I literally just picked the top few characters, found who had the least choices, then started working out who had to marry who to get a full team set up. I did start enjoying the conversations after a bit, and married off the two main kids later. Lucina and Owain to find out how it would deal with that pairing, then Severa and Morgan. She seemed to hate Chrom, so I thought there would be something about that in their conversations, but it never came up again after she was recruited. Weird.
It's interesting how well FE:A maps to Pokemon. Chrom is just your regular starter; better than most things you'll face, but takes a while to get good. Robin is a lv 5 Mewtwo holding a Lucky Egg. Jeigans are stone evolutions that happened before learning any good moves, curtailing their development. Almost all characters you recruit are Pidgeys, with the occasional baller Scyther in Panne and Nowi (Donnel is obviously Magikarp). The kids are eugenic-bred killing machines with perfect IVs.
Shen on
3DS: 2234-8122-8398 | Battle.net (EU): Ladi#2485
+2
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Now the game is trivially easy. Just three s-rank killing everything everybody.
Also, the amount of anime bullshit in this game is staggering. Oh hey, a thousand years old 9 year old skimpy dressed child?
I find it fascinating that the only challenge in FE:A comes from protecting your weak units. Thanks to pair up, there is NEVER a point when Robin isn't able to solo the whole goddamn map, up to and including Lunatic. Consequently, the only difficulty stems from recruiting dudes, as well as not being able to restrict deployment early on. I wish game developers would put some actual thought into their difficulty settings and mechanics to make them actually engaging.
To this day, my favourite moment in FE:A was during the recruitment map for Donnel. I moved Sumia to pick off a weakened unit to get her some more EXP but then I rechecked my movement overlays and oh crap, there was an archer in range to hit Sumia. Checked its damage, checked Sumia's def, worked out that I needed +2 def to ensure she survived that one arrow hit. Of all the remaining units that could get to Sumia in time, it was only Viron who gave that pair-up bonus and saved the moment. Sumia survived the enemy turn with 1 HP and spent the rest of the map as a gibbering huddle in the corner somewhere.
I don't really even consider the games hard. Just very badly designed, and the hardcore fans have convinced themselves that the flaws are quirks or even features.
This is a lot more condescending than you may realize.
+7
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Also, the game has been this way for a while so I don't think its a quirk as much as intentional design.
Quite frankly, if the game isn't for you it just isn't for you. And you've seemed to already come to that conclusion. But I've never much seen a point in trying to talk people into liking something to begin with.
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
This is a discussion forum where can discuss the flaws and merits of games. If you want a circle jerk, then maybe gamefaqs is a better outlet. Iv share Reynolds criticisms for this game. Even the highlights of this game comes off way too..... childish for me. Why the duck am I playing matchmaker? The plot is standard jrpg slop.
It's no wonder why console gaming is dying in Japan if this is one of their recent highlights.
+1
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
Oh, I especially wasn't talking to you.
You've just been whining. Nonsensically at some points.
Also, I really don't care too much if you post complaints. I just wonder after a while what the point of it even is. Especially when you get to the point of complaining about core features of the games.
So when I say "Maybe the game isn't for you." I'm not saying "Stop complaining." I'm saying "Maybe the game just isn't for you and I'm confused why you're still forcing yourself to play it."
And if you feel the need to continue being a masochist, don't be surprised if I just shrug at you.
I don't really even consider the games hard. Just very badly designed, and the hardcore fans have convinced themselves that the flaws are quirks or even features.
This is a lot more condescending than you may realize.
It's not necessarily inaccurate though; I would absolutely agree that the game is quite poorly designed. Like random stat gains on level up - I consider this a dated mechanic that has come to be thought of as a series feature. It has merit in conversations like 'Wow you got really unlucky; Sumia was absolutely unstoppable in my game!', but it's also caused so many silly decisions that are meant to stopgap bad luck, like Tactician's 1.5x exp and second seals in general.
On game balance - tomes are hilariously broken. In order to even attempt Lunatic Classic you're forced to trivialise it. Lunatic+ is a bad joke. Reinforcements move the turn they appear.
You've also got random encounters for levelling, except on Lunatic where they get capped stats once you use a second seal (the cynic in me wants to say that this was a deliberate move to make people buy the grinding DLC) and the kid paralogues, which if you can beat, you're already set for beating the main game.
Like, I think its a 4/5 game on Hard Classic, maybe Luna Casual. It's just fairly mediocre beyond that.
3DS: 2234-8122-8398 | Battle.net (EU): Ladi#2485
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
The thing is though.
Are we even talking about RNG and Lunatic though?
