Fire Emblem Fates Cuts Petting From English Version

[TheMysteriousGX]

Because she needed to do it. She needed to force her way through that video game to get the best ending, and not the one that left you feeling depressed as all hell. In order to get the best ending in Suikoden you need all 108 Stars of Destiny, all the characters recruited, which required multiple goes at this stupid gambling mini-game. That's the thing with some of these annoying mechanics. Sometimes you NEED to do it if you want to access some parts of content that you actually want to get to. That seemed to be the case here too, if you wanted to get some of the higher parts of the characters forming relationships. So not only is it stupid, it's now intrusive.

No one forced her to do it. There was no NEED to do it. It's just a game which you can stop playing at any moment if you don't like it. Why would you do something that you don't find fun? I just don't get it.

It was required to get the ending they wanted, obviously.

But hey, no need to complain about that, just like everybody who complained about originally needing to play multiplayer to get all the endings to Mass Effect 3. Nobody gets to complain, they should just ignore it!

Gameplay bugs? Nobody's forcing you to play, just put it down and don't complain! Bad port annoying you? No complaining! Predatory DLC? Just don't buy it, no complaining!

 

[wulf3n]

Predatory DLC? Just don't buy it, no complaining!

Complain all you want, but if you still buy it nothing's going to change.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Predatory DLC? Just don't buy it, no complaining!

Complain all you want, but if you still buy it nothing's going to change.

That's why I put " predatory" in there. Imagine having a bad DLC option, yeah. I mean, someone might like it, therefor we shouldn't say this optional, predatory thing sucks? Letting other people know why Day One, On-Disk DLC sucks might lead to them not buying it either, instead of just slurping it up because they haven't really thought about it.

 

[wulf3n]

That's why I put " predatory" in there.

I think what's ultimately being said though is action speaks louder than words.

Imagine having a bad DLC option, yeah. I mean, someone might like it, therefor we shouldn't say this optional, predatory thing sucks?

You can say it sucks until the cows come home, but the more people like it the more people will disagree. That disagreement will often take the form of "If you don't like something why are you here?"

Letting other people know why Day One, On-Disk DLC sucks might lead to them not buying it either, instead of just slurping it up because they haven't really thought about it.

If they haven't really thought about it then listening to random people on the internet isn't much help. It just means they're going to get their misinformation from somewhere else.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That's why I put " predatory" in there.

I think what's ultimately being said though is action speaks louder than words.

Just because actions are louder doesn't mean words are silent. If you're vocal about disliking something, and don't buy the thing, the company then has a data-point for why the thing didn't sell.

Imagine having a bad DLC option, yeah. I mean, someone might like it, therefor we shouldn't say this optional, predatory thing sucks?

You can say it sucks until the cows come home, but the more people like it the more people will disagree. That disagreement will often take the form of "If you don't like something why are you here?"

The answer to which, in context, is "because it's making the thing I like worse."

Letting other people know why Day One, On-Disk DLC sucks might lead to them not buying it either, instead of just slurping it up because they haven't really thought about it.

If they haven't really thought about it then listening to random people on the internet isn't much help. It just means they're going to get their misinformation from somewhere else.

:-/

Sooo, if someone hasn't heard an argument, you might as well not inform them, because they might not listen to you? Lots of people hold daft ideas because they've never really thought about them, and unless something happens to start them thinking about it, they'll probably have those daft ideas forever.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

Because she needed to do it. She needed to force her way through that video game to get the best ending, and not the one that left you feeling depressed as all hell. In order to get the best ending in Suikoden you need all 108 Stars of Destiny, all the characters recruited, which required multiple goes at this stupid gambling mini-game. That's the thing with some of these annoying mechanics. Sometimes you NEED to do it if you want to access some parts of content that you actually want to get to. That seemed to be the case here too, if you wanted to get some of the higher parts of the characters forming relationships. So not only is it stupid, it's now intrusive.

No one forced her to do it. There was no NEED to do it. It's just a game which you can stop playing at any moment if you don't like it. Why would you do something that you don't find fun? I just don't get it.

It was required to get the ending they wanted, obviously.

So why get the ending if getting it is no fun?

