Fire Emblem 'Casual mode'

[Louzon]

I'd say don't let it bother you. If anything, it'll help the series. Hear me out:

My friend likes the Fire Emblem games, but never buys them because he's a perfectionist. If he's doing a mission, and one person dies, he starts over, and thus, he never got through the games. A game with an option like this will peak the interest of players like him, and then after he gets through the game, maybe he'll try it with the classic mode that all of us Fire Emblem veterans come to know and love. Making a slightly less hard mode while keeping the mode we prefer does nothing but help broaden a game's player demographic, and more sales usually means more titles, so it's a good thing.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I think different people can play the same game for different reasons. Who am I to say my way of playing Fire Emblem is superior to all others? In fact, I think being allowed to choose to play the game how you please is central to how the game works. I can choose whether I want to use nearly any character in the game. If I want, I can play Path of Radiance using no character other than Ike. I can choose not to have Soren and Ike support each other, despite the amount of background this can uncover. I can choose not to have Ike and Oscar support each other, despite how advantageous that is in battles. I can choose to not have my characters die permanently. Certainly this detracts form some parts of the game, maybe I would like the game better otherwise, but I can choose, and I may like it better that way.

Fire Emblem is a series currently lacking wide appeal, which is seriously undermining my ability to get access to it. Adding a feature that is gauranteed to broaden it's appeal is good for me, even if I never use said feature.

 

[Boggelz]

I love Fire Emblem and I think it's a good idea to add. I mean when I had the first one I would instantly shut off the game boy if my beautifully overpowered assassin died because of really dumb reasons. I mean sure I'll use the normal but sometimes people just feel its losing a lot of hard work. Imagine if there was an enemy in minecraft that would delete a structure you spent hours on building. Not everyone is prepared to play that and not call it bullshit. Though its not really a great comparison since youre decisions cause you to fail but I see no problem in giving the option.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I have to ask, if you just restart the level if any unit dies so that you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions...how is that different from casual mode?

Thank you, I was about to point that out, I had a friend who does this with her games of Fire Emblem, and there's no problem with that, I bet she'll love the feature on this new one. As for me, if I screwed up, I faced the consequences, it's like when people save scum in Xcom, I don't see the point, you're removing all challenge.

Just play the mode that clearly suits you, pay the others no mind, the don't affect anyone but the person using them, and doesn't make them less of a player then anyone else.

But here is what bugs me a bit. After you choose your difficulty, you choose 'Game mode'
Casual - Fallen units return. You can save anywhere.
Classic - Units are lost forever. Each decision counts.

You've explained it bugs you, but then follow on with this bit later in your post.

If anyone dies, I restart the level and play differently so I can keep everyone alive.

Explain to me how this mode is really any different from what you do, except you have to restart a whole level instead of just saving each turn. I'm just having trouble understanding how it can be annoying to you, since it seems like it would be right up your alley, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Xukog]

....Well now I want to give the game a try. I want to like fire emblem,but I just find the idea of restarting every battle should I make one stupid mistake/the game decides to screw me. Hell,I'll probably end up trying the classic mode too,once I have a better understanding of how to play.

 

[Adaephon]

wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, how did you get Fire emblem already, it doesn't come out till February 4th.

Also, and I think I speak for everyone when I ask this, how the heck do you already have Fire Emblem: Awakening?

Huh, well thats weird, I thought it came out Feb 1st for everyone. Maybe its just Canada? Or maybe its just my EB Games dropping the ball? Either way, I have it now and it doesn't bother me at all, lol

Well I'm Canadian and I went into my local EB the other day to try and buy Fire Emblem and the clerk guys told me that, for a short period, the game was available in Canada but some dev or publisher got really mad at that so now the stores aren't allowed to sell their copies until the fourth. I's guessing the OP (and you?) managed to buy the game in that short window. Then again, maybe a few stores didn't bother following the rules or something.

OT: I've just got to echo what other people are saying here, why do you care? Sure if the mode was mandatory then it would be bad, but if someone who isn't very good wants to play on extra-easy mode then why should anyone else care? Unless it turns out that by adding this feature the devs somehow took away vital resources that would have made the rest of the game better I think you're really overreacting.

 

[Yopaz]

A huge part of what makes Fire Emblem Fire Emblem is the fact that your units need to stay alive. Managing the rounds in a way to make sure you wont lose anyone is what makes the games great. The lack of save scumming also creates a layer of tension which adds to the game.

Now with casual mode they give us the option to make it less strategic and give us the chance to complete without starting over when we lose a unit. Now let me emphasize the word option here. It's an optional feature. Do they remove something that you want? Does it hurt your gameplay anything at all? This makes the game more accessible and while it's not a feature I am going to use I see nothing wrong with it because it's fucking optional. This just seems like "Oh, no, the casuals are ruining my game by playing it too!".

Now a reason why I think this is good:

....Well now I want to give the game a try. I want to like fire emblem,but I just find the idea of restarting every battle should I make one stupid mistake/the game decides to screw me. Hell,I'll probably end up trying the classic mode too,once I have a better understanding of how to play.

Here's from a person who doesn't like the idea that a death can screw up the entire round. Someone who wants to try the game and might even try the classic mode because the game was made more approachable by the casual mode. Considering how tense I get between the announcement of a new Fire Emblem and the announcement that it gets released in Europe I see this as a great thing. They can increase the chance of it selling, they can increase the chance of an English release.

