Fire Emblem Fates

[Sheikah]

You haven't done it for months, but you've re-started going into random threads, making some negative bullshit statements, contributing nothing to discussion (until provoked)... I don't understand your brain other than you love to be antagonistic, knowing it'll annoy/bore people.

 

This is pathetic. Yet another topic being ruined by your protests; rather than challenge me or try to discuss it, you just complain "wahh it's Sheikah being negative, wahhh". My initial point was so blunt because I don't believe everything needs its own thesis; people were posting about a number of changes to FE that sounded pretty damn crappy, so I commented!

 

Am I not allowed to say that I don't like these changes? Positive posts only yeah, otherwise I can look forward to your (ironically, boring) carbon copy retaliations each time?

 

But anyway, yeah, non-perma deaths are already in it?! Didn't you realise when you played through and completed Fire Emblem Awakening?

 

Of course I knew; where did I say this was new to the next game? Both you and Jonnas made the same assumption, great minds eh?

 

My point about optional perma-death was that it's a recent change along with this other stuff that shows FE is moving from something more challenging that I liked to a slightly dumbed down franchise. The sim aspect sounds like total bollocks.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Sheikah

[dazzybee]

This is pathetic. Yet another topic being ruined by your protests; rather than challenge me or try to discuss it, you just complain "wahh it's Sheikah being negative, wahhh". My initial point was so blunt because I don't believe everything needs its own thesis; people were posting about a number of changes to FE that sounded pretty damn crappy, so I commented!

 

Am I not allowed to say that I don't like these changes? Positive posts only yeah, otherwise I can look forward to your (ironically, boring) carbon copy retaliations each time?

 

 

 

Of course I knew; where did I say this was new to the next game? Both you and Jonnas made the same assumption, great minds eh?

 

My point about optional perma-death was that it's a recent change along with this other stuff that shows FE is moving from something more challenging that I liked to a slightly dumbed down franchise. The sim aspect sounds like total bollocks.

 

I did challenge you, it's the only way to get you to explain your reason on things beyond the surface attacks you initially give. I just don't understand why you go into any thread possible and be negative? Why didn't you go in the platoon thread and say it's great that a new IP on a struggling console seems to be doing so well? That's a great a company is trying to do something different? You don't say anything positive. That's the issue. And because of your past it just feels like a child at work slagging off something you don't like. But whatever. Let's leave it there (like Mr Last Word can ever just leave it)

 

And yeah, it's fine you don't like the sound of these changes, if you expressed that than fine, but you're filled with hyperbole, if you seemed balanced and genuinely questioning the decisions then great!! But I get the feeling even if it didn't change things you still wouldn't buy the game, or be interested in the game? Is that true? Did you buy Awakening?

[drahkon]

I did challenge you, it's the only way to get you to explain your reason on things beyond the surface attacks you initially give. I just don't understand why you go into any thread possible and be negative? Why didn't you go in the platoon thread and say it's great that a new IP on a struggling console seems to be doing so well? That's a great a company is trying to do something different? You don't say anything positive. That's the issue. And because of your past it just feels like a child at work slagging off something you don't like. But whatever. Let's leave it there (like Mr Last Word can ever just leave it)

 

This is provocation in its purest form. You look more like a child now than any other person here.

 

This is a forum, people are allowed to have opinions. If anyone chooses to post a negative opinion, then there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Oh and if you want to challenge someone, don't be a dick about it and just ask.

 

 

I actually wanted to post my thoughts about this game's news but it's getting more and more annoying to see that 'not so good opinions' always get attacked - and with that it doesn't end: the person voicing his/her opinion quickly becomes the target.

 

That's why I mostly refrain from posting in the Nintendo boards...

[Sheikah]

@dazzybee, your way of challenging people is to undermine them, not by engaging them in meaningful discussion. Why not be like "So why do you think that"? Instead of pointing out "Oh, another negative comment, let's just ignore him" as a means to completely write off anything I say. It's poor form, and you get so much more out of people by treating them with a bit of respect.

