Hey guys, thanks for watching. This definition is by no means concrete but I think it's an interesting topic to dissect and discuss. In fact, for the comment question: [What mechanic that I included in my definition is unnecessary?] AND/OR [What mechanic did I not include that you think is integral to a game being defined as Fire Emblem?] Hopefully we can generate some interesting/productive debate in the comments :)
First question: RNG. It can enhance the game experience, or detract from it, but at the end of the day the only difference between including RNG and having all rolls hit the average result is player uncertainty. This isn't a necessary element of Fire Emblem, arguably detracts from strategic aspects, and could be accomplished in other ways (though that would require more effort). As an example, Fire Emblem Heroes lacks RNG, yet I often feel like there's that uncertain element of risk. Did I calculate something wrong, leave out an important enemy skill, or forget to account for some unit-warping skill? And above all, did I correctly guess the next AI action? Uncertainty without RNG, or even concealed information--just too much noise hiding the finer details. Second question: It's less of a mechanic that you left out and more one that you took a broader focus on. I explain this in more detail elsewhere, but I feel that the various mechanics that retain continuity over the various levels of a campaign (permadeath, items, XP, etc etc) or even which forge continuity between tactical gameplay and story (support stuff, for instance) help make the game feel less like a collection of individual challenges linked by some unimportant plot and more like a unified whole. It's not so much the inclusion of any one mechanic as the effect of whichever mechanics one chooses to include. Which brings me to a third point: The question is wrong. Some mechanics are absolutely required for a Fire Emblem game; some are absolutely not. But some mechanics are only required if their purpose isn't filled by others. It's not as important to have permadeath if you have other continuity-preserving mechanics, for instance. You can come up with a list of the necessary mechanics in a Fire Emblem game, but those wouldn't be sufficient. You can come up with a list of mechanics which would be sufficient for a Fire Emblem game, but not all of them would be necessary, and there is more than one such list. A list of specific mechanics which are both necessary and sufficient for a Fire Emblem game probably can't be compiled. But it's interesting to try. (Not getting into how different people expect different things out of their games, of course.)
Personally, I think RNG makes most games more fun. It adds an element of risk vs reward that can be applied to almost every RPG. You could have two types of playstyles: play based on stats and try to win through consistent but weaker damage and by taking damage consistently but in predictable my amounts. An example of this would be to have a group of high skill and defense/res units but low strength/mag and speed. They would hit consistently but also be consistently hit, circumventing hit chance rng. On the other hand, one could use high speed and strength/mag units but having low skill and defenses. They have a greater potential damage output but could to no damage if they miss. The same goes for taking damage; you could take a lot or dodge altogether. I find that using a combination of these systems, in taking a calculated risk is very fun as you can go as far as you feel comfortable with. The important thing to keep in mind is how the AI plays, as this varies from game to game. Unlike you the AI only has to take out the commander (in most games) to “win”. Casualties along the way don’t matter so long as victory is achieved. But for the most part, the player is outnumbered and ideally does not lose a single unit. This puts more pressure on the player and often the enemy will force you to roll the dice at some point, even if the odds are stacked in your favor. For this reason I see RNG as integral to Fire Emblem as it adds more fun to the game and can be easily manipulated to the player’s advantage more often than not (a good example is the weapon triangle). As a larger example, one often has to take risks earlier on with the Est/Villager type units as they almost never can secure exp without no room for error. However, they can easily grow into highly capable units that can offer extremely consistent and high damage - a great reward for an early game risk.
I feel like the inclusion of both permadeath and RNG is somewhat flawed, outdated design, and really isn't necessary to preserve the core Fire Emblem "feel". Permadeath causes players to think more carefully and to plot out their strategies slowly, in order to avoid losing a unit they really care about, but there's a difference between losing a unit because you played sloppily and losing a unit because an enemy rolled a 1% Crit on a 43% Hit. Personally I prefer playing the modern titles on Casual Mode and cranking up the difficulty to Hard (or Lunatic if it's unlocked at the start), simply because of the fact that random critical hits exist (a whopping x3 multiplier to damage, in most FE titles). In my opinion, I'd rather have a firm challenge from the opponents' skills and equipment and have to carefully plan out my moves, instead of stroll through a mostly easy game that I have to reset because I took a critical hit to the face. I feel that some form of compromise can be made to preserve the "thrill" of the RNG factor without screwing you out of a unit forever, or forcing you to restart the entire map; Echoes already did a great job with the Mila's Turnwheel mechanic. Maybe in a future game, losing a unit on Casual causes them to also skip the next map due to their injuries? Maybe defeated ally units "level down" and lose some of their stats? These are good ways to add risk to losing units, decreasing their effectiveness later in the game without making some maps feel "unfair" due to getting picked off by a lucky critical.