Because I agree those things are both dumb. But they're also only a small part of the game and its systems.
tbh I never thought reinforcements moving turn 1 was a big deal outside of like, the great tree?
there's three areas they can come from (stairs, fortresses, map edge) and are typically announced several turns in advance, often with which unit type you can expect if it's anything beyond standard footsoldiers (wyverns, mages). The mechanics aren't explicitly stated out beyond a few sentences of tutorial, but the difficulties where this occurs are supposed to be played with foreknowledge of this game or the series prior- so one way or the other you should have a good idea of what to expect.
it forces you to consider a bunch of hypotheticals you can't be sure of but that doesn't really seem out of line for a tactics game. It's better than using fog of war imo, since FE isn't really built around sight mechanics like some games
I don't think the super hard difficulties are a good measuring stick for balance issues either, since they're pretty much just for the obsessives who want to, and already know how to, break the game. It's like judging xcom by ironman impossible, really
e: also no it's really condescending and ~shitty~ to suggest that people can't individually come to conclusions that don't line up entirely with yours, lol
Daypigeon on
+1
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
Lunatic+ is a bad joke. Reinforcements move the turn they appear.
That was standard on the normal difficulty levels of the games before 7, I believe. In Awakening it's not even that bad, because you usually get advance warnings and the spawn tiles are obvious.
Something not being a big deal doesn't make it good design, and reinforcements appear out of the ground and without announcement on Walhart's paralogue. If it was like that in the old games then that's pretty damning, as they were explicitly designed with resetting and trial and error in mind.
I talk about Lunatic because Normal and Hard offer no challenge at all. It also highlights issues that can be overlooked on lower difficulties. Map design is a good one - when you can't just rely on alpha striking everything to death, you realise how limited you are in ways of protecting units. When you can't just steamroller the game with any two units, it shows how overpowered tomes are. When you can't just grind them up it shows how poorly implemented the children are.
Lunatic and Lunatic+ are 50% of the game's offerings, and if they're not fun, why include them at all? I feel the same way about Ironman Impossible, which was an obnoxious amount of dice-rolling for the first few months then essentially identical to Classic in the mid-late game.
3DS: 2234-8122-8398 | Battle.net (EU): Ladi#2485
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
I do agree that I feel like there needed to be a happy place between Hard and Lunatic. Not sure exactly how they could have reached it but yeah.
I would say the map design was actually kind of blah. But I feel that was because unlike previous titles, terrain really didn't play that big of a part in this game. Outside of the usual forest/fortress stuff.
I believe reinforcements you have to think about are better design than reinforcements that stand totally still for one turn, which pretty much just serve as unnecessary padding if you can reach them before they move, or are units that could have just been included from the start. It's an extra challenge, which is nice, and if you can only think of one map that's borked wrt reinforcements than I don't think it's bad design outside of that one map? I liked that system in general so, shrug, I guess
I don't think Normal and Hard are ignorable either, they are where the game is intended to be played and a lot of people still had problems with those. Most of my runs have been on Hard Classic with relatively minimal use of Risen battles (and not going out of the way to grab second-generation units by leveling up characters I wasn't using), and from my experience that actually hits a pretty solid difficulty curve! But as this thread has shown difficulty is... pretty subjective, so I dunno.
apologies if I'm coming off harshly, just gettin' realllll tired of dorks telling me I haven't absolutely thought about my opinions and that I'm factually incorrect or whatever, thanks to this, uh, topic that's going around in game news atm
Daypigeon on
+2
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
Honestly, I would say at the end of the day most sRPGs are easy when you understand the ends and outs of them.
And a lot of the time the difficulty comes from being random, unforgiving, or just mean in some areas. And most strategy games test not only your ability to understand a situation, but to work around a situation when things go pear-shaped.
Now how much of each is fair until it becomes unfair is a different debate altogether.
I don't really even consider the games hard. Just very badly designed, and the hardcore fans have convinced themselves that the flaws are quirks or even features.
This is a lot more condescending than you may realize.
It's not necessarily inaccurate though; I would absolutely agree that the game is quite poorly designed.
Your opinion on Awakening is known. That does not make it any less disingenuous to imply that people who enjoy Fire Emblem as she is designed are deluding themselves into finding the series enjoyable or otherwise engaging.
An SRPG isn't going to challenge you in the same way that something like a 4x empire building game or a tactical rts game will. It's different, especially since you are only playing verses the AI, which inevitably will be flawed in some way you can exploit if you look hard enough.
I think most of the fun is building a cool party that whoops butt exactly how you want it to, kicking the crap out of the villains with your sweet battle group, and figuring out the best way to win a given scenario.
Like my favorite moments from La Pucelle Tactics was beating the crap out of the end bosses after I had done a bit of grinding. It wasn't challenging really because I was over leveled - but it was FUN. If a game's mechanics aren't enjoyable to you, no amount of challenge will make the game fun IMO. It does suck when a game has mechanics you love, but doesn't challenge you so you get bored. Still, better to move on than spend tons of time complaining about it in a forum. Plenty of games out there to play.
DarkMecha on
Steam Profile | My Art | NID: DarkMecha (SW-4787-9571-8977) | PSN: DarkMecha
I don't really even consider the games hard. Just very badly designed, and the hardcore fans have convinced themselves that the flaws are quirks or even features.
This is a lot more condescending than you may realize.
