Sheikah Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) 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. Bwahaha. Not one drop of horse manure on my posts, matey. You imply that optional content can never detract from an experience, because you can ignore it. Nothing could be further from the truth; time and time again I see people here complain about completely optional microtransactions in games being a blight on gaming. But they're optional, right? Then let's backtrack to Majora's Mask on 3DS - a fair few had a word to say about now being able to save anywhere making the game quite a bit easier. But hey, it's optional duuude. The truth is...we give a damn about things that are optional. Because the presence of things itself, even if we have no intention of using them, can rouse our passions so we defend what we see as how things 'should' be. I see Dark Souls as a hard game, it should always be hard. I see FE as having a cool death concept, and I think it should always be so! Edited June 2, 2015 by Sheikah
Glen-i Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Bwahaha. Not one drop of horse manure on my posts, matey. You imply that optional content can never detract from an experience, because you can ignore it. Nothing could be further from the truth; time and time again I see people here complain about completely optional microtransactions being a blight on gaming. But they're optional, right? Again, backtrack to Majora's Mask on 3DS - a fair few had a word to say about being able to save anywhere. But hey, it's optional duuude. The truth is...we give a damn about things that are optional. Because the presence of things itself, even if we have no intention of using them, can rouse our passions so we defend what we see as how things 'should' be. I never once complained about the examples you posted. Just want to point that out. But since when was it your right to demand how things should be when it comes to how a game is made? Intelligent Systems wants to use the massive success of Awakening to help this new one do well. Whether or not the old fanbase like it or not doesn't really matter, because quite frankly, the old fanbase is not enough of an incentive. I mean, where the hell is Advance Wars? Advance Wars is in a limbo state because it wasn't really doing that well. People can rave about how good it is all they like. But the harsh truth is that, it just wasn't appealing enough to the majority of players (Me included). This kind of stubborn "Change is bad" attitude is why game series become less and less successful over time. You should be happy that Fire Emblem has grown from such a niche series to a veritable Smash hit, but instead you gripe and complain because "it's not how I want it!" If it was how you wanted it, Awakening would have had no hope of doing as well as it did.
Sheikah Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) But since when was it your right to demand how things should be when it comes to how a game is made? Err... hello? I'm a potential (and previous) customer? That is perhaps the most ridiculous question I have read on the forum in a while. What right has a customer to expect and demand things? Every right! And don't read that statement as the words of a brat; view it in very simple terms instead: If this game becomes a bit shit because of the changes, then many people like myself probably won't buy it. This kind of stubborn "Change is bad" attitude is why game series become less and less successful over time. You should be happy that Fire Emblem has grown from such a niche series to a veritable Smash hit, but instead you gripe and complain because "it's not how I want it!" If it was how you wanted it, Awakening would have had no hope of doing as well as it did. No no no. Change does not = bad. As a fan of other consoles, you can tell I love change. Bad change is bad, good change is good. Edited June 2, 2015 by Sheikah
Glen-i Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Err... hello? I'm a potential (and previous) customer? That is perhaps the most ridiculous question I have read on the forum in a while. What right has a customer to expect and demand things? Every right! If this game becomes a bit shit because of the dumbing down, then many people probably won't buy it. If every customer could choose how a game should be made, that game would be an utter train wreck! The customer doesn't always know best when it comes to making games. I've said it before, Awakening did fantastic because it didn't only cater to the old-school fanbase needs. It made the game more appealing for people like me to buy. And clearly, from a business point of view, it was a good decision. To go back to how the previous games worked would be completely idiotic. The games development does not revolve around you just because you've been playing them more than others. If they flat out remove a feature you enjoy, then you have every right to complain, but until then, moaning about a feature you never have to use is a complete waste of time. Especially if that feature is a massive selling point that helps to sell copies. If you go to Intelligent Systems and tell them that they should take non-perma death out of this game because you think the game is worse off for it, you'd be laughed out of the front door!