I definitely agree with the RPG and the perma-death. But I think it's important that they keep casual mode in, because I know people who said they won't play if they won't play older games because they can't play on casual. While I encourage them to give it a try, I think that giving them the choice of classic or casual makes it more available
I heavily disagree. The thing about casual mode is that the difficulty is NEVER balanced around it. Casual mode is nearly impossible to lose, and it only serves as a reason to scare people away from an actual challenge merely by implying through its very existence that classic mode isn’t doable for everyone.
While I agree that Casual is very easy when it is on normal, I find that when you get into the harder modes, It becomes a lot more difficult and fun . I think the only reason that casual is so easy on normal is because of how easy it is to break Awaking and fates ( mostly awakening though ).
The reason I think Heroes is so fun (at least for me) is because it plays on the series’ greatest strength: the characters. No, it may not have permadeath, but adding a voice to all the different characters makes each feel special. While, yes, some see only stats, I see characters in new art, and some with voices for the first time. It’s really surreal for me since the series was on its deathbed just a little while ago. I got my friend into heroes, and because of some of the characters he’s taken a liking to, he really wants to play the games Ike, or Lucina for example, are in. So, yes, characters, in my opinion, is probably the most important aspect of Fire Emblem - but tactics and role-play are just as important as well.
@@nathankeel6667 I will say, I don't really hold the same opinion of heroes anymore, lol. I liked it when it first came out, but due to the fact it hasn't really evolved since then, I don't really like it much anymore. On Three Houses, someone pointed out that it's designed remarkably different from the games that came before. It's almost the polar opposite of more traditional FE games. The pre-TH ones keep giving you units in case your earlier ones fall. SoV held this same basic principle too, despite giving you the ability to turnwheel. TH on the other hand expects you to low man everything, and unless you go out of your way to recruit other house members (or are playing on NG+) you won't be getting anymore. It's not ironman friendly at all, which is certainly interesting. In that regard, yeah, I do agree it's not a perfect FE game when it comes to checking all the boxes. Some parts of it as well almost feel like it's built around divine pulse, which I'm not sure I really agree with. As for actually raising your units? Eh, I think it's fine for it to be different. I have always been more a fan of linear FE games to open-map ones.
I tend to dislike when people try to categorize which games in series are objectively more “Fire Emblem” than the other, because most of the time it’s actually just them projecting their own definition and choosing which games do or don’t fit their taste. When I ask these people to define Fire Emblem for me, I hear something different every time, and it annoys me how 99% of the time it’s definition built around subjective thoughts. Yet, they don’t seem to think so, which causes a lot turmoil in the community. This video actually delves into the traits that have been prevalent throughout the series, what it is that separates Fire Emblem from other games, and establishes a general idea of what draws people in. I applaud it for doing so in a very informed manner. I’d like to ask this question though: What separates a good game from a good Fire Emblem?
I know your comment is 2 years old but i think i have a answer to your last qustion 3 houses its a great game and i enjoy playing it but as a fire emblem game its not the best with how you raise your units and how perma death barly exits but it explfies other aspects of fire emblem to so its still a fe game kinda like how breath of the wild despite being a amazing game is a bad zelda game
I just found this video and I love it. It made me think about why I always use Charlotte to beat Conquest. I wondered why I would invest the most in her, even if she's not that great of an unit. She's axe lock and foot lock while Camilla joins earlier, is a pre-promote, uses axes and tomes and rides a wyvern, which makes her a much better unit by evey objective measurable standarts. The reason why I love Charlotte so much and always use her over Camilla in every scenario, is because she would often beat every all the odds and get that lucky crit. She would often reverse a situation by overcomming fatal match ups and triumph despite low expectations. I could rely on her to handle nearly evey choke points and she would always come on top. That's why she's grown so much on me and has much more to offer than being Xander's backpack in my book. I guess that's why Fire Emblem is so unique to every player.
I would personally drop the Permadeath category and instead focus on the campaign structure. A Fire Emblem game isn't just a series of maps, each its own isolated challenge; it's a story which happens to include a series of maps. This goes beyond the mere inclusion of story, though that is important. There needs to be _continuity_ between levels; this can be achieved by permadeath, but things like finding items in one map and use them in the next also accomplish that goal. The more mechanics that retain continuity between levels, the less that levels feel separate, and the more that they feel like one whole.
A personal extremely important factor is the Underdog effect. Because our hero's team in any given game is usually outmatchedーusually we start our journey meeting the heroes while routed/on the runーit gives an intense roleplaying feeling that our tactics are valuable/turns the tide. Especially in situations where a character would normally die, but we were able to save/recruit them.
Everyone talks about how awesome permadeath is for creating these narrative consequences, but then most just reset until everyone lives anyways. That changes the consequence from "loosing a loved character" to just another level restart.
Actually the fact that you could lose anyone in an instant really changes the way you play. Even thou its just a soft reset away no one wants to play a whole chapter agian. I know this from experience because i used to be a casual player, but then i started to implement more tactics into my gameplay to make sure i lose no one.