It's not necessarily inaccurate though; I would absolutely agree that the game is quite poorly designed.
Your opinion on Awakening is known. That does not make it any less disingenuous to imply that people who enjoy Fire Emblem as she is designed are deluding themselves into finding the series enjoyable or otherwise engaging.
That's not a conversation to have with me as that wasn't my position, I'm just using it as a springboard for discussion.
I believe reinforcements you have to think about are better design than reinforcements that stand totally still for one turn, which pretty much just serve as unnecessary padding if you can reach them before they move, or are units that could have just been included from the start. It's an extra challenge, which is nice, and if you can only think of one map that's borked wrt reinforcements than I don't think it's bad design outside of that one map? I liked that system in general so, shrug, I guess
I don't think Normal and Hard are ignorable either, they are where the game is intended to be played and a lot of people still had problems with those. Most of my runs have been on Hard Classic with relatively minimal use of Risen battles (and not going out of the way to grab second-generation units by leveling up characters I wasn't using), and from my experience that actually hits a pretty solid difficulty curve! But as this thread has shown difficulty is... pretty subjective, so I dunno.
apologies if I'm coming off harshly, just gettin' realllll tired of dorks telling me I haven't absolutely thought about my opinions and that I'm factually incorrect or whatever, thanks to this, uh, topic that's going around in game news atm
Nothing harsh save for when you called people who play on Lunatic and above obsessives.
Difficulty is subjective, but I think it's common knowledge that Nosferatu is ridiculously overpowered; couple that with Robin's ever-present level advantage and the game is only difficult because you're choosing not to take advantage of either of those things. I don't think challenge runs should serve to counter deficiencies in design.
I think reinforcements you can react to are better design than ones that you cannot, in the context of a game with permadeath. Reinforcements you can plan for are better still - I think it would be great if there were some form of visual indicator. Reinforcements that move immediately can be used well, particularly as a form of time pressure, but too often you get fliers coming in at the sides. Hardly my chief complaint though, I wonder how we've ended up dwelling on it.
We've dwelled on it because the discussion isn't about you and your particular problems at this point, Shen, it's about another couple of users and the experiences they've had.
Similarly, when you say that those statements are "not [...] innacurate" you are tacitly agreeing to the statement being replied to, in this case particularly the line "I don't really even consider the games hard. Just very badly designed, and the hardcore fans have convinced themselves that the flaws are quirks or even features." Since that was the only line I quoted.
Pretending that enjoyment of a game is evidence of some shortcoming in the analysis, experience, or any other trait of the player is harmful to conversation even outside of the fact that it's rude and mean-spirited.
I wouldn't call not getting every character a challenge run, considering the alternative is pretty much the 100% run in terms of doing optional maps and recruitment. A challenge run seems like it would involve consciously handicapping myself, instead of just playing some of the optional levels? I am possibly in the minority on this one for sure though, the ability to grind makes that a more common option than it would otherwise.
Nosferatu is pretty good but I wouldn't really say that's immediately apparent to most players- it's got pretty low accuracy and there's not a lot of units who can use it effectively, esp. without eating through second seals, which requires more grinding
Basically I think some of the ways you are looking at difficulty are based on already knowing a lot about the game in ways most players, especially new players, don't? I don't think too many people knew how to abuse some of the systems coming in. Heck, we've seen people who didn't really understand the usefulness of Pair Up until it was explained to them.
I guess I don't think it's quite as broken as suggested, even if it does tend to follow a (imo) less extreme version of the XCOM EU difficulty curve
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
Really, I think my problems with Insanity are only.
-I think enemy stats might be tuned just a bit too high, just a little.
-Some of those skills are fucking bonkers.
If they fixed those two things I would probably have no problem tackling it.
That brings me to another point. One of the reasons I'm not too harsh on hard is because I started grinding my party to my specifics as soon as I was given the opportunity. So my perception of its difficulty is skewed.
Those first five levels were a good challenge though.
I don't think it's wrong to say that Awakening is not as well-balanced as other Fire Emblems, in terms of progression and difficulty curve; the combination of preposterously good characters, solid base stats and universally high growths (unless you're Lissa), optional missions coming out of the ears, Reeking Boxes, and perpetually replayable DLC missions means that the game has to be balanced to playing the main missions and nothing else - people will almost inevitably steamroll the game in the end, which is a shame but also unavoidable given the way the content of the game is constructed.
And yeah, that takes away from the game on some level
But the amount of quality content we got out of it easily makes up for that, in my book, and the game's final battle on Hard mode feels good even with a maxed out party. Granted you'll blow it to Hell regardless, but if you want to bash your head against a wall then that's what the challenge DLC is for.
Anyway
Awakening is a very different, gentler game than the other Fire Emblems. That's not a bad thing.
But it also means that it is the absolute baseline experience for getting into this series. You must git this gud to enter.
That's not a bad thing either.
Wyborn on
+5
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
Honestly, and I don't know.
I still prefer Awakening freedom over the strictness of earlier games. Even if it breaks the game a bit.