Sheikah Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) If every customer could choose how a game should be made, that game would be an utter train wreck! The customer doesn't always know best when it comes to making games. You have it completely the wrong way around - the game developer doesn't always knows what the customer wants. Ultimately they make their games to please customers, and if they succeed then customers will buy it. To say the thoughts of customers is not important is insane. What were customers saying about lack of voice chat in Splatoon? Did Nintendo know best there, too? I've said it before, Awakening did fantastic because it didn't only cater to the old-school fanbase needs. It made the game more appealing for people like me to buy. And clearly, from a business point of view, it was a good decision. To go back to how the previous games worked would be completely idiotic. Awakening was great for many, many reasons, but that wasn't one of them. In fact, that was something many people were critical about. I remember people being quite vocal about that, but the game was so brilliant in other ways. Most of all though, it may have sold more due to it being more appealing but that doesn't make for a better game. I don't understand why selling more means it's the best. In that case, the Wii was the best console. Yeah, right. The games development does not revolve around you just because you've been playing them more than others.If they flat out remove a feature you enjoy, then you have every right to complain, but until then, moaning about a feature you never have to use is a complete waste of time. Especially if that feature is a massive selling point that helps to sell copies. Not at all. As a forum, people enjoy discussing features they either like or don't like. Arguably, every one of your posts on here, as are mine, a complete and utter wastes of time. Except really, they're not. We enjoy the discussion and the debates. If you go to Intelligent Systems and tell them that they should take non-perma death out of this game because you think the game is worse off for it, you'd be laughed out of the front door! I'd imagine I might be! Along with anyone who suggested AC should remove microtransactions from their games. It's funny how money can cause people to spontaneously burst out laughing at suggestions that might not lead to more money. Edited June 2, 2015 by Sheikah
Pestneb Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 What were customers saying about lack of voice chat in Splatoon? Did Nintendo know best there, too? Having played the game, I would actually say yes. When they release the friend matches I think voice chat would be positive to allow a more social experience, but for the time being I haven't had a single game where I wished there was voice chat. (ok I would have liked hearing N-E'ers chatting, but that would unbalance the game) In fact one game I remember getting splatted and wanted to warn my team mate that he had a roller behind him. If I had voice chat I would have done that, job well done. Instead I could do nothing but laugh as I helplessly watched my team mate get rollered and my team lose control of the splat zone. Did we lose? Not a clue. Do I care? nope. So yup, Nintendo knew best. I mean I have had some of my best games with Japanese players, I wouldn't be able to say that in a game with voice chat.
Sheikah Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I'd like a view from someone a bit more impartial. @Hero of Time, do you think Splatoon would be better for voice chat? What Pestneb is saying goes against reviews I've heard, and I know a lot of people on this forum don't voice chat anyway so it makes no difference to them. Just to be clear here, you're saying that Nintendo knew best to not include it? As in, the absence of the (optional) feature makes it better?
Glen-i Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Ha. Ha! You have it completely the wrong way around - the game developer doesn't always knows what the customer wants. Ultimately they make their games to please customers, and if they succeed then customers will buy it. To say the thoughts of customers is not important is insane. What were customers saying about lack of voice chat in Splatoon? But they don't matter right? You're missing out key words in what I said. I said "The customer doesn't always know best". And I never once said that the thoughts of customers wasn't important, I'm merely saying that the small minority of people who played the older games opinions are not the only ones that matter. And if games should be made to please people. Then clearly, Awakening pleased a lot of people, right? Awakening was great for many, many reasons, but that wasn't one of them. In fact, that was something many people were critical about. I remember people being quite vocal about that, but the game was so brilliant in other ways. Most of all though, it may have sold more due to it being more appealing but that doesn't make for a better game. But it's the people who remained silent who ended up buying the game and helping it rocket up to a record high as far as Fire Emblem goes. It's all well and good being vocal about it, but there are loads of people who I can guarantee enjoyed the game precisely because it didn't have perma-death. And I like I said before, I'm one of them. You take that out and BAM! There goes quite a sizable portion of the sales. And I think Perma-death being optional made Awakening a better game. Not at all. As a forum, people enjoy discussing features they either like or don't like. Arguably, every one of your posts on here, as are mine, are complete and utter wastes of time. Except really, they're not. We enjoy the discussion and the debates. Well, OK, good point. I can't deny that a good debate is a lot of fun. Oh my daze! What's wrong with me? I'd imagine I might be! Along with anyone who suggested AC should remove microtransactions from their games. It's funny how money can cause people to spontaneously burst out laughing at suggestions that might not lead to more money. Well, they are a business. AC? Is that Assassin's Creed or Animal Crossing? Or are both of those guesses wrong? I'm getting a bit confused now. Anyway, microtransactions all depend on how ethical it all is. But that's a whole different topic altogether... I'd like a view from someone a bit more impartial. @Hero of Time, do you think Splatoon would be better for voice chat? What Pestneb is saying goes against reviews I've heard, and I know a lot of people on this forum don't voice chat anyway so it makes no difference to them. Just to be clear here, you're saying that Nintendo knew best to not include it? As in, the absence of the (optional) feature makes it better? Just want to weigh in here and say Splatoon is not better for the lack of voice chat. The game clearly cries out for it. Due to it's heavy co-op nature. Don't care if you didn't ask me. Edited June 2, 2015 by Glen-i Automerged Doublepost
Sheikah Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 You're missing out key words in what I said.I said "The customer doesn't always know best". And I never once said that the thoughts of customers wasn't important, I'm merely saying that the small minority of people who played the older games opinions are not the only ones that matter. And if games should be made to please people. Then clearly, Awakening pleased a lot of people, right? This line of thinking...did you see the posts before about lowest common denominator? Games that have mass appeal are not necessarily better games than ones that appeal to fewer. COD and FIFA appeal to massive numbers of people. What does this really tell us? And I think Perma-death being optional made Awakening a better game. Well yeah, because you wouldn't have played it at all otherwise. It's a hard subject to convince people of, but I actually think that some people do not challenge themselves out of habit and opt for gameplay modes that are less satisfying. Enforced difficulty (or in FE's case; enforced normal mode) is just something I believe makes it better and gives it more of a reputation.