 

Saying I go into any Nintendo thread possible purely out of desire to be negative is also bullshit, and actually quite disrespectful. Look back and you'll see my positive views on Pikmin 3, Zelda ALBW (which I loved), Wind Waker HD and in the Nintendo bargains topic (because hey, I actually like seeing people grab a good deal on a Nintendo console to play those games). But the fact remains; my output will never be balanced, so long as Nintendo continue to do more in the way of things I disprove than approve of. Acknowledge that some people have different wants from their games and know that ultimately, any negativity shouldn't be spoiling your fun.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Sheikah

[peterl0]

I think it is fair to point out in defence of @dazzybee and the board in general that there were many negative feelings towards the changes in this game (including my own) that were not attacked as being too negative.

[Sheikah]

I think it is fair to point out in defence of @dazzybee and the board in general that there were many negative feelings towards the changes in this game (including my own) that were not attacked as being too negative.

 

Um, I'm not sure that works as a defence for the person you think it does!

[peterl0]

How do you mean? I was merely trying to point out that there are negative opinions on this thread that he has not jumped on, so it is not as if 'no one is allowed to have negative opinions' on this thread, but the style and tone of those opinions that is causing aggravation.

[Sheikah]

How do you mean? I was merely trying to point out that there are negative opinions on this thread that he has not jumped on, so it is not as if 'no one is allowed to have negative opinions' on this thread, but the style and tone of those opinions that is causing aggravation.

 

Yeah, there are negative feelings in this thread, but he jumped on mine (as he has done in 2-3 other topics recently). Maybe you can see the alternative perspective now?

 

The point is that he shouldn't be jumping on anyone for posting negative views. He can challenge me for sure, I enjoy a good debate with people giving their points of view. But calling out negativity for negativity's sake is total bullshit. Why do people care so much if your views are negative; is it spoiling their fun? FE is receiving some rather dubious changes; of course my view will be negative!

Edited June 2, 2015 by Sheikah

[Pestneb]

He's not attacking negativity toward the game but your way of expressing your negativity.. I think it does come to his defence.

 

Yeah, there are negative feelings in this thread, but he jumped on mine (as he has done in 2-3 other topics recently). Maybe you can see the alternative perspective now?

 

The point is that he shouldn't be jumping on anyone for posting negative views. He can challenge me for sure, I enjoy a good debate with people giving their points of view. But calling out negativity for negativity's sake is total bullshit. Why do people care so much if your views are negative? FE is receiving some rather dubious changes; of course my view will be negative!

 

I think the problem is you appear to be goading people into a verbal argument far too often. Peters point it that he's not calling out negativity, but your seeming search for a verbal fisticuffs.

 

And you know it could be worst, he's not gone Ronnie on you yet

[Sheikah]

He's not attacking negativity toward the game but your way of expressing your negativity.. I think it does come to his defence.

 

 

 

I think the problem is you appear to be goading people into a verbal argument far too often. Peters point it that he's not calling out negativity, but your seeming search for a verbal fisticuffs.

 

And you know it could be worst, he's not gone Ronnie on you yet

 

I think people need to buck up a little. Sometimes people will swear in their posts, but that doesn't mean they're issuing a ticket to receive bullshit. I'm up for discussion around my views, but being told "hey, you're negative! Your posts are all trolling crap!" is totally the opposite of what we should be aiming for round here. Don't be that guy who defends him, because whatever you think about the way I express myself, this guy is in the wrong.

[dazzybee]

This is provocation in its purest form. You look more like a child now than any other person here.

 

This is a forum, people are allowed to have opinions. If anyone chooses to post a negative opinion, then there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Oh and if you want to challenge someone, don't be a dick about it and just ask.

 

 

I actually wanted to post my thoughts about this game's news but it's getting more and more annoying to see that 'not so good opinions' always get attacked - and with that it doesn't end: the person voicing his/her opinion quickly becomes the target.