But I always hated how restrictive some of the previous titles were.
We've dwelled on it because the discussion isn't about you and your particular problems at this point, Shen, it's about another couple of users and the experiences they've had.
Similarly, when you say that those statements are "not [...] innacurate" you are tacitly agreeing to the statement being replied to, in this case particularly the line "I don't really even consider the games hard. Just very badly designed, and the hardcore fans have convinced themselves that the flaws are quirks or even features." Since that was the only line I quoted.
Pretending that enjoyment of a game is evidence of some shortcoming in the analysis, experience, or any other trait of the player is harmful to conversation even outside of the fact that it's rude and mean-spirited.
yeah this
I'm getting pretty friggin' tired of people insinuating I can't have possibly fully and accurately considered my views, otherwise I couldn't have them
not that there is much of that happening here but it's been a recent trend in trying to talk about videogames-related stuff elsewhere and it's just the worst
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2014
Yeah. That's basically it.
In previous Fire Emblem I would have to pass on some characters I liked simply because it wasn't efficient to use them and I had no real way to train them up.
It was especially bad in Radiant Dawn where you had a bunch of characters, two tiers of promotions, and shifting parties.
FE:A is easy and the most player-friendly game in the series. Like man...I swear...I hope you never play Radiant Dawn. Because...man...
Radiant Dawn was the devs laughing at us and giving us big middle fingers. Giving us a shitty team to work with right from the start? Okay. Forcing certain units to promote when they might not be ready for it? Um... okay. Giving Ike's totally awesome team the least amount of battles available to them? Sure...
Forcing boss battles where they have AoE attacks that can hurt your units anywhere on the map, at any given time, whenever they feel like it? FUCK YOU! FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUU!
@Reynolds Even if he did play previous games, the point being is that the formula hasn't changed much, and you can totally look over the tutorials and make all your calculated decisions from there. You should be grateful they at least give you the average damage you'll do/take and what your chance to hit/crit are; something few SRPGs ever bother doing. Honestly with the perma-death thing excluded; fire emblem games really aren't THAT hard. You usually have a means to calculate in advance whether or not something may be a bad decision.
We've dwelled on it because the discussion isn't about you and your particular problems at this point, Shen, it's about another couple of users and the experiences they've had.
Similarly, when you say that those statements are "not [...] innacurate" you are tacitly agreeing to the statement being replied to, in this case particularly the line "I don't really even consider the games hard. Just very badly designed, and the hardcore fans have convinced themselves that the flaws are quirks or even features." Since that was the only line I quoted.
Pretending that enjoyment of a game is evidence of some shortcoming in the analysis, experience, or any other trait of the player is harmful to conversation even outside of the fact that it's rude and mean-spirited.
The 'necessarily' that you omitted is an important qualifier. I do agree in part with the initial statement - I've already mentioned random stats on level up, and I no longer think that the series staple of one-strike permadeath is the best way to enjoy the game. It's possible others might feel similarly.
All my ways of looking at the game are based on knowing a lot about it, because I wouldn't presume to talk about design if I hadn't put in the time. I've also stated that if Hard/LunaCasual is as far as you go then there's plenty to recommend it.
As for the challenge DLC, for me to attempt Apotheosis with a different team configuration, I would have to play some dozens of hours doing nothing but grinding mindlessly (on paid DLC). I'd rather there were a difficulty setting that I could enjoy throughout.
I don't really even consider the games hard. Just very badly designed, and the hardcore fans have convinced themselves that the flaws are quirks or even features.
This is a lot more condescending than you may realize.
It's not necessarily inaccurate though; I would absolutely agree that the game is quite poorly designed.
Your opinion on Awakening is known. That does not make it any less disingenuous to imply that people who enjoy Fire Emblem as she is designed are deluding themselves into finding the series enjoyable or otherwise engaging.
I think I said this earlier, but this is actually me pulling back from it a bit and being a little more fair. Before I would have straight up said FE fans were deluded and the games suck. I gave it a fair shot, and it has actually improved my opinion, and I no longer think it is a bad game propped up by a small group of crazy fans.
I think there are some things that have stayed in the game that both the creators and fans have agreed is a crucial part of the game, that is kept in because that's how it's always been, that could probably be looked at again and changed. It's been a long time since most of the systems were created. But there's basically no convincing them that it is anything but perfect, to the point where giving you the option to change one questionable design decision mocks you as only being a Casual player.
I'm trying to think of a good example...it's kinda like the people who love Mega Man II so much that they hate the slide and charge that was added later. If the games were designed the same but those two things were gone, that's what I feel FE is like, more work than it should be when other options exist. If the later MM games added in sliding and charge but you had to select Baby Mode at the start to use them, that's how I feel about FE's attempts to update and modernize.
Now I'm trying to remember the game where playing on Easy actually gave your character something like a pacifier and rattle, and annoyed that I can't.
You're thinking of Ninja Gaiden Black, which tied a very feminine ribbon around Ryu's bicep.