Welp, if you didn't get me listening with just the topic of Fire Emblem, using music of the City Ruins in Nier Automata most definitely got me listening ahahah.
Fantastic video Pavise! I agree with every element you incorporated in this theory. Every single piece contributes to not just the game fire emblem is, but the feeling fire emblem is. The joke that it's a "waifu simulator" is really getting old. I shouldn't let those people bother me, and having a marriage system in the game doesn't bother me at all. I just don't want it to ever detract from what fire emblem really is, that's all.
That would make summoning a whole lot more necessary, especially if you're bad at keeping units alive. Because if a unit dies, and they're an unlikely summon, that probably means you won't be able to get them unless something very special happens. Which would really make it interesting.
I would add the maps to that list. If you look at Final Fantasy tactics, that game shares many things with FE but due to the nature of their maps, the battles feel more like a battle royal in a small open arena and without a real strategy while in FE the maps are bigger and you have to know how to use all their elements to your advantage.
Great video! I certainly agreed that what you said applies to the whole main series. #Permadeath forever. I think it is amazing Kaga managed to fully integrate so many of his ideas ever since the first game. Here is my ranking of the franchise (the remakes replace the originals) 14. Fates: Revelation 13. Shadow Dragon 12. Sacred Stones 11. Awakening 10. Fates: Birthright 9. Echoes: SoV 8. Path of Radiance 7. New Mystery of the emblem 6. The binding Blade 5. Genealogy of the Holy War 4. Thracia 776 3. Radiant Dawn 2. Fates: Conquest 1. The sword of Flames The grey area comes with heroes, as I believe it lacks the soul portion you describe. There is the obvious lack of permadeath, causing a unit to become an annoyance at a loss of stamina and exp rather than a character you put time into. Also, the characters are all glorified cameos: They introduce themselves, but don't react to the fact that they are fighting the longest war they have ever participated in or show concern towards their enemies like in the other games. Characters are mostly a reason to place stats and abilities on a certain unit, not to create a personality for players to feel attached to. In all seriousness, does anyone feel anything about killing a hinata to feed fury to a new unit? I don't think so, because stats and unique abilities are all that matter in heroes, which is why I think it ultimately lacks the soul of the franchise
With the exeption of Gaiden/Echoes Something that all the fire emblems have is well "The Fire Emblem" It would be nice to give the FE some extra significance for the next game like a super special stat bonus for like 2 or 3 units or protection against the ultimate attack of the final boss Maybe?
Can you pleaseeee do a Heroes competitive/skill/weapon guide? I've played a majority of the games yet the app makes all the heroes and exclusive and transfering stuff all too much.
+Yeah Showtime Haha, maybe I overdramatized a bit but I'll talk about a time. I enjoy playing Smash Bros. competitively and often doubles is a popular event. I'm pretty good but not the best in my region and decided to team with a pal who I talk to a bit but not often. We weren't expected to win by any means, since the top 2 players in the area were teaming. But by some miracle we managed to beat every single team at that tournament, including the top seeded team. Since then, me and said pal arnet I necessarily closer, but it's a moment we shared together and can talk about for years to come in the future. That's the type of feeling I'm referencing, a situation where failure is a very real possibility but regardless you succeed, and also share that experience with another person. Except in Fire Emblem's case it's with units and characters.
So, if soul is so important, and permadeath is part of soul, how would that relate to Heroes, or when you play on Casual? Would that be stripping away a crucial part of the experience, making it not Fire Emblem?
Heroes/warriors=spinoff And I'd argue that losing permadeath does make it "less fire emblem" , part of fire emblem is nearly winning a tough battle having a unit die and being heartbroken by that death but deciding not to start over for that character because you've almost beat that chapter. Playing conquest on casual is a completely different experience than playing conquest on classic.
Heroes is a spinoff so it can do whatever it likes. As a mobile game it has to take liberties with the game and it does, but there's a reason we don't call treat as a main series game. As for casual mode, it is a totally different experience to play than classic and technically by my definition "less Fire Emblem", but that's just a technicality. I'm really not a fan of calling a thing "less Fire Emblem" than others. It has it's own goals it is trying to accomplish and I really don't mind it's inclusion as long as classic is an option.
I'm inclined to argue that permadeath isn't a central mechanic of Fire Emblem so much as a mechanic which can convey continuity between levels, and hardly the only mechanics which can do so...but I've made that argument elsewhere and don't want to repeat it. The comments section isn't that long yet, right?
Well... imo, FEH isn‘t a real Fire emblem experience, mostly because of not having Permadeath. I know why they didn‘t add it, because the game would be playerless within a week, but still. FEH allows for a stupidly aggressiv playstyle, you don‘t really need to think about it, but any other FE game, that shit wouldn‘t work.