 

That's why I mostly refrain from posting in the Nintendo boards...

 

Oh look who's come to help his friend out... It isn't negative opinions, this has been gone over so many times, lots of people are negative, it's about the posters contribution. It's such a cheap argument for someone unable to debate, or formulate an intelligent response.

 

Seriously, pretty much every post has been some native crap with no justification or actual thought, it gets picked up on and you lot cry about it. I've explained that if he actually formulated a response it would be much better, if there was general balance...

 

I just don't understand this obsession with going into threads of games you know you don't like, being negative and than wandering off again. Do you know what game I think is shit, childish, awfully written etc Grand Theft Auto, do you know what thread I NEVER go in? Grand Theft Auto... I would be the biggest troll if I just went in that thread saying how shit it was, then other threads of games I didn't like and bitched about them. A troll. Which is what Sheikh often comes across as.

 

@dazzybee, your way of challenging people is to undermine them, not by engaging them in meaningful discussion. Why not be like "So why do you think that"? Instead of pointing out "Oh, another negative comment, let's just ignore him" as a means to completely write off anything I say. It's poor form, and you get so much more out of people by treating them with a bit of respect.

 

Saying I go into any Nintendo thread possible purely out of desire to be negative is also bullshit, and actually quite disrespectful. Look back and you'll see my positive views on Pikmin 3, Zelda ALBW (which I loved), Wind Waker HD and in the Nintendo bargains topic (because hey, I actually like seeing people grab a good deal on a Nintendo console to play those games). But the fact remains; my output will never be balanced, so long as Nintendo continue to do more in the way of things I disprove than approve of. Acknowledge that some people have different wants from their games and know that ultimately, any negativity shouldn't be spoiling your fun.

 

No it isn't, just mainly with you. Because I genuinely feel you do this on purpose, how many people on these forums do you argue with? So so many. It isn't a coincidence. I keep saying it and it keeps getting ignored. If you expressed exactly what was worrying you, or it came out of a genuine concern for the franchise, my reaction would be different. But you don't really care, you just come in here to bitch, you don't care about CARS because if you did you'd get it on the PS4 but you just went in to make a bitchy comment, this happens far too often with you. You don't articulate a response, just a bitchy comment, then someone calls you up on it THEN you explain yourself.

 

Just read the rest of the thread. Thank you @peter10+ @Pestneb it IS NOT ABOUT NEGATIVITY, it's about the way they're expressed and the general attitude of the poster.

 

@Sheikah can you really not see how your posts come across as a little trolling? Did you play through Awakening? I presume the answer is no because you would've said.

[Jonnas]

@dazzybee: Dude, this is seriously something you should be doing in PMs. Also, after you've calmed down a bit, because I can see you have genuine grievances in there.

 

I don't really get what you're arguing here. Because people use thing, thing must be...good?

 

No, I'm saying that your statement was needlessly hostile towards people who did like the change. I didn't like it, but I'm not going to call others "lowest common denominator" over it.

 

You also focused on only one thing I put forward (optional perma-death) when I was making my point in order to, I'm guessing, try refute the whole point. Unbreakable weapons and the sim-like features alone still make my point for me pretty well. It's basically stuff that I don't think fits well in the series and devalues it somewhat. And I think we really have been told enough to form that conclusion.

 

I already addressed the unbreakable weapons earlier in the thread (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now, as they're nerfing most of the weapons, in other words, retooling how weapons work entirely), as well as the Amie thing (I dislike it, and how it lowers the respectability of the setting), though I will add this about the latter: I wouldn't say it's pandering to "non-core" (as you called it), as this seems to be made for a very specific slice of the target audience.

 

I wasn't looking to antagonise you, or even challenge your opinion (which is fair, I definitely see where you're coming from), just the way you phrased it.