But hey, no need to complain about that, just like everybody who complained about originally needing to play multiplayer to get all the endings to Mass Effect 3. Nobody gets to complain, they should just ignore it!

I know I would. Why would I care about some ending if getting it is not fun?

Gameplay bugs? Nobody's forcing you to play, just put it down and don't complain! Bad port annoying you? No complaining! Predatory DLC? Just don't buy it, no complaining!

Bugs are unintended features. Obviously they don't count. Bad port is the same. Now DLC is a whole another issue but I won't dwell too deeply into the subject. I'll just say that some DLC are okay, some aren't.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It was required to get the ending they wanted, obviously.

So why get the ending if getting it is no fun?

Because the ending is fun?

I mean, I don't like Interceptor combat in X-Com: Enemy Unknown, but it's required to progress with the rest of the game I do like. That shouldn't mean that I can't complain about Interceptor combat.

I'm not getting your argument.

 

[Ramzal]

I'm actually pretty sure that most people outraging over this haven't even played the game, let alone put Fire Emblem in their hands but want to have something to complain about.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm actually pretty sure that most people outraging over this haven't even played the game, let alone put Fire Emblem in their hands but want to have something to complain about.

Makes sense. Most gamers would already know that Nintendo of America has been doing this sort of thing since 1984. But now they get to rage at "SJWs" or whatever.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

I'm actually pretty sure that most people outraging over this haven't even played the game, let alone put Fire Emblem in their hands but want to have something to complain about.

Makes sense. Most gamers would already know that Nintendo of America has been doing this sort of thing since 1984. But now they get to rage at "SJWs" or whatever.

Just because it's been done before doesn't make it right this time.

 

[JamesStone]

Oh no...that was holding the game together. Really, is anyone seriously going to miss this?

I can't believe people are seriously justifying the removal of an entire part of the game, when has that EVER been ok?

Since the time ratings were invented, and if you take the word "game" out of the question, since the fucking dawn of humanity.


Seriously, what do people don't understand here? Nintendo increases its sales by taking away a part of their game that isn't particularly appealing to almost no one in the Western world but has the potential to weird people out enough to not buy the goddamn game, or have the game have a bad rep by being bought almost exclusively for features like this. There's a reason the Dead or Alive: eXtreme beachball series, despite having very good beachball mechanics. And Nintendo is trying to avoid this fame.

It's a change motivated 100% by economical reasons. Why are people acting like a company indulging in intentional self-censorship to benefit itself is something new, or that is worth being upset about IF THE FEATURE WASN'T A MAJOR SELLING POINT TO THEM?

 

[Erttheking]

Because she needed to do it. She needed to force her way through that video game to get the best ending, and not the one that left you feeling depressed as all hell. In order to get the best ending in Suikoden you need all 108 Stars of Destiny, all the characters recruited, which required multiple goes at this stupid gambling mini-game. That's the thing with some of these annoying mechanics. Sometimes you NEED to do it if you want to access some parts of content that you actually want to get to. That seemed to be the case here too, if you wanted to get some of the higher parts of the characters forming relationships. So not only is it stupid, it's now intrusive.

No one forced her to do it. There was no NEED to do it. It's just a game which you can stop playing at any moment if you don't like it. Why would you do something that you don't find fun? I just don't get it.

That's a non-argument. What's more, your only counter-argument to an intrusive, interrupting mechanic is just to not play the game? This game, took dozens of hours to get to this point, one of her favorite games of all time, and when she got to this stupid and annoying segment, she should've just stopped playing? This argument didn't work for people who didn't like Spec Ops the Line and to be frank it's not working for me.

Why would she do something she doesn't find fun? Because if you don't get every single recruitable character in Suikoden II, both of the main character's best friends die and he ends up becoming a puppet to be used by ambitious political figures and generals. Your "Just don't play aspects you don't like" attitude is nice in theory, but it's impractical in execution.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

snip

Well, I guess you just need to keep on playing those games even when you don't like them. I'll keep on focusing on games that I like and I will enjoy every minute of them.

 

[Hades]

What I find interesting is that most opponents of Skinships removal argue that they are against Censorship out of principle. You hear this a lot more then you do people outright defending the merits of Skinship.