+benington I think you are wrong to say "FEH allows for a stupidly aggresive playstyle you dont really need to think about it". Let me know how well your Level 10 unit would do if you send them straight to a level 15 with weapon disadvantage. "That shit wouldnt work" there either. I would say that since FEH's maps and teams are so small, the punishment for puting a character on the wrong spot is less so than that you would potentially see in a mainstream titlem, while at the same time being exactly that.... punishment for putting your unit on the wrong spot Heroes: "Oh no! I left my healer in range 2 assailants! Now they are death for this level" Mainstream: "Oh no! I left my healer in range of 7+ enemy units.... but holy shit! Only one of them actually landed their attacks so somehow she's alive after all that!" Harder punishment, but a smaller chance of actually being less "written on stone" outcome. In heroes, if you go aggro and the numbers say you are weaker, you ARE going to die.
Anybody else click on this expecting to hear what the word “fire emblem” means. Like seriously I have never once played a game and heard these two words brought up together.I mean it’s not like names like Metroid or legend of Zelda and it doesn’t need to be. But still why is it called it.
If Nintendo was smart, they would grab up and produce the IPs of the other "Kings" of this genre before someone else does...Namely Shining Force and Dark Wizard (the later was only one title, but to be as popular as it was on a dying console means its floating out there for some dev to grab up and bring back) so that thier competators dont jump on the rising wave of TRPG popularity nintendo has begun....Just my opinion on it. The genre has never been as popular as it is now, and just as when Final Fantasy rose to dominate, other competitors were not far behind, only this time their are already IPs that exist that have large followings, especially shining force (the classic ones).
Funny. Many smash players saying there's *too many* FE characters but I say, if you *think* that's a lot........you're a fool. That is a joke. Please don't get offended.
I don't think RNG is necessary, Heroes feels pretty Fire Emblem like. I don't think level are really necessary. 0% Growth is a thing. I don't think Permadeath is essential. It's just "Game Over on character death" for most people. I would say the following is enough to be fire emblem : 1) Your technical FE for a base 2) Unique characters ( -Can share portraits with a few others, but the name needs to be different- EDIT: I've come to the conclusion that portraits are unnecessary. Only a different name tag and stats are sufficient to make a character different.) 3) stat (MOV & Range included) variations
"I don't think RNG is necessary, Heroes feels pretty Fire Emblem like. I don't think level are really necessary. 0% Growth is a thing." RNG is the main risk that is outside of just "grinding" a unit to become infinitely overpowered and annihilate things without stopping. The main fault with Heroes is that it is a Gacha game, the speed stat has no use outside of doubling, and whoever attacks first normally wins the battle, unless there is a build for most units that can block that type of gameplay. Levels are necessary as well, as they give the player more challenge along the way, as well as grant the enemies a reason to become stronger as well. 0% Growth is done to see who can use the hardest of hard strategies to beat the game, which tends to defy what Kaga stated, he did not want his series to be dry and hard to just be hard. "I don't think Permadeath is essential. It's just "Game Over on character death" for most people." It is essential mainly because that is what Kaga intended with the gameplay, to be an Iron Man run. People reset BECAUSE of that permadeath feature. Take out the permadeath, it would make no sense. "1) Your technical FE for a base 2) Unique characters (Can share portraits with a few others, but the name needs to be different) 3) stat (MOV & Range included) variations" This is pretty much just Final Fantasy Tactics, Pokemon Conquest, and other games as well. There is no connection to the game, as the characters that you described are known as "copouts."
"The main fault with Heroes is that it is a Gacha game, the speed stat has no use outside of doubling" There is no problem with that. It is sufficient to give the SPD stat a use. FE11 pretty much has SPD only for doubling, and it's undeniably Fire Emblem. "whoever attacks first normally wins the battle, unless there is a build for most units that can block that type of gameplay." That's a balance question because of skill availability and stat lines. "Levels are necessary as well, as they give the player more challenge along the way, as well as grant the enemies a reason to become stronger as well. " Aren't most Fire Emblem games notorious for being hard at the start and easy at the end? That's how it is for me, anyways. "0% Growth is done to see who can use the hardest of hard strategies to beat the game, which tends to defy what Kaga stated, he did not want his series to be dry and hard to just be hard. " Kaga, Kaga, Kaga... Kaga did not intend for many things. Besides, there is a HUGE difference between generic soldier and Bob who has the generic soldier stats, but is named Bob. I'm going to sacrifice generic soldier for Bob every time. "I don't think Permadeath is essential. It's just "Game Over on character death" for most people." It is essential mainly because that is what Kaga intended with the gameplay, to be an Iron Man run. People reset BECAUSE of that permadeath feature. Take out the permadeath, it would make no sense." The author is DEAD! If you give Casual mode, it's still Fire Emblem. What I meant though, is that If you give game over for any character death, it's still Fire Emblem. "This is pretty much just Final Fantasy Tactics, Pokemon Conquest, and other games as well. There is no connection to the game, as the characters that you described are known as "copouts."" Did you -play- see any of FE1? Cain has the same portrait as Abel, just red.