 

The topic of optional difficulty reduction has risen before when talking about more challenging games (for example, save states and Megaman; you previously couldn't just reload your game save state during Megaman and that was the challenge). What it comes down to is whether you believe game series that were more challenging in the past (and in fact, unique because of that challenge; your characters would always die) should remain challenging for everyone, or whether they should become more accessible to everyone by having optional difficulties. It may seem odd to you that I think the former, but I can best provide an example with something like Dark Souls. If they had the option of cheesing through the game by lowering the difficulty, it wouldn't be Dark Souls. I actually think the same way with FE; by having perma-death as the only option, it makes the game solely that thing. That is what the game is, not just something the game can be.

 

{Long response/rant incoming}

 

The topic of game difficulty and how to tackle it is an interesting one. But Fire Emblem is different from Dark Souls or classic Megaman.

 

Those two examples belong to popular genres (3rd person action game, and 2D platformer), where the difficulty, coupled with good game design, helps them stand out. By virtue of being something that is marketable due to their genre, they can afford to be able to explore the possibility of offering a challenge to its intended audience, and the share of that audience that is interested in that challenge is big enough to justify the game's existence and success.

 

Fire Emblem is different, however. Strategy RPGs are a niche genre, and not a very profitable one. Fire Emblem as a franchise was on the ropes before Awakening was released, and the success of that game would make or break its future in the west. Whether we like it or not, Casual Mode did help ensure that the game existed in the first place.

 

The curious thing is, Fire Emblem is a very accessible franchise to begin with, gameplay-wise. The menus are clean and easy to navigate, characters move and attack fast, micro-managing is not as taxing as it is in other examples of the genre, even the plot is easy to follow. The difficult itself is what prevented more people from engaging with it, as most people don't like playing chess*

 

*(It is my opinion that Fire Emblem resembles chess in that it's more about the strategy you employ than it is about how you build or micromanage your characters. Just explaining my reasoning).

 

And yet, that wasn't enough for a genuinely challenging sRPG to stay afloat. Unfortunately, Casual Mode might be a necessity for the series right now, as a lot of new players loved it for the characters and the matchmaking (which is made easier by characters not dying permanently). The infuriating thing is that this is the reason I played FE7 over and over again, despite having perma-death, but since the general public doesn't like playing chess, tough luck for that game.

 

Could Fire Emblem go back to perma-death?** Possibly, since the popularity of the genre (or even just of this series in particular) can vary. But since that's a risk right now, only after the name "Fire Emblem" becomes big enough to justify that experiment.

 

**(Addressing one of your specific points, perma-death has been but one of the many aspects of Fire Emblem. As I've said throughout this post, it stands out from other games in the genre in several aspects, so Fire Emblem stays Fire Emblem even if you remove the perma-death, like Awakening did)

 

Finally, as much as Dark Souls gets praise for being Dark Souls, its good reception is an exception among genuinely difficult games, and made possible partially by the fact that the game consists of a main character hacking and slashing (or shooting) monsters. I still remember when the Megaman Zero series used to get lukewarm reviews for being difficult, and that's a game that consisted of the same thing.

 

(As a side-note to the entire rant, I'm conflating "reception" with "sales" since, in the matter of game difficulty, both seem to go hand in hand)

 

tl,dr,: Some games can afford being genuinely challenging. Unfortunately, Fire Emblem isn't one of them right now.

[Sheikah]

 

Seriously, pretty much every post has been some native crap with no justification or actual thought, it gets picked up on and you lot cry about it. I've explained that if he actually formulated a response it would be much better, if there was general balance...

 

You are a man with an agenda and you won't stop until the world has heard it. The world must be positive about Nintendo! Don't dare come into a topic and disagree, or I'll bore you to within an inch of your life!

 

You want balance? How about when you go into the PS4 topic to complain about how there OS is shit, how there are no games and how you don't like what you've been playing bar a few titles. People don't instantly downplay what you're saying based on who you are; they challenge your points.