Awakening doesn't do that. I think outside of North America the casual mode was even called "newcomer" - but it being called casual is not a bad thing unless you attach a negative connotation to that word, which 8-4 and the Treehouse clearly did not.
And your current position being a less severe version of your earlier one says more about the older one than it does the new one. If I didn't want Fire Emblem, I'd be playing something easier and less deterministic.
I think there are some things that have stayed in the game that both the creators and fans have agreed is a crucial part of the game, that is kept in because that's how it's always been, that could probably be looked at again and changed. It's been a long time since most of the systems were created. But there's basically no convincing them that it is anything but perfect, to the point where giving you the option to change one questionable design decision mocks you as only being a Casual player.
I'm trying to think of a good example...it's kinda like the people who love Mega Man II so much that they hate the slide and charge that was added later. If the games were designed the same but those two things were gone, that's what I feel FE is like, more work than it should be when other options exist. If the later MM games added in sliding and charge but you had to select Baby Mode at the start to use them, that's how I feel about FE's attempts to update and modernize.
Now I'm trying to remember the game where playing on Easy actually gave your character something like a pacifier and rattle, and annoyed that I can't.
Is there some background here, like an interview where the creators said that people who didn't like perma-death were stupid or something? Because otherwise I think you may be reading a bit too much into the word 'casual.' Why is it that your first instinct to the word is to assume you're being mocked?
To me, that just conveys that it's a mode for players more interested in story/ not as interested in the more punitive aspects of the game.
Good on you for playing through the entirety of FE:A before drawing a conclusion, although I don't think you should have forced yourself if you really didn't enjoy it.
The fact that there is a readily available mode for the game which addresses almost all of your complaints (perma-death, lack of tutorials, etc) is pretty frustrating, though! Did you really just not choose that option because you thought the developers would somehow think less of you, or what?
serious business in the fire emblem thread. Anyway, going through my second playthrough now and good gravy tomes are the best weapon type in the game, like ferreal. Not even a contest.
Sure you can just max out 2 or 3 characters and blow through the game. See pretty much every other Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, Pokemon, etc. The fun is in customizing a well-rounded team with characters you like. This game rewards that style of play with the "matchmaking system" that you don't even have to deal with if you don't want to (you can ignore most of the support convos and most of the kids are side missions).
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
Sure you can just max out 2 or 3 characters and blow through the game. See pretty much every other Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, Pokemon, etc.
You couldn't in Thracia, though. Not until late game. They implemented a fatigue system.
That game really hated its players.
I haven't played that but it sounds horrible. Honestly it took me a while to get into Fire Emblem as a series initially because I never liked the idea of weapons being broken forever. Same reason I didn't like the "Final Fantasy Legend" gameboy series. I don't have the patience to be as OCD anymore though.
I think there are some things that have stayed in the game that both the creators and fans have agreed is a crucial part of the game, that is kept in because that's how it's always been, that could probably be looked at again and changed. It's been a long time since most of the systems were created. But there's basically no convincing them that it is anything but perfect, to the point where giving you the option to change one questionable design decision mocks you as only being a Casual player.
I'm trying to think of a good example...it's kinda like the people who love Mega Man II so much that they hate the slide and charge that was added later. If the games were designed the same but those two things were gone, that's what I feel FE is like, more work than it should be when other options exist. If the later MM games added in sliding and charge but you had to select Baby Mode at the start to use them, that's how I feel about FE's attempts to update and modernize.
Now I'm trying to remember the game where playing on Easy actually gave your character something like a pacifier and rattle, and annoyed that I can't.
Is there some background here, like an interview where the creators said that people who didn't like perma-death were stupid or something? Because otherwise I think you may be reading a bit too much into the word 'casual.' Why is it that your first instinct to the word is to assume you're being mocked?
To me, that just conveys that it's a mode for players more interested in story/ not as interested in the more punitive aspects of the game.
Good on you for playing through the entirety of FE:A before drawing a conclusion, although I don't think you should have forced yourself if you really didn't enjoy it.
The fact that there is a readily available mode for the game which addresses almost all of your complaints (perma-death, lack of tutorials, etc) is pretty frustrating, though! Did you really just not choose that option because you thought the developers would somehow think less of you, or what?
I can't recall the exact etymology, but for some time now "casual games" has meant the kind of thing you play on the iPad to pass time on the bus rather than something you would sit down and play deliberately, with the attendant implied lack of depth and challenge. Furthermore, I can also refer to the Smash Brothers community, where "casual" is something of a dog-whistle among tournament players for "someone who would rather play timed free-for-all with items on because they don't actually want to engage with the game and be challenged". It's not a 100% certain thing (as evidenced by the fact that you're questioning it!), but one could definitely make a case that in the context of video games, "casual" is something of an insult.
Then, take FE:A's Casual option and compare it to the alternative you're presented: "Classic". Classic is a positively-loaded word, implying an enduring quality and timelessness. So when you read between the lines, you have "Classic" (the real rule set, the one we've always used, for people who know what they're doing) and "Casual" (for neophytes and modern-day gamers who are more interested in being entertained than challenged).