For background: I've wanted to try Fire Emblem for a few years but never had a Nintendo system that could run it. I started playing Heroes this summer and got hooked, but still haven't gotten to play another game (despite wanting to even more). The argument that only RNG can prevent grinding rings hollow. RNG isn't effective at preventing grinding; it either doesn't add serious risk to grinding or adds serious risk to non-grinding combat, which renders it either impotent or interferes with strategic components of core gameplay. There are plenty of other ways to discourage grinding, from tweaking how much XP you get for kills under various conditions to just reducing the value of all those extra levels. Speaking of which, levels. The argument that you need levels to "give the player more challenge along the way" rings hollow if you have ever played a game without levels. Mario, Doom, Command and Conquer, and more have figured out ways to increase challenge without anything resembling a level system. Though, really, anyone familiar with games that _do_ use level systems can probably see a hole in the argument. After all, leveling up can often amount to little more than getting bigger numbers to counter the bigger numbers of your opponent. This actually works against having a nice, challenging experience; it lets you grind (not an option in levelless games) if you want to eliminate challenge, and if you try to avoid grinding you might discover that you accidentally rendered your game unwinnable by leaving your characters with too small of numbers. Permadeath is a matter of personal taste. You can say that resetting after character death is "playing wrong," but given the number of games which find ways around such "save-scumming" (Dark Souls comes to mind) and how Nintendo implemented a casual mode instead of such features, I don't think the game devs would agree with your draconian definitions. Finally, trying to criticize a bare-bones Fire Emblem game by naming other bare-bones games doesn't work unless you actually explain why those games don't work and how the problems with them could be fixed by...for instance...not drawing IP from a property whose classic gameplay is entirely divorced from the model proposed? Fire Emblem follows those general rules and adds on top of it, Final Fantasy and Pokemon build on *completely unrelated* models of gameplay. Of course giving them Fire-Emblem-style gameplay and settings means they won't be related to the original!
"There is no problem with that. It is sufficient to give the SPD stat a use. FE11 pretty much has SPD only for doubling, and it's undeniably Fire Emblem." Actually, this is incorrect. FE11 uses Speed to subtract from weight, and to initially both add to the ability to double the opponent (once weight has been taken into consideration) and for Avoiding an enemy blow. Yes, FE11, the remake of FE1, is still Fire Emblem. "That's a balance question because of skill availability and stat lines." ...How is the main way of achieving victory "Having the first turn be yours" balanced? That removes the partial RNG, and throws it straight to "First turn = win." "Aren't most Fire Emblem games notorious for being hard at the start and easy at the end? That's how it is for me, anyways." No, actually, unless you select the Easy mode, then it stays upon a dynamic level of difficulty (I am unsure about easy mode, I have no played on it, so I have no personal experience on the matter. Not like Personal Experience means much to start with.). I would also like to say also that unless one holds the ability to grind constantly such as on a world map, then the levels would get harder as the player's strategic thinking and understanding of the AI does as well. "Kaga, Kaga, Kaga... Kaga did not intend for many things. Besides, there is a HUGE difference between generic soldier and Bob who has the generic soldier stats, but is named Bob. I'm going to sacrifice generic soldier for Bob every time." I mean, when he literally stated he meant for the game to be played as an Iron Man, I would take his word for it. "Besides, there is a HUGE difference between generic soldier and Bob who has the generic soldier stats, but is named Bob." Yes, there is. That difference is who they are. You sacrificing whoever is up to you, that is not my problem, that is not the game's problem. The fact that the player holds the ability to just sacrifice whoever without thinking and just have them come back does not do anything outside of make the game much easier to beat and bore the player, as they will not have to think upon "How do I beat the chapter without losing any of my soldiers." it would go to "I can have this person be offed by this guy, lure him closer, and just keep attacking until he dies to death." "Did you play see any of FE1? Cain has the same portrait as Abel, just red." I want to learn how strikethrough on TH-cam so badly right now. Also, Cain and Abel do not have the same mugshots, actually. Their garb is the same due to them being the same class, at the same rank, doing the exact same thing. Their mugs hold different facial features, making them not the same mug. My link for evidence is this: i.imgur.com/SzLjObW.jpg Actually, now that I look at it again, their hair is different as well.