 

I really don't get the need for balance anyway. You're not balanced about the PS4, because you prefer Nintendo, and I prefer what Sony are doing. Doesn't mean we can't post negatively about things we own or have interest in though, does it? Or maybe it does, if it's about Nintendo!

 

I just don't understand this obsession with going into threads of games you know you don't like, being negative and than wandering off again. Do you know what game I think is shit, childish, awfully written etc Grand Theft Auto, do you know what thread I NEVER go in? Grand Theft Auto... I would be the biggest troll if I just went in that thread saying how shit it was, then other threads of games I didn't like and bitched about them. A troll. Which is what Sheikh often comes across as.

 

Yeah, I go into topics about games I don't like. Despite the fact I have Fire Emblem Awakening and enjoyed it, in spite of that one feature that I wasn't exactly thrilled was there.

 

Your whole argument is just such absolute bullshit. The idea that you should not go into a topic and leave a negative view is ridiculous. Why not? If Fire Emblem is going down a pretty crappy path, why can't I say that in a short post? Why must I pepper my post with niceties to stop the near militant Nintendo fanboys getting enraged? What the fuck is this forum coming to, really?

[Eddage]

It sounds like they have sold the fuck out. That's a huge shame because this was more of a core gamer franchise not so long ago.

 

I'm not going to say a word about someone going into yet another thread just to make some bollocky negative comment... Such a shock! It's not even remotely boring...

 

We know nothing about the game really, to say they sold the fuck out is just weird. Especially as this is a sequel to kne of the best gsmes of the past few years. I think they deserve to be trusted rather than make outlandish statements...

 

I don't usually get involved with these petty arguments but looking at these posts it's pretty clear to see who the aggressor here is.

 

@Sheikah posted his opinion about the news of the changes, and instead of just asking why he thought that way @dazzybee kicks things off by being bitchy - great way to start a conversation! Just remove your first, completely pointless, paragraph and this whole thing could have then naturally led into Sheikah explaining why he thought that way and for once there may have been a grown up discussion on this forum!

[dazzybee]

You are a man with an agenda and you won't stop until the world has heard it. The world must be positive about Nintendo! Don't dare come into a topic and disagree, or I'll bore you to within an inch of your life!

 

You're just doing it to be annoying. Many people are negative, I'm negative about them, people in this very thread were. Was there a problem? No. So why keep batting this point? Because you have nothing else? Just some way to try and find another reason, other than the fact the I think the problem is the way you are on these forms and the comment you make? Not negativity. Just the way you express yourself. That's why you get into arguments with everyone all the time. Do I? No, just with you, like far too many people do.

 

I don't usually get involved with these petty arguments but looking at these posts it's pretty clear to see who the aggressor here is.

 

@Sheikah posted his opinion about the news of the changes, and instead of just asking why he thought that way @dazzybee kicks things off by being bitchy !

 

Except this isn't an isolated incident. He often goes into a thread, posts a comment that has no real insight and bitches, then leaves. It happens a lot. And it's dull.

 

And people wonder why so many people left this place... I'm obviously making it worse by reacting, but I don't understand some peoples desire to just piss on threads... I find it weird!!

Edited June 2, 2015 by dazzybee
Automerged Doublepost

[Sheikah]

No, I'm saying that your statement was needlessly hostile towards people who did like the change. I didn't like it, but I'm not going to call others "lowest common denominator" over it.

 

Lowest common denominator just refers to a dumbing down of an aspect so that it appeals to more people; e.g. people who do not like difficulty. That's exactly what happened to FE; where's the insult? It has nothing to do with the people buying the game.

 

I already addressed the unbreakable weapons earlier in the thread (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now, as they're nerfing most of the weapons, in other words, retooling how weapons work entirely), as well as the Amie thing (I dislike it, and how it lowers the respectability of the setting), though I will add this about the latter: I wouldn't say it's pandering to "non-core" (as you called it), as this seems to be made for a very specific slice of the target audience.