Dcubed Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) I didn't mind the addition of Casual Mode in Awakening, because the game was still designed around perma-death being turned on. I take other issues with it (like the lack of varying objectives for instance and allowing the player to grind to the extreme), but the addition of Casual Mode itself was handled just fine. IS actually did a really good job of catering to longtime fans as well as newcomers with Awakening. Likewise, Phoenix Mode seems to be much the same here. It's basically the equivalent of Super Guide or Very Easy Automatic Mode in Bayonetta; where it's just an optional crutch for less skilled players to take advantage of. As long as the game isn't designed around having it on, then it's fine. Petting though? No siree I do not like it... It's funny, but mostly creepy and smacks of otaku pandering... Edited June 2, 2015 by Dcubed
Glen-i Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 It's a hard subject to convince people of, but I actually think that some people do not challenge themselves out of habit and opt for gameplay modes that are less satisfying. Enforced difficulty (or in FE's case; enforced normal mode) is just something I believe in. I like a challenge when it's not overly frustrating. The majority of times I lost someone in Fire Emblem GBA was because I got unlucky. That's not fun, I don't want to have to start a mission again because the game just decided "That's a perfectly viable tactical move you just did, shame about the 2% critical hit chance you just got nailed with" I get that you like a challenge, but to think that everyone should have to play the way you want them to play because they should challenge themselves is bordering on arrogant. Not everyone is good at games, some people like to coast. And as long as that doesn't affect how I play games, it shouldn't really matter to me. Some people might have played Awakening for the story alone. But what if they're not very good at Fire Emblem? Should they be punished because they can't get their heads around it?
Pestneb Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I'd like a view from someone a bit more impartial. @Hero of Time, do you think Splatoon would be better for voice chat? What Pestneb is saying goes against reviews I've heard, and I know a lot of people on this forum don't voice chat anyway so it makes no difference to them. Just to be clear here, you're saying that Nintendo knew best to not include it? As in, the absence of the (optional) feature makes it better? This isn't about partiality sheikah. the lack of voice chat does: 1) reduce sociability 2) increase interactivity with people who speak other languages. 3) protect noobs 4) increase focus on your micro game 1) is a negative but in splatoon I would only really want to hear people in game. I think it would be a nice way of changing things up in the game and I do want it, at least in the lobby, I am 50/50 about it being in game, I would need to test it to know if I want it so meh 2) A lot of players are from the UK/America etc, so language barriers aren't so huge, but if voice chat was there and you had a multi lingual team vs a team principle comprised of one nationality there would be an advantage there. With the relatively low numbers of Wii U's and therefore potential splatoon players, I think this is a good call, allowing all players to play together. 3) I've had times when I wanted to ask a noob what they thought they were doing... if I was able to do so I am pretty sure an annoyed tone would be present in my voice. I'm also fairly sure I would have likely been on the receiving end of such communications on a couple of occasions .. 4) Losing the communication aspect means I have to make my intentions clear through my actions... I didn't think that would work as well as I am finding it is, but with the ink on the map it really is possible to interpret actions and understand what a player is trying to achieve. Also as you can't command the player to help your plan you just have to work around what they are doing and adapt. It is different, but I think it all adds to a unique experience that is fun, light, and far far far too addictive.