To put it yet another way, when you said "To me, that just conveys that it's a mode for players more interested in story/ not as interested in the more punitive aspects of the game," you're exactly right, and among video games there's a culture of derision for taking that option when it's presented.
Kupi on
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
Posts
Also, the amount of anime bullshit in this game is staggering. Oh hey, a thousand years old 9 year old skimpy dressed child?
To this day, my favourite moment in FE:A was during the recruitment map for Donnel. I moved Sumia to pick off a weakened unit to get her some more EXP but then I rechecked my movement overlays and oh crap, there was an archer in range to hit Sumia. Checked its damage, checked Sumia's def, worked out that I needed +2 def to ensure she survived that one arrow hit. Of all the remaining units that could get to Sumia in time, it was only Viron who gave that pair-up bonus and saved the moment. Sumia survived the enemy turn with 1 HP and spent the rest of the map as a gibbering huddle in the corner somewhere.
This is a lot more condescending than you may realize.
Quite frankly, if the game isn't for you it just isn't for you. And you've seemed to already come to that conclusion. But I've never much seen a point in trying to talk people into liking something to begin with.
It's no wonder why console gaming is dying in Japan if this is one of their recent highlights.
You've just been whining. Nonsensically at some points.
Also, I really don't care too much if you post complaints. I just wonder after a while what the point of it even is. Especially when you get to the point of complaining about core features of the games.
So when I say "Maybe the game isn't for you." I'm not saying "Stop complaining." I'm saying "Maybe the game just isn't for you and I'm confused why you're still forcing yourself to play it."
And if you feel the need to continue being a masochist, don't be surprised if I just shrug at you.
It's not necessarily inaccurate though; I would absolutely agree that the game is quite poorly designed. Like random stat gains on level up - I consider this a dated mechanic that has come to be thought of as a series feature. It has merit in conversations like 'Wow you got really unlucky; Sumia was absolutely unstoppable in my game!', but it's also caused so many silly decisions that are meant to stopgap bad luck, like Tactician's 1.5x exp and second seals in general.
On game balance - tomes are hilariously broken. In order to even attempt Lunatic Classic you're forced to trivialise it. Lunatic+ is a bad joke. Reinforcements move the turn they appear.
You've also got random encounters for levelling, except on Lunatic where they get capped stats once you use a second seal (the cynic in me wants to say that this was a deliberate move to make people buy the grinding DLC) and the kid paralogues, which if you can beat, you're already set for beating the main game.
Like, I think its a 4/5 game on Hard Classic, maybe Luna Casual. It's just fairly mediocre beyond that.
Are we even talking about RNG and Lunatic though?
Because I agree those things are both dumb. But they're also only a small part of the game and its systems.
there's three areas they can come from (stairs, fortresses, map edge) and are typically announced several turns in advance, often with which unit type you can expect if it's anything beyond standard footsoldiers (wyverns, mages). The mechanics aren't explicitly stated out beyond a few sentences of tutorial, but the difficulties where this occurs are supposed to be played with foreknowledge of this game or the series prior- so one way or the other you should have a good idea of what to expect.
it forces you to consider a bunch of hypotheticals you can't be sure of but that doesn't really seem out of line for a tactics game. It's better than using fog of war imo, since FE isn't really built around sight mechanics like some games
I don't think the super hard difficulties are a good measuring stick for balance issues either, since they're pretty much just for the obsessives who want to, and already know how to, break the game. It's like judging xcom by ironman impossible, really
e: also no it's really condescending and ~shitty~ to suggest that people can't individually come to conclusions that don't line up entirely with yours, lol
That was standard on the normal difficulty levels of the games before 7, I believe. In Awakening it's not even that bad, because you usually get advance warnings and the spawn tiles are obvious.
I talk about Lunatic because Normal and Hard offer no challenge at all. It also highlights issues that can be overlooked on lower difficulties. Map design is a good one - when you can't just rely on alpha striking everything to death, you realise how limited you are in ways of protecting units. When you can't just steamroller the game with any two units, it shows how overpowered tomes are. When you can't just grind them up it shows how poorly implemented the children are.
Lunatic and Lunatic+ are 50% of the game's offerings, and if they're not fun, why include them at all? I feel the same way about Ironman Impossible, which was an obnoxious amount of dice-rolling for the first few months then essentially identical to Classic in the mid-late game.
I would say the map design was actually kind of blah. But I feel that was because unlike previous titles, terrain really didn't play that big of a part in this game. Outside of the usual forest/fortress stuff.