 

Those sim-like aspects definitely sound like they're pandering to a non core audience, to me. Not sure what else I can say about it.

 

The topic of game difficulty and how to tackle it is an interesting one. But Fire Emblem is different from Dark Souls or classic Megaman.

 

They're all different games, but the same reasoning applies to each.

 

That being in FE of past; if you screw up, you die. And you lose people. By making it optional it's essentially like most other games - you have easy/normal/hard modes. Of course the game becomes technically more accessible by having an easy mode but I disagree that this game needs to be easier. Dark Souls shows there are a lot of people who want the challenge. And I'm willing to bet those same kinds of people aren't exactly enthused by the sim elements, either.

[peterl0]

Making the perma-death optional I think was the right thing. Many reviewers awakening that admitted playing with that option I think understood the game better (finally?) and played through further. Don't get me wrong I love the perma-death and part of me was disappointed that it was made optional, but I would rather continue getting the games than not and if that sort of implication is needed to let the game sell well enough then I think its fine.

 

The audience for Dark Souls is clearly there for a harder game, but I don't think it is the same audience on the 3DS.

[Sheikah]

Making the perma-death optional I think was the right thing. Many reviewers awakening that admitted playing with that option I think understood the game better (finally?) and played through further. Don't get me wrong I love the perma-death and part of me was disappointed that it was made optional, but I would rather continue getting the games than not and if that sort of implication is needed to let the game sell well enough then I think its fine.

 

The audience for Dark Souls is clearly there for a harder game, but I don't think it is the same audience on the 3DS.

 

But you can play without any real thought with no perma-death. it's just a bit silly, really. They have an excellent game that requires strategy and thought, then they make it possible to not really use much of that at all. It turns from strategic placement of all your units to "send the big fucker to the base and rinse the commander".

 

Yeah, I get some people want an easy ride and all that, but I respect games that say "Here is the difficulty of this game. Good luck".

[drahkon]

Oh look who's come to help his friend out...

 

:indeed:

Edited June 2, 2015 by drahkon

[peterl0]

I prefer the game that way as well, but I would also like to play the game through with my family if possible and get them interested.

 

This is one of the very few games where Nintendo has provided the option to make the change and not enforced a decision on me and for that I will be grateful!

[Jonnas]

@Sheikah, @drahkon: If dazzybee doesn't hear me, maybe you will. Bring that discussion to PMs. If dazzybee say something toxic that you MUST respond to, respond in PMs. Seriously guys, your posts responding to him clog up the thread as much as his.

 

Lowest common denominator just refers to a dumbing down of an aspect so that it appeals to more people; e.g. people who do not like difficulty. That's exactly what happened to FE; where's the insult? It has nothing to do with the people buying the game.

 

"Dumbing down", that is "making it dumber", does not mean the same as making something more appealing to a wider audience (otherwise, we'd be saying that Steam "dumbed down" game distribution worldwide, or that an easier OS interface is "dumbed down" compared with the alternatives).

 

And "lowest common denominator" is a term that I have yet to hear in a positive light, and it very much refers to people, rather than a product.

 

Those sim-like aspects definitely sound like they're pandering to a non core audience, to me. Not sure what else I can say about it.

 

Matchmaking aspects have been in Fire Emblem since the 4th entry (1996). Literally the only thing that's changing here is that the player gets pet their faces, which is a thing that, to my knowledge, is not known to be a mainstream thing in games.

 

Just saying, "Dating Sims" are still a niche thing, even if matchmaking rose in popularity thanks to Bioware.

 

They're all different games, but the same reasoning applies to each.

 

That being in FE of past; if you screw up, you die. And you lose people. By making it optional it's essentially like most other games - you have easy/normal/hard modes. Of course the game becomes technically more accessible by having an easy mode but I disagree that this game needs to be easier. Dark Souls shows there are a lot of people who want the challenge. And I'm willing to bet those same kinds of people aren't exactly enthused by the sim elements, either.