"The argument that only RNG can prevent grinding rings hollow. RNG isn't effective at preventing grinding; it either doesn't add serious risk to grinding or adds serious risk to non-grinding combat, which renders it either impotent or interferes with strategic components of core gameplay." Admittedly, the statement I gave could have used better wording. I did not state that RNG would prevent grinding, I stated that if you just grind and grind, RNG is the only other thing that I can think of (Unless there are other methods that I do not know of.) that can prevent that one unit from just walking around as a giant supertank and annihilating whichever thing they please. This statement refers to the stats being high due to grinding, and the only thing making maps longer would be just the enemies, objective, or just missing because RNG is a dick. "There are plenty of other ways to discourage grinding, from tweaking how much XP you get for kills under various conditions to just reducing the value of all those extra levels." If I recall correctly, the XP bit is already being done in FE. Having just one unit run out and kill things to grind against the same type of foe does lower the XP is grants them, and not just from their levels that they gain. " The argument that you need levels to "give the player more challenge along the way" rings hollow if you have ever played a game without levels. Mario, Doom, Command and Conquer, and more have figured out ways to increase challenge without anything resembling a level system." Yes, but this is a game that uses that said level system, the other games holding a way to make their game better without the level system is good for them, but holds nothing at the topic at hand. "Though, really, anyone familiar with games that do use level systems can probably see a hole in the argument." I think you might've got the wrong definition from what I meant by "Levels." This is an error on my part, as I should have stated chapters instead. "After all, leveling up can often amount to little more than getting bigger numbers to counter the bigger numbers of your opponent. This actually works against having a nice, challenging experience; it lets you grind (not an option in levelless games) if you want to eliminate challenge, and if you try to avoid grinding you might discover that you accidentally rendered your game unwinnable by leaving your characters with too small of numbers." I would actually like to see what you mean that levels make the game against the nice, challenging experience. If you avoid grinding, and your units just head for the objective to complete it, that will possibly lead to your game being unplayable? I have not tried it, nor seen it often tried myself, so I cannot combat that point in this way without holding an idea as to if it makes the game unplayable or not. As far as I know, by defeating the enemy units and just rushing the objective, the player units gaining EXP should be enough to continue performing the same action, as long as they get the needed EXP to level up, and if not, that would be upon the player's fault (Unless of course, an unfair difficulty spike occurred, then the player would be even more screwed. :/) "Permadeath is a matter of personal taste. You can say that resetting after character death is "playing wrong," but given the number of games which find ways around such "save-scumming" (Dark Souls comes to mind) and how Nintendo implemented a casual mode instead of such features, I don't think the game devs would agree with your draconian definitions." The player can go against the intent of the devs by all means, nothing is stopping them. The idea that they can chuck units nonchalantly and just win by using no strategy at all is not necessarily fun (unless the person in question finds it fun, in whichcase they can go ahead and keep on doing.) In my argument, I stated that the loss of the permadeath mechanic would make the game easier, to which it would more than likely be, as fodder is useful in nearly all scenarios. "Finally, trying to criticize a bare-bones Fire Emblem game by naming other bare-bones games doesn't work unless you actually explain why those games don't work and how the problems with them could be fixed" I did not criticize the games, I compared them metaphorically, which in hindsight that falls upon me not using proper games to compare against FE, since FFT did seem to be very akin to FE, it was used. For this point I do apologize, it was not thought through completely. For your starting bit actually, "For background: I've wanted to try Fire Emblem for a few years but never had a Nintendo system that could run it. I started playing Heroes this summer and got hooked, but still haven't gotten to play another game (despite wanting to even more)." I would recommend emulators if you're willing to use them on a computer, as Visual Boy Advance can be used on practically and system nowadays (I say this because VB is pretty well-known, and other systems that emulate FE either are still in a Beta phase, or there are not really any games upon the system [Unless an english patch of FE12 is out there and easy to find. I haven't found one, but have not been searching thoroughly.])
For me permadeath is skippable and not make a difference being removed. With the RNG, permadeath is not a good option because even saying is a "great reward" is not. Imagine your favorite character dying and not have anyone which can replace him/her? We can imagine if Pokémon had permadeath as thing (Not counting nuzlockes) and your Pokémon dies because the enemy Pokémon had luck in hitting a powerfull move. Imagine this happening on the Champion. Is not a good thing when we have RNG. Imagine if they apply status conditions in FE for a unknow reason and with permadeath on you loss your units just because they all was stuned because the RNG. Permadeath is frustrating and is not part of the soul of the Fire Emblem. Is just an annoying thing that will only make better if being removed forever. The soul of FE may be a lot of other things like Growth Rates, Supports, the weapon triangle or a combination of the part of Tactics and RPG with this things I mentioned. Seeing a character dying is like seeing someone you like or love and have the feel of being a useless thing that can not make nothing right even the fault is with the RNG. And people which like the "Casual" mode maybe like games like Dark Souls? Or like feel pain? Even an emotional one.