I don't think Normal and Hard are ignorable either, they are where the game is intended to be played and a lot of people still had problems with those. Most of my runs have been on Hard Classic with relatively minimal use of Risen battles (and not going out of the way to grab second-generation units by leveling up characters I wasn't using), and from my experience that actually hits a pretty solid difficulty curve! But as this thread has shown difficulty is... pretty subjective, so I dunno.
apologies if I'm coming off harshly, just gettin' realllll tired of dorks telling me I haven't absolutely thought about my opinions and that I'm factually incorrect or whatever, thanks to this, uh, topic that's going around in game news atm
And a lot of the time the difficulty comes from being random, unforgiving, or just mean in some areas. And most strategy games test not only your ability to understand a situation, but to work around a situation when things go pear-shaped.
Now how much of each is fair until it becomes unfair is a different debate altogether.
Your opinion on Awakening is known. That does not make it any less disingenuous to imply that people who enjoy Fire Emblem as she is designed are deluding themselves into finding the series enjoyable or otherwise engaging.
I think most of the fun is building a cool party that whoops butt exactly how you want it to, kicking the crap out of the villains with your sweet battle group, and figuring out the best way to win a given scenario.
Like my favorite moments from La Pucelle Tactics was beating the crap out of the end bosses after I had done a bit of grinding. It wasn't challenging really because I was over leveled - but it was FUN. If a game's mechanics aren't enjoyable to you, no amount of challenge will make the game fun IMO. It does suck when a game has mechanics you love, but doesn't challenge you so you get bored. Still, better to move on than spend tons of time complaining about it in a forum. Plenty of games out there to play.
That's not a conversation to have with me as that wasn't my position, I'm just using it as a springboard for discussion.
Nothing harsh save for when you called people who play on Lunatic and above obsessives.
Difficulty is subjective, but I think it's common knowledge that Nosferatu is ridiculously overpowered; couple that with Robin's ever-present level advantage and the game is only difficult because you're choosing not to take advantage of either of those things. I don't think challenge runs should serve to counter deficiencies in design.
I think reinforcements you can react to are better design than ones that you cannot, in the context of a game with permadeath. Reinforcements you can plan for are better still - I think it would be great if there were some form of visual indicator. Reinforcements that move immediately can be used well, particularly as a form of time pressure, but too often you get fliers coming in at the sides. Hardly my chief complaint though, I wonder how we've ended up dwelling on it.
Similarly, when you say that those statements are "not [...] innacurate" you are tacitly agreeing to the statement being replied to, in this case particularly the line "I don't really even consider the games hard. Just very badly designed, and the hardcore fans have convinced themselves that the flaws are quirks or even features." Since that was the only line I quoted.
Pretending that enjoyment of a game is evidence of some shortcoming in the analysis, experience, or any other trait of the player is harmful to conversation even outside of the fact that it's rude and mean-spirited.
Nosferatu is pretty good but I wouldn't really say that's immediately apparent to most players- it's got pretty low accuracy and there's not a lot of units who can use it effectively, esp. without eating through second seals, which requires more grinding
Basically I think some of the ways you are looking at difficulty are based on already knowing a lot about the game in ways most players, especially new players, don't? I don't think too many people knew how to abuse some of the systems coming in. Heck, we've seen people who didn't really understand the usefulness of Pair Up until it was explained to them.
I guess I don't think it's quite as broken as suggested, even if it does tend to follow a (imo) less extreme version of the XCOM EU difficulty curve
-I think enemy stats might be tuned just a bit too high, just a little.
-Some of those skills are fucking bonkers.
If they fixed those two things I would probably have no problem tackling it.
That brings me to another point. One of the reasons I'm not too harsh on hard is because I started grinding my party to my specifics as soon as I was given the opportunity. So my perception of its difficulty is skewed.
Those first five levels were a good challenge though.
And yeah, that takes away from the game on some level
But the amount of quality content we got out of it easily makes up for that, in my book, and the game's final battle on Hard mode feels good even with a maxed out party. Granted you'll blow it to Hell regardless, but if you want to bash your head against a wall then that's what the challenge DLC is for.
Anyway
Awakening is a very different, gentler game than the other Fire Emblems. That's not a bad thing.
But it also means that it is the absolute baseline experience for getting into this series. You must git this gud to enter.
That's not a bad thing either.
I still prefer Awakening freedom over the strictness of earlier games. Even if it breaks the game a bit.
But I always hated how restrictive some of the previous titles were.
the only time I've really despised the inability to grind is when it made certain characters virtually useless
like there were people in Radiant Dawn who were just a waste of your time, which was pretty lame
yeah this
I'm getting pretty friggin' tired of people insinuating I can't have possibly fully and accurately considered my views, otherwise I couldn't have them
not that there is much of that happening here but it's been a recent trend in trying to talk about videogames-related stuff elsewhere and it's just the worst
In previous Fire Emblem I would have to pass on some characters I liked simply because it wasn't efficient to use them and I had no real way to train them up.
It was especially bad in Radiant Dawn where you had a bunch of characters, two tiers of promotions, and shifting parties.
Radiant Dawn was the devs laughing at us and giving us big middle fingers. Giving us a shitty team to work with right from the start? Okay. Forcing certain units to promote when they might not be ready for it? Um... okay. Giving Ike's totally awesome team the least amount of battles available to them? Sure...