Sheikah Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) I like a challenge when it's not overly frustrating. The majority of times I lost someone in Fire Emblem GBA was because I got unlucky. That's not fun, I don't want to have to start a mission again because the game just decided "That's a perfectly viable tactical move you just did, shame about the 2% critical hit chance you just got nailed with" I get that you like a challenge, but to think that everyone should have to play the way you want them to play because they should challenge themselves is bordering on arrogant. Not everyone is good at games, some people like to coast. And as long as that doesn't affect how I play games, it shouldn't really matter to me. Some people might have played Awakening for the story alone. But what if they're not very good at Fire Emblem? Should they be punished because they can't get their heads around it? The thing is though, I don't think most people are necessarily bad at games, just a bit lazy. And I think if you force people to play a certain way that is difficult, they are forced to play a more satisfying game. Megaman is challenging because you have to master a level to complete it without dying. If you could take far more hits, even as an option, it just wouldn't be the same, IMO. Part of the reward is knowing you cleared a challenging game and those end credits were your reward; not the reward that just any old Joe can stumble across. We're not even talking about super difficult here (because FE really isn't), we're talking about a level of difficulty that means you don't just button mash your way through. Because on low difficulty, you can just send your most powerful units out far and not give a damn. In another example of my argument, World of Warcraft now lets you insta-level up to the max level. And you can buy gold through the game itself now. These are things I would not do, so by your reasoning they shouldn't bother anyone. But they do, because it's the general dumbing down of games that annoys people. And the people that want to get ahead are ultimately spoiling the experience for themselves; if anything, not having access to this kind of stuff would probably mean they'd enjoy it more. Just they'll never know, 'cause it's there for them to take. It's a little bit sell out if you ask me. This isn't about partiality sheikah. the lack of voice chat does: 1) reduce sociability 2) increase interactivity with people who speak other languages. 3) protect noobs 4) increase focus on your micro game 1) is a negative but in splatoon I would only really want to hear people in game. I think it would be a nice way of changing things up in the game and I do want it, at least in the lobby, I am 50/50 about it being in game, I would need to test it to know if I want it so meh 2) A lot of players are from the UK/America etc, so language barriers aren't so huge, but if voice chat was there and you had a multi lingual team vs a team principle comprised of one nationality there would be an advantage there. With the relatively low numbers of Wii U's and therefore potential splatoon players, I think this is a good call, allowing all players to play together. 3) I've had times when I wanted to ask a noob what they thought they were doing... if I was able to do so I am pretty sure an annoyed tone would be present in my voice. I'm also fairly sure I would have likely been on the receiving end of such communications on a couple of occasions .. 4) Losing the communication aspect means I have to make my intentions clear through my actions... I didn't think that would work as well as I am finding it is, but with the ink on the map it really is possible to interpret actions and understand what a player is trying to achieve. Also as you can't command the player to help your plan you just have to work around what they are doing and adapt. It is different, but I think it all adds to a unique experience that is fun, light, and far far far too addictive. I honestly have no idea how saying this optional feature can make a game worse. Teamwork is heavily connected to voice chat, which is ridiculously important in all shooters I have played online. It also doesn't protect noobs. If anything, the hardcore players are the ones who will resort to Skype. At least if VC was in game, noobs might use it too. Edited June 2, 2015 by Sheikah
peterl0 Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I don't think it is about laziness in gamers. Younger gamers are genuinely less able than older gamers to play games such as these and some just do not enjoy games that are difficult. I think it is a bit like the 'Tell me a story' difficulty in Mass Effect 3. Removing perma death does not eliminate the challenge entirely but does allow someone who is not as able or does not have the time for replaying a level or just does not enjoy the game enough to replay a level to get something out of the game. The warcraft comparison is not quite the same because all of the people (those that have levelled up the normal way and those that have not) are playing in the same world are they not? I understand why that would feel like a cheat.
Sheikah Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 The thing is though, them Warcraft players are not playing to sell things to others or impact others; just get ahead themselves. Should seeing other characters on screen feel any different to knowing a game has been dumbed down in other people's offline worlds (aka FE?) I get the point about kids, but when I was younger I feel the games I played were harder than the ones adults play today, with lives and far fewer (usually no) checkpoints, so give kids credit.