 

[Erttheking]

snip

Well, I guess you just need to keep on playing those games even when you don't like them. I'll keep on focusing on games that I like and I will enjoy every minute of them.

Games that are enjoyable every minute? You mean the ones that don't exist? The perfect video game does not exist. No matter how much you like a video game, there will be moments where it will stumble, where you will enjoy yourself less than you should.

Oh and if you refuse to play a game where you don't encounter something that annoys or irritates you for even a minute, you probably won't be able to experience that many games. So how do you do it? If you're playing a game and something irritates you even slightly you stop playing it on the spot and never come back to it? Because if I were to follow your advice I'd never have finished some of the games that I consider some of my favorite games of all times. Should I have stopped playing Dark Souls because I didn't particularly care for the Four Kings boss fight? Should I have stopped playing Darkest Dungeon because I didn't like how I can't take my higher level heroes on lower level missions? Should I have stopped playing Sunless Sea because I didn't like how the Iron Republic permanently reduces my stats sometimes? Should I have never finished the Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time because I didn't like the forced stealth section near the beginning? Should I have stopped playing Super Mario RPG Legend of the Seven Stars because I couldn't figure out how to beat Jonathan Jones for awhile?

I think not. Oh I'm still going to complain about them, but I'm still going to play them.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

Oh and if you refuse to play a game where you don't encounter something that annoys or irritates you for even a minute, you probably won't be able to experience that many games. So how do you do it? If you're playing a game and something irritates you even slightly you stop playing it on the spot and never come back to it?

I don't get irritated that easily but yes, if something annoys me, I'm going to stop playing it. There is literally no reason to spend time not enjoying things.

 

[Erttheking]

Oh and if you refuse to play a game where you don't encounter something that annoys or irritates you for even a minute, you probably won't be able to experience that many games. So how do you do it? If you're playing a game and something irritates you even slightly you stop playing it on the spot and never come back to it?

I don't get irritated that easily but yes, if something annoys me, I'm going to stop playing it. There is literally no reason to spend time not enjoying things.

Well then, you're going to have to accept the fact that you seem to be in the minority on this. People enjoy some games so much, just for the sheer emotional attachment they have, that they force their way through moments of irritation to get to the good parts. I dislike this skinship crap but if it was in the game I'd probably force my way through it. With the sound off and no one watching, but I'd do it. I'd sure as hell complain about it though.

And that's not how the word literally works.

 

[wulf3n]

Just because actions are louder doesn't mean words are silent. If you're vocal about disliking something, and don't buy the thing, the company then has a data-point for why the thing didn't sell.

It would be good if that were the case, but from what I've seen most just complain and still buy.

The answer to which, in context, is "because it's making the thing I like worse."

It's interesting. That's what people say about these criticisms.

Sooo, if someone hasn't heard an argument, you might as well not inform them, because they might not listen to you? Lots of people hold daft ideas because they've never really thought about them, and unless something happens to start them thinking about it, they'll probably have those daft ideas forever.

More so that if people haven't thought about a situation, hearing more opinions on the matter probably won't get them started. They'll just follow the most charismatic opinion, which isn't always the "right" one.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Just because actions are louder doesn't mean words are silent. If you're vocal about disliking something, and don't buy the thing, the company then has a data-point for why the thing didn't sell.

It would be good if that were the case, but from what I've seen most just complain and still buy.

Hey, just because you buy and like a thing doesn't mean you need to like 100% of the thing. Nothing is perfect.

The answer to which, in context, is "because it's making the thing I like worse."

It's interesting. That's what people say about these criticisms.

Yup. Differing opinions on the Internet. Both are valid.

Sooo, if someone hasn't heard an argument, you might as well not inform them, because they might not listen to you? Lots of people hold daft ideas because they've never really thought about them, and unless something happens to start them thinking about it, they'll probably have those daft ideas forever.

More so that if people haven't thought about a situation, hearing more opinions on the matter probably won't get them started. They'll just follow the most charismatic opinion, which isn't always the "right" one.

Sooo... why? Why argue anything? It's the lazy way out.

 

[chocolate pickles]

Good. As an englishman, i appreciate them cutting creepy, unnecessary features that don't need to be there.