Forcing boss battles where they have AoE attacks that can hurt your units anywhere on the map, at any given time, whenever they feel like it? FUCK YOU! FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUU!
@Reynolds Even if he did play previous games, the point being is that the formula hasn't changed much, and you can totally look over the tutorials and make all your calculated decisions from there. You should be grateful they at least give you the average damage you'll do/take and what your chance to hit/crit are; something few SRPGs ever bother doing. Honestly with the perma-death thing excluded; fire emblem games really aren't THAT hard. You usually have a means to calculate in advance whether or not something may be a bad decision.
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
The 'necessarily' that you omitted is an important qualifier. I do agree in part with the initial statement - I've already mentioned random stats on level up, and I no longer think that the series staple of one-strike permadeath is the best way to enjoy the game. It's possible others might feel similarly.
All my ways of looking at the game are based on knowing a lot about it, because I wouldn't presume to talk about design if I hadn't put in the time. I've also stated that if Hard/LunaCasual is as far as you go then there's plenty to recommend it.
As for the challenge DLC, for me to attempt Apotheosis with a different team configuration, I would have to play some dozens of hours doing nothing but grinding mindlessly (on paid DLC). I'd rather there were a difficulty setting that I could enjoy throughout.
See? If only the game had made that more clear. And marry Lissa off and look for her kid ASAP, he is maximum anime.
I think I said this earlier, but this is actually me pulling back from it a bit and being a little more fair. Before I would have straight up said FE fans were deluded and the games suck. I gave it a fair shot, and it has actually improved my opinion, and I no longer think it is a bad game propped up by a small group of crazy fans.
I think there are some things that have stayed in the game that both the creators and fans have agreed is a crucial part of the game, that is kept in because that's how it's always been, that could probably be looked at again and changed. It's been a long time since most of the systems were created. But there's basically no convincing them that it is anything but perfect, to the point where giving you the option to change one questionable design decision mocks you as only being a Casual player.
I'm trying to think of a good example...it's kinda like the people who love Mega Man II so much that they hate the slide and charge that was added later. If the games were designed the same but those two things were gone, that's what I feel FE is like, more work than it should be when other options exist. If the later MM games added in sliding and charge but you had to select Baby Mode at the start to use them, that's how I feel about FE's attempts to update and modernize.
Now I'm trying to remember the game where playing on Easy actually gave your character something like a pacifier and rattle, and annoyed that I can't.
Awakening doesn't do that. I think outside of North America the casual mode was even called "newcomer" - but it being called casual is not a bad thing unless you attach a negative connotation to that word, which 8-4 and the Treehouse clearly did not.
And your current position being a less severe version of your earlier one says more about the older one than it does the new one. If I didn't want Fire Emblem, I'd be playing something easier and less deterministic.
I think you're thinking of Wolfenstein there.
Is there some background here, like an interview where the creators said that people who didn't like perma-death were stupid or something? Because otherwise I think you may be reading a bit too much into the word 'casual.' Why is it that your first instinct to the word is to assume you're being mocked?
To me, that just conveys that it's a mode for players more interested in story/ not as interested in the more punitive aspects of the game.
Good on you for playing through the entirety of FE:A before drawing a conclusion, although I don't think you should have forced yourself if you really didn't enjoy it.
The fact that there is a readily available mode for the game which addresses almost all of your complaints (perma-death, lack of tutorials, etc) is pretty frustrating, though! Did you really just not choose that option because you thought the developers would somehow think less of you, or what?
You couldn't in Thracia, though. Not until late game. They implemented a fatigue system.
That game really hated its players.
Why I fear the ocean.
I haven't played that but it sounds horrible. Honestly it took me a while to get into Fire Emblem as a series initially because I never liked the idea of weapons being broken forever. Same reason I didn't like the "Final Fantasy Legend" gameboy series. I don't have the patience to be as OCD anymore though.
I can't recall the exact etymology, but for some time now "casual games" has meant the kind of thing you play on the iPad to pass time on the bus rather than something you would sit down and play deliberately, with the attendant implied lack of depth and challenge. Furthermore, I can also refer to the Smash Brothers community, where "casual" is something of a dog-whistle among tournament players for "someone who would rather play timed free-for-all with items on because they don't actually want to engage with the game and be challenged". It's not a 100% certain thing (as evidenced by the fact that you're questioning it!), but one could definitely make a case that in the context of video games, "casual" is something of an insult.
Then, take FE:A's Casual option and compare it to the alternative you're presented: "Classic". Classic is a positively-loaded word, implying an enduring quality and timelessness. So when you read between the lines, you have "Classic" (the real rule set, the one we've always used, for people who know what they're doing) and "Casual" (for neophytes and modern-day gamers who are more interested in being entertained than challenged).
To put it yet another way, when you said "To me, that just conveys that it's a mode for players more interested in story/ not as interested in the more punitive aspects of the game," you're exactly right, and among video games there's a culture of derision for taking that option when it's presented.
This used to be a thread about eugenics