Is not true that I play on casual mode that I do not care about the characters. And you can not say is your proper miskate that a Witch teleported to a total random place and killed your low res unit that could not countered even if he/she was around the rest of the army. Permadeath is unecessary and only to make the game harder without any real reason to do. Or do you want back the chance to miss the heal? I already said Casual and Classic are bad names and the majorit of the older games fans think FE needs to be hard and no needing of that. And stop spreeding this cancer of saying on casual they are just "meat shield" and classic is the only place that you can have bonds with them. Is bad needing to reset that 1 hour stage just because your favorite unit died just because of RNG (Or any unit in cases of players that want all characters alive) And is trully a misconception that people think "casual not have penalties" and the real that have it. If one unit is defeated, that unit probably loss a good amount of XP againts other units that she/he could have if not defeat just because of RNG. And I do not even talked about griding for a new unit you receive in late game that you really want to use but she/he is not even an advanced class and yet the skirmishes (Misspell) are to dificult when spaw and you do not want buy the book to make an easier one. Yet I said: Permadeath is not necessary to FE. Is just a thing that is laying out just to make the experience harder, annoying and make people mad towards the game. And I feel like describing a Dark Souls game... Plus, games are for being fun and not frustrating. If you want to be frustrated just go to outside! But yet have people that still watch horror movies...
Fire Emblem is very based off DnD. The Rolls to hit, getting attached to characters, simple plots, fun battles, and *losing characters*. Fire Emblem is also heavy into it's War aesthetic. People and soldiers get buddy-buddy with each other in real life. They also don't have plot armor, and you can watch them fall before you, like real life. Losing your DnD character you invested so much time and love into, it's supposed to have a heavy loss. Losing Cormag, Caeda, Mia, etc, you feel an emotional response and weight. But you didn't just lose your character, your allies lost a friend. Caeda dead, Marth is parterless as a unit and a character. It's giving units a character and permadeath that exaggerates Fire Emblem as an artform and makes it different to other RPG or Stratergy games. Otherwise, you're better off playing XCOM, or Advanced Wars.
First: They realised that permadeath is a bad thing and make an option to be without. Now just have the names chances and not make nothing special for the ones which play on classic mode (Echoes have that medal) And if you want to be frustrated, go play Dark Souls, go outside and play thia DnD. I will repeat what I said before: Permadeath *is not the soul* of Fire Emblem. Players could think this but is not. Even the weapon triangle not have in all games and the weapon uses will be vanish from now on. Your way to think is to old. Thinking that permadeath is important, no, stop this too! And not all the games that is based on War have permadeath for the playable characters, just see the unknow but best Turn-Based JRPG of all time, Suikoden. I played the 3 and 5 in the PS2 (And the DS one, but I not finished) and the only time a playable character really dies is on 5 and the game tells you that this a bad idea to do (He dies in a plot way) IS probably know that having permadeath in FE is bad but stayed the classic mode only for the crazy people that like to suffer and can not see this improvement, living in the past and thinking that any good improvement is bad. Just imagine a game like Pokémon that your friend just died because of the confusion or sleep or anything pure RNG like that. And only to say that what I know is the creator of FE that made the FE5 and he probably wanted the "heal missing" thing. So yes, this guy is crazy. Just saying.
The triangle weapon was removed in Echoes because it is a remake from Gaiden, and it that game they didn't add triangle weapon. You know Nintendo has a thing for staying true to its source. So no, triangle weapon removal it's just temporary.
Hey guys, thanks for watching.
This definition is by no means concrete but I think it's an interesting topic to dissect and discuss.
In fact, for the comment question:
[What mechanic that I included in my definition is unnecessary?]
AND/OR [What mechanic did I not include that you think is integral to a game being defined as Fire Emblem?]
Hopefully we can generate some interesting/productive debate in the comments :)
First question: RNG. It can enhance the game experience, or detract from it, but at the end of the day the only difference between including RNG and having all rolls hit the average result is player uncertainty. This isn't a necessary element of Fire Emblem, arguably detracts from strategic aspects, and could be accomplished in other ways (though that would require more effort). As an example, Fire Emblem Heroes lacks RNG, yet I often feel like there's that uncertain element of risk. Did I calculate something wrong, leave out an important enemy skill, or forget to account for some unit-warping skill? And above all, did I correctly guess the next AI action? Uncertainty without RNG, or even concealed information--just too much noise hiding the finer details.
Second question: It's less of a mechanic that you left out and more one that you took a broader focus on. I explain this in more detail elsewhere, but I feel that the various mechanics that retain continuity over the various levels of a campaign (permadeath, items, XP, etc etc) or even which forge continuity between tactical gameplay and story (support stuff, for instance) help make the game feel less like a collection of individual challenges linked by some unimportant plot and more like a unified whole. It's not so much the inclusion of any one mechanic as the effect of whichever mechanics one chooses to include.