They aren't removing anything that we require to enjoy Fire Emblem. They are adding something which make it more likely that we can enjoy the games just the way we want it. Name one bad thing about that.

 

[Zeckt]

So basically, it turned into "The Shining Force", a significantly better game than Fire Emblem?

Trust me, The Shining Force proved that resurrection is no replacement for strategy. I can't speak for how Fire Emblem Casual does it, admittedly, but it can be done.

Shining Force being better is very arguable, as I for one am not inclined to agree with you. The Fire emblem games on the GBA were fantastic. Honestly though? I'm just glad we got this game at all! This series is memorable for me and was the system seller for the 3ds. It's a game that is intense and can make you feel regret! Without that lack of danger it's just another game to me.

 

[shadow skill]

You know something what you described sounds absolutely PERFECT. There should be modes like this in as many games as possible. This mode doesn't break the rest of the game, and doesn't insult long time players by screwing up the difficulty so bad that you can spam your way to victory on the mode that is supposed to be for experienced players. (Looking at you DmC.)

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

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.

 

[Loonyyy]

So...you're bitching about a mode that:
A) Isn't required.

B) Hasn't hurt the the rest of the game's design

C) Will probably bring in MORE people, which means the next game is MORE likely to come out for NTSC-U?

I...um...huh.

This is basically /thread.

And, like Kopikatsu and chozo, I wonder at the hypocrisy of a save scummer being annoyed at a mode which basically helps you play the game exactly the way he already is. If you're savescumming tactical games, you're not the hardcore, and you're not playing real difficulty. That's cool, but don't pretend like you are. Especially when you use that to go on about the problems with easier difficulty modes.

Yes, we get it. Some people refuse to play easier modes. Cool. Story. Bro. Someone will. And if that person wouldn't have played it at the higher difficulty, then you're making sales by making it playable. That gives you more money, that lets you make more games.

 

[dudagato]

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...

 

[TreuloseTomate]

You've explained it bugs you, but then follow on with this bit later in your post.

If anyone dies, I restart the level and play differently so I can keep everyone alive.

Explain to me how this mode is really any different from what you do, except you have to restart a whole level instead of just saving each turn. I'm just having trouble understanding how it can be annoying to you, since it seems like it would be right up your alley, and there is nothing wrong with that.

That's a good point. By restarting after every death, it's basically torture. Deal with the consequences, man!

 

[Yopaz]

So...you're bitching about a mode that:
A) Isn't required.

B) Hasn't hurt the the rest of the game's design

C) Will probably bring in MORE people, which means the next game is MORE likely to come out for NTSC-U?

I...um...huh.

This is basically /thread.

And, like Kopikatsu and chozo, I wonder at the hypocrisy of a save scummer being annoyed at a mode which basically helps you play the game exactly the way he already is. If you're savescumming tactical games, you're not the hardcore, and you're not playing real difficulty. That's cool, but don't pretend like you are. Especially when you use that to go on about the problems with easier difficulty modes.

Yes, we get it. Some people refuse to play easier modes. Cool. Story. Bro. Someone will. And if that person wouldn't have played it at the higher difficulty, then you're making sales by making it playable. That gives you more money, that lets you make more games.

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.

 

[Colt47]

This sounds like the Dark Souls thread I made talking about including something along the lines of Terraria's different modes. Casual mode is basically the softcore mode for those who don't want to deal with permanently losing units due to tactical mistakes, which is good especially for people who are new to the series. Diablo 2, for example, probably wouldn't have been as big a hit as it was if everyone was stuck playing hardcore mode and lost their characters permanently if they ever died in game. Perma-death tends to be a rather niche mechanic.

The one problem with not losing anything permanently, though, is a loss of sense of accomplishment and immersion. Also, there is the question of why such a mode is necessary to begin with: other games that have come before have found a rather comfortable middle, such as Final Fantasy Tactics, where adding in a no loss mode would be sort of pointless as the game gives ample opportunity for a player to either finish a battle fast enough or simply recover the downed unit before a timer is up. This is usually the argument type employed by those against having added easy modes.

 

[j0frenzy]

Why is casual mode any worse than what everyone I know did instead: just restart the map? While I get that having to go through the map flawlessly or permanently lose a character you were attached to was a thing about Fire Emblem, I know very few people who actually followed through with the permanent death and instead chose to restart the map and lose nothing but time. The difference between casual mode and normal mode is how much time a player spends on the map.

 

[Judgment90]

As someone who has only played the GBA versions of FE, I see Casual/Easy mode as a way for newbies or beginners to get used to the gameplay. I see difficulties as tests, with Easy being the mode to get your feet wet, Normal for when you have some experience in playing, and Hard as a way to test your skills.

 

[Colt47]

Why is casual mode any worse than what everyone I know did instead: just restart the map? While I get that having to go through the map flawlessly or permanently lose a character you were attached to was a thing about Fire Emblem, I know very few people who actually followed through with the permanent death and instead chose to restart the map and lose nothing but time. The difference between casual mode and normal mode is how much time a player spends on the map.

Yeah, having an option to replay an older map or the ability to restart the map if something goes wrong are pretty good arguments against having a casual mode. Though if you think about it, casual mode is just cutting out the middle man of that equation: instead of having to reload the map, the player just toughs it out and moves on to the next mission. Reloading the map repeatedly is just a more time sink heavy version of casual, albeit the person is likely to complete the battle with a stronger comprehension of the required strategies than someone who just winged it once.