Pestneb Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I honestly have no idea how saying this optional feature can make a game worse. Teamwork and voice chat is ridiculously important in all shooters I have played online. It also doesn't protect noobs. If anything, the core players are the ones who will resort Skype. At least if VC was in game, noobs might use it too. Fair enough,guess I'll stop this here though because this is the wrong thread!
peterl0 Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 With regards to kids, there is a wide spectrum of them and we tend to have the mindset of the enthusiastic gamer type kids and assume all kids are the same. Games were much harder back in the day, but there were less gamers because some people just don't have the time or patience for this stuff. I welcome the change to try and draw more of the people into playing the game. The overall popularity of the series is more important to me (in this case) than the reputation of the game as a core or difficult experience precisely because the series did not used to even leave Japan.
Jonnas Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I think you're being very politically correct with the language here. Since Glen-i has also been bothered by these terms, I think my concerns are fair. 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...? The bolded part describes most difficult games. Any game that allows you to think before the challenge itself, in fact. DS and FE require different ways of thinking, and different skills. But that's not the point. My original point was that Dark Souls stands out as a particularly challenging example of its own genre. Fire Emblem stands out first and foremost as a particularly accessible sRPG, and as a particularly challenging game second. If Dark Souls is difficult (no easy option), it does what it set out to do. If Fire Emblem is difficult (and lacking Casual Mode), that hampers its accessibility. 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. If there's any gameplay difference, we don't know about it yet. My guess is that it'll be easy to build supports that way, but that's it. It's the writing I'm worried about. In fact, that was something many people were critical about. I remember people being quite vocal about that [...]. I'll join the voices that noticed more people finally getting into Fire Emblem for once. As much as I'd like my Fire Emblems to resemble FE7 and FE10, I'm more glad the series is getting recognition in the west. Likewise, Phoenix Mode seems to be much the same here. It's basically the equivalent of Super Guide or Very Easy Automatic Mode in Bayonetta; where it's just an optional crutch for less skilled players to take advantage of. As long as the game isn't designed around having it on, then it's fine. You know, you make a good point. It's also like the white tanooki in Mario 3D World. I think I can stomach Phoenix Mode a bit better now, thanks
Hero-of-Time Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I'd like a view from someone a bit more impartial. @Hero of Time, do you think Splatoon would be better for voice chat? Sorry. I've just seen this now. Yes, of course it would. There's been many times I would have liked to give my team mates a heads up because a roller has made it past everyone and is covering the base. Not only that, but there have been some amazingly LOL moments while playing with people on here. Yes, they are still funny but not as funny as they would have been if talking to others. For me, it's like watching a comedy. If the film is funny then you laugh BUT the laughter always amplifies when you have your mates laughing alongside with you.
dazzybee Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Sorry. I've just seen this now. Yes, of course it would. There's been many times I would have liked to give my team mates a heads up because a roller has made it past everyone and is covering the base. Not only that, but there have been some amazingly LOL moments while playing with people on here. Yes, they are still funny but not as funny as they would have been if talking to others. For me, it's like watching a comedy. If the film is funny then you laugh BUT the laughter always amplifies when you have your mates laughing alongside with you. I can't believe we haven't organised a Skype room yet with a few of us on here... Thing is with voice chat, if it's optional how can anyone complain?!
Miharin Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 The righteous Yamato Kingdom of White vs. ruthless evil Schwarzwald Empire of Black I probably wouldn't have picked up Awakening if not for the casual mode. Resetting after a single death doesn't make the game any more immersive and gives no illusion of consequences - it just takes longer to play the game because you have to perfect every fight. Or has any of you actually let people die and continued the story without them?
Glen-i Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Nintendo confirms that Fire Emblem Fates will add same-sex marriages. Fire Emblem Fates comes in two different versions, called the Conquest and Birthright editions," Nintendo said. "In the U.S., Conquest and Birthright will both be sold separately, as is already the case in Japan. For those who have purchased either the Conquest or Birthright edition, a third edition will be made available as downloadable content at a later stage. Details on how the three storylines will be made available in other regions will be announced at a later date. In the Conquest edition of the game, there is a male character that the game's player may have his/her male main character marry after they bond in battle. Similarly, the Birthright edition features a female character that a female main character may marry after bonding in battle. Both of the aforementioned characters can be encountered in the third edition of the game. These are definitely steps in the right direction, small steps, but steps none the less. Glad to see they learnt some lessons after the whole Tomodachi life fiasco.
TravelHobo Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Same sex stuff I don't have much of an opinion about, but do they really have to release it as two games? It's the same kind of idea as if Sega had released Sonic Adventure 2's dark and hero stories seperately back in the day, and no-one would have stood for that. Ugh, I thought we might escape that treatment in these parts. That said, I'll still buy it because I'm a sucker for Fire Emblem.
Recommended Posts