Just noticed something about the exact wording of your post. You DO care if I play games on easy, particularly Fire Emblem. That's what the word "however" means, it's a negation of what was just said.

 

[McMarbles]

If you play Casual Mode in Fire Emblem, you are not playing Fire Emblem.
If you play Easy Mode in Dark Souls, you are not playing Dark Souls.
If you play Kids Mode in Viewtiful Joe, you are not playing Viewtiful Joe.

If you actually care about anyone's difficulty level other than your own, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think its a good idea. Having to reset the game everytime some guy gets a crit at the wrong time and kills your guy, no matter how well you planned, is frustrating. I think adding the ability to not have to deal with that changes the game but not necessarily making it worse. The same strategy is there and the same game is there but the invisible rule of "and never let any unit die or the level restarts" is gone.

I like the idea.

Of course then again, I've learn that some gamers are just masochist that want the game to punish them when they fail. (even if its only a perceived punishment... No, I will not stop being angry about PoP 2008)

 

[RomanceIsDead]

as if you didn't just turn your gameboy off everytime your hero died...

 

[Cheesepower5]

I dunno if this has been said yet, but you actually can unlock a difficulty above Lunatic. Not sure what the new name is for it, since even though I'm in Canada, I can't afford it yet. :/

 

[Talyn Wulf]

Ugh. You are missing my point. You can't recommend anything with regards as to which difficulty a random player should play on and people are looking for different things from a game. The experience of a game is what people want to make of it, which why it's such a popular thing.

No... No it isn't...

It's a fact that if a portion of the game is taken away, then everything that the portion of the game brought IS TAKEN AWAY. You can't dispute that, so stop trying.

No, I mean it. Stop trying.

I'm done here, ignorance is way too bliss.

You're right about one thing: Ignorance is way too bliss.
I can buy 500 Lego pieces and make a castle using only 400, and nothing is lost. Yes, I have an extra 100 pieces that I didn't use, but that didn't stop me from making a cool 400 block castle, and the next smallest set is only 300. So, it might not be the WHOLE game but that doesn't mean that I need it to have the most amount of fun.

 

[Lunar Templar]

the game play style you like is still in the game right?

you can still play the 'punishingly difficult' version right?

then wheres the problem?

 

[TaboriHK]

Rule number one of gaming should always be: the way YOU prefer to play the game is not the ONLY right way a game should be able to be enjoyed.

 

[Cheesepower5]

the game play style you like is still in the game right?

you can still play the 'punishingly difficult' version right?

then wheres the problem?

There is no such thing as punishingly difficult after you get Nosferatu and Galeforce, trust me.

 

[RandV80]

Honestly, it's there to make the game more accessible to newcomers and for people who don't really have a head for strategy. If having the mode there gets more people to buy the game, so be it, I just won't play in that mode myself. I like the fact that lsing the characters means they are gone, it adds that extra caution to your game. I suppose this mode will introduce the problem of 'if [character] dies they won't get any more experience from this level at all and I'll be down a fighter', putting you at a disadvantage anyway.

I dislike not being able to save at any point though, quick-saving was a feature I needed since I often have to leave at a moments noticed and some chapters are long.

Yeah this mode sounds nice to me because the bolded is how I'm used to playing these kinds of games. Shining Force, Vandal Hearts, FFTactics, Ogre Battle, Tactics Ogre (it starts with permadeath but you get a resurrection spell partway through), Disgaea, and so on. Also to me the funnest & most rewarding battles are the ones where you just get by the skin of your teeth with a rag tag group of survivors. I recall on a play through of the 1st Vandal Hearts on the PS1 there's a level where you're ambushed in the streets by powerful foes and a number of bosses and to 'win' you just have to get your main character to the exit alive. The map setup allowed for some divide and conquer, so I decided to attack rather than retreat... and actually managed to beat them all. I had like 4 characters battered and bruised left by the end but I pulled it off and felt great. This wouldn't be an option if there was permadeath.

As much as I love the tension that meaningful death brings in other genre's, as much as I want to I just can't get behind it in a JRPG, strategy or otherwise. Whenever I play a Fire Emblem game the perfectionist in my just can't allow for anyone to be lost so as much as I hate it I end up save scumming. And Fire Emblem isn't the only one, in the Suikoden series tactical section, or the game Suikoden Tactics, if a character 'dies' there's a random chance they're dead permanently. Dragon Force, a great game for the Sega Saturn that probably not a lot of people played because it was on the Sega Saturn, did this as well. There was one other Genesis series that was more similar to Fire Emblem than Shining Force that I think did it, but can't remember the name (It let you buy troops to surround your hero characters and battles played out like Advance Wars).

So yeah I think the option to do either or sounds great. I don't know if I'll be able to play it because I may never get a 3DS, but I'd certainly like to and if I could I'd probably set it to Lunatic/Casual mode.