 

From a pure gameplay perspective, you have a good point, I'd rather have a game that pushes its difficulty, and takes pride* in it.

 

From a feasibility perspective, it's only through the existence of the easy mode that said difficulty can exist in the first place (the challenge of Dark Souls is not the same thing as the challenge of Fire Emblem, after all. Apples and Oranges).

 

*(Peterl0 brings a good point in that the harder option is still there (including Lunatic Mode), meaning that this really is just a matter of image and pride for the series)

 

As for the gameplay fans not being enthused by the dating sim aspects: irrelevant. As I said above, those have been in FE for almost 20 years, and the series has space for players that enjoy the writing (characters, story and setting), the gameplay (difficulty, strategy and mechanics), or both.

[Mr-Paul]

I've just skipped the last ten posts :P

 

What's wrong with making things accessible if there's still the option to have things they were before - i.e. perma-death?

And what's wrong with adding in new features/mechanics that might improve the game? Surely keeping it the same would be stale and unchanged, what Nintendo gets criticised for all the time?

 

To me, the Pokémon-amie like sim bit isn't to dumb down for casuals. It's for the hardcore geeks who get obsessed with the characters and want them to be their waifus/whatever and write fan fiction. It's fan service, and it's very japanese! It doesn't appeal to me at all, but it isn't going to ruin the game for me.

[Grazza]

My personal opinion on this - Fire Emblem was too obsessive before Awakening. I played Sacred Stones (one of the GBA games) and enjoyed it up to a point, but the unforgiving difficulty eventually ruined it. It's one thing to use planning skills, but when something can go wrong at the last minute and you need to start all over again, that leads to, as I say, obsession.

 

Then along came Awakening - the most perfect strategy game I've played - and fixed all this. You still needed strategy, but one mistake wouldn't necessarily ruin everything. And if you did want the challenge, you could always use Classic Mode. You could have the personal satisfaction of completing it the hard way, yet still allow everyone else to have a more enjoyable ride if they wanted it.

 

Regarding the "petting" aspect, I can see how they arrived at this point. One of the most engaging parts of Awakening was how you could build relationships and marry an (opposite sex) character of your choice. Whether or not stylus interaction is necessary I don't have an opinion on either way, but I do see the logic of following this path.

[Sheikah]

"Dumbing down", that is "making it dumber", does not mean the same as making something more appealing to a wider audience (otherwise, we'd be saying that Steam "dumbed down" game distribution worldwide, or that an easier OS interface is "dumbed down" compared with the alternatives).

 

I think you're being very politically correct with the language here. Dumbing down does not mean you are making it for dumb people. Having an easier difficulty mode when you've never put one in before means you've dumbed it down, because yeah, you've made it easier. Again going back to Dark Souls because it's easy to show examples; if they put in an optional easy mode then you can bet your ass people would say they dumbed the game down. You wouldn't even be referring to the people, just the product.

 

And "lowest common denominator" is a term that I have yet to hear in a positive light, and it very much refers to people, rather than a product.

 

No, it always refers to the product. You would say "this TV show is going for the lowest common denominator". As in, everyone can understand/play it because it's pretty dumbed down, low grade trash.

 

Also, I didn't cast it in a positive light because, if you noticed, I did not view this is a positive feature.

 

 

From a pure gameplay perspective, you have a good point, I'd rather have a game that pushes its difficulty, and takes pride* in it.

 

From a feasibility perspective, it's only through the existence of the easy mode that said difficulty can exist in the first place (the challenge of Dark Souls is not the same thing as the challenge of Fire Emblem, after all. Apples and Oranges).

 

Why aren't they the same? They are both video games and both provide a challenge over your usual games; both require careful thinking to avoid big consequences. Importantly, people enjoy the unique traits of those games. Why would I have a point if they added an easy mode for Dark Souls, but not for FE? There seems to be some implication here that FE players would not be able to handle the enforced increased difficulty, but DS players can? If not, what's your point here...?

