Silvanus said:
Logience said:
Why? The point of Fire Emblem is to go through the levels preventing units from getting beaten at all. If a unit gets killed, you're supposed to reset, figure out what went wrong, and do the level over in a manner that'll prevent this. Getting used to units getting killed is a terrible habit.
Like I said: Take your time, learn how to play, and the rest will flow from there.
The point of
any game is to get through without dying (except maybe Limbo). This just seems to punish failure rather excessively for a first playthrough.
If resetting the battle is always an option, that's fine. I hadn't realised that.
Yeah, you can always reset the battle.
For the difficulty without classic, imagine an RTS where as long as you won the battle, every single one of your units would return at full health at the end of it. You'd end up just steamrolling the enemy, because you'd fight their army, and then your army would respawn, and you could just charge their defences without having to worry about keeping your people alive.
Or a game of Civ where whenever you capture a city, you get all the units that city killed back at full health.
It just kind of breaks the game. Its good for if you want to just rush through the story and not worry about the gameplay, but if you're there for the gameplay you'll need to play classic. And you'll reset a fair bit. Can't tell you how many times my flying unit has been off to the side and I forgot they had an archer nearby. RIP. But, you restart, learn not to move near archers, ever, at all, under any circumstances, with flying units, and beat the level with no deaths.
And then there's the fun of trying to pair your shippings, and get their relationships up, even if they're not the best combat units, whilst still winning the game. Its doable, but you won't always be able to go for the optimal strategy of assured victory to do so. Makes the game more fun and interesting, if you lose a unit just restart the mission [They can't stop you from doing that. Worst case you could just party wipe and HAVE to restart the mission, but there is an option to just restart there and then too].
erttheking said:
Logience said:
erttheking said:
Oh let him play the game the way he wants to. Some people, like you and I, like a challenge. Some people just want to have a good time. Neither way is the "right" way.
This game is meant to be a strategy game, to give an intellectual thrill. If people just want a base "video gamey" thrill, there's tons and tons of Mario games for them to play instead.
According to whom? May I ask. Nintendo is the one who made the game, making them the absolute authority on the matter. Since they added this game mode themselves, I don't really see how you can argue that it's not the way the game was "meant" to be. Hell, the game as it exists is the way it was "meant" to be, so what is so wrong about someone using a mode the developers gave to them? It's not exactly diluting your enjoyment of the game. It'd be like saying that you should only play XCOM on ironman mode. No bloody thank you.
I look forward to the day when easy modes aren't treated with disdain.
According to the difficulty names. "Normal" and "Classic" [As opposed to "Casual" or "Newcomers" mode] basically spell out that's the way the game was intended to be played. In many games this is often spelt out as well. Easy is not the way the game was INTENDED to be played, its a way its been ALLOWED to be played so that other people can enjoy the title, even if they're not as good at the gameplay.
That's not a disdain of easy mode, its a simple statement of fact. As I said, many games even highlight in the normal description "This is the way the game was meant to be played". Hard also isn't the way the game was meant to be played, its there for those who would prefer an additional challenge from the gameplay. Normal simply represents the middle ground that the designers felt was the intended experience, with the appropriate balance between story and gameplay such that you weren't too focused on simply the gameplay that you struggled to keep track of the story, but that you were still offered enough engagement by the gameplay that it added to the experience rather than just got in the way of the story components. Of course, people's preferences differ, and that's why other options are there - but that doesn't mean those other options were the way the game was intended to be played, merely a way it can be played.
As an analogy, touch rugby is a thing. You touch someone, and it counts as tackling them and the whole possession of the ball switches and such. Is this the way Rugby was intended to be played? No, no it isn't. Rugby was intended to be a full contact sport. Touch was created as an option for those who don't like the idea of that.
See also things like T-ball vs Baseball. Its an easier version of the game for those who can't play the harder version, or simply don't want to, but it isn't the way the base game is intended to be played, hence the variant offspring rather than specific rules within the base game.
There isn't anything wrong with playing on easier difficulties if it presents you an experience that you'll enjoy more, but it isn't the way the game was meant to be played. Its a way that's been added so that those who don't enjoy the game in the way its meant to be played have an option to still enjoy and play the game. Fire Emblem is intended to be a tactical experience. Because they allow people to experience it as a movie with quick time events doesn't change what it is intended to be, it simply means its provided another option.
And as a note, that option was added 1 game before Awakening in the whole series. There have been 7-9 or something games beforehand that simply didn't have the option, as they weren't interested in accommodating other styles of play. Its the way the game is meant to be played. Always has been.