 

As for the gameplay fans not being enthused by the dating sim aspects: irrelevant. As I said above, those have been in FE for almost 20 years, and the series has space for players that enjoy the writing (characters, story and setting), the gameplay (difficulty, strategy and mechanics), or both.

 

The proposed sim aspects here sound massively different to the far more subtle choice making of past games. It just sounds really bad to me.

 

I've just skipped the last ten posts :P

 

What's wrong with making things accessible if there's still the option to have things they were before - i.e. perma-death?

And what's wrong with adding in new features/mechanics that might improve the game? Surely keeping it the same would be stale and unchanged, what Nintendo gets criticised for all the time?

 

I went over that in my last few posts, but essentially, I think that options like this can detract from this sort of game. I respect game developers that can make a challenging game that players must work hard to complete. If Dark Souls or Megaman had easy modes where you could breeze through the game with no difficulty then there would unquestionably be criticism. To me, perma-death in FE has been one of the hallmarks of FE and something I always thought was cool. Yeah, it's still there, but the fact it can not be there...it just feels like a difficulty option now, you know? Like if I selected hard mode in any game; a lot of people never pick the hard mode of games by default (especially newcomers), and so may never really experience one of the cool things about this game.

 

To me, the Pokémon-amie like sim bit isn't to dumb down for casuals. It's for the hardcore geeks who get obsessed with the characters and want them to be their waifus/whatever and write fan fiction. It's fan service, and it's very japanese! It doesn't appeal to me at all, but it isn't going to ruin the game for me.

 

As with anything, it can be taken to the next level. But when I refer to 'core' I'm more or less saying that this series has always felt like it focuses on the pure gameplay. This feels like a really unnecessary tacked on load of r

Edited June 2, 2015 by Sheikah

[Glen-i]

My personal opinion on this - Fire Emblem was too obsessive before Awakening. I played Sacred Stones (one of the GBA games) and enjoyed it up to a point, but the unforgiving difficulty eventually ruined it. It's one thing to use planning skills, but when something can go wrong at the last minute and you need to start all over again, that leads to, as I say, obsession.

 

Then along came Awakening - the most perfect strategy game I've played - and fixed all this. You still needed strategy, but one mistake wouldn't necessarily ruin everything. And if you did want the challenge, you could always use Classic Mode. You could have the personal satisfaction of completing it the hard way, yet still allow everyone else to have a more enjoyable ride if they wanted it.

 

Regarding the "petting" aspect, I can see how they arrived at this point. One of the most engaging parts of Awakening was how you could build relationships and marry an (opposite sex) character of your choice. Whether or not stylus interaction is necessary I don't have an opinion on either way, but I do see the logic of following this path.

 

This guy!

 

Give this guy a medal! Or failing that, a Secret Book!

 

Complaining that an optional feature of the game is somehow "Ruining" or "Dumbing down" your Fire Emblem is total and utter horse manure.

 

Permadeath is still there! Go ahead and use it all you like. And I guarantee that Pokemon Amie: Fire Emblem edition is entirely optional as well. (Even if it does look quite creepy to me)

 

Let me tell you something, the option to turn Permadeath off in Awakening is the only reason I picked it up!

And I guarantee I'm not the only one. I've tried Fire Emblem GBA. Absolutely hate it. It's just overly frustrating.

 

During Awakening, I still tried my best to not let anyone lose all their HP, despite playing casual. It's just nice to not have to be punished so much because I made a slight miscalculation or because I got screwed over by the RNG.

 

Being referred to as the "Lowest common denominator" is downright insulting.

 

You know, for all the talk I see around here of niche series like F-Zero or until the new one was announced, Starfox, not getting the success people think they deserve. All this backlash over features the "core gamer" disapprove of for the sake of more sales is extremely hypocritical.