Which brings me to a third point: The question is wrong. Some mechanics are absolutely required for a Fire Emblem game; some are absolutely not. But some mechanics are only required if their purpose isn't filled by others. It's not as important to have permadeath if you have other continuity-preserving mechanics, for instance. You can come up with a list of the necessary mechanics in a Fire Emblem game, but those wouldn't be sufficient. You can come up with a list of mechanics which would be sufficient for a Fire Emblem game, but not all of them would be necessary, and there is more than one such list. A list of specific mechanics which are both necessary and sufficient for a Fire Emblem game probably can't be compiled. But it's interesting to try.
(Not getting into how different people expect different things out of their games, of course.)
Personally, I think RNG makes most games more fun. It adds an element of risk vs reward that can be applied to almost every RPG. You could have two types of playstyles: play based on stats and try to win through consistent but weaker damage and by taking damage consistently but in predictable my amounts. An example of this would be to have a group of high skill and defense/res units but low strength/mag and speed. They would hit consistently but also be consistently hit, circumventing hit chance rng. On the other hand, one could use high speed and strength/mag units but having low skill and defenses. They have a greater potential damage output but could to no damage if they miss. The same goes for taking damage; you could take a lot or dodge altogether. I find that using a combination of these systems, in taking a calculated risk is very fun as you can go as far as you feel comfortable with.
The important thing to keep in mind is how the AI plays, as this varies from game to game. Unlike you the AI only has to take out the commander (in most games) to “win”. Casualties along the way don’t matter so long as victory is achieved. But for the most part, the player is outnumbered and ideally does not lose a single unit. This puts more pressure on the player and often the enemy will force you to roll the dice at some point, even if the odds are stacked in your favor. For this reason I see RNG as integral to Fire Emblem as it adds more fun to the game and can be easily manipulated to the player’s advantage more often than not (a good example is the weapon triangle).
As a larger example, one often has to take risks earlier on with the Est/Villager type units as they almost never can secure exp without no room for error. However, they can easily grow into highly capable units that can offer extremely consistent and high damage - a great reward for an early game risk.
I feel like the inclusion of both permadeath and RNG is somewhat flawed, outdated design, and really isn't necessary to preserve the core Fire Emblem "feel". Permadeath causes players to think more carefully and to plot out their strategies slowly, in order to avoid losing a unit they really care about, but there's a difference between losing a unit because you played sloppily and losing a unit because an enemy rolled a 1% Crit on a 43% Hit. Personally I prefer playing the modern titles on Casual Mode and cranking up the difficulty to Hard (or Lunatic if it's unlocked at the start), simply because of the fact that random critical hits exist (a whopping x3 multiplier to damage, in most FE titles). In my opinion, I'd rather have a firm challenge from the opponents' skills and equipment and have to carefully plan out my moves, instead of stroll through a mostly easy game that I have to reset because I took a critical hit to the face.
I feel that some form of compromise can be made to preserve the "thrill" of the RNG factor without screwing you out of a unit forever, or forcing you to restart the entire map; Echoes already did a great job with the Mila's Turnwheel mechanic. Maybe in a future game, losing a unit on Casual causes them to also skip the next map due to their injuries? Maybe defeated ally units "level down" and lose some of their stats? These are good ways to add risk to losing units, decreasing their effectiveness later in the game without making some maps feel "unfair" due to getting picked off by a lucky critical.
"It's not 'My archer just died'... it's 'Virion just died'."
Never change, Pavise. Never change.
Inside joke - catch the streams on Thursdays that’s where it’s from.
That's why I prefer Fire Emblem over the Wars series, making an army of tanks doesn't feel the same.
Yeah, but you don't get that feeling of being a cold sociopathic war-hawk hellbent on capturing objectives and oppressing another nation for sport.
I definitely agree with the RPG and the perma-death. But I think it's important that they keep casual mode in, because I know people who said they won't play if they won't play older games because they can't play on casual. While I encourage them to give it a try, I think that giving them the choice of classic or casual makes it more available
As someone who got into the series via casual mode, I couldn't agree more.
I heavily disagree. The thing about casual mode is that the difficulty is NEVER balanced around it. Casual mode is nearly impossible to lose, and it only serves as a reason to scare people away from an actual challenge merely by implying through its very existence that classic mode isn’t doable for everyone.
While I agree that Casual is very easy when it is on normal, I find that when you get into the harder modes, It becomes a lot more difficult and fun . I think the only reason that casual is so easy on normal is because of how easy it is to break Awaking and fates ( mostly awakening though ).
The reason I think Heroes is so fun (at least for me) is because it plays on the series’ greatest strength: the characters. No, it may not have permadeath, but adding a voice to all the different characters makes each feel special. While, yes, some see only stats, I see characters in new art, and some with voices for the first time. It’s really surreal for me since the series was on its deathbed just a little while ago. I got my friend into heroes, and because of some of the characters he’s taken a liking to, he really wants to play the games Ike, or Lucina for example, are in. So, yes, characters, in my opinion, is probably the most important aspect of Fire Emblem - but tactics and role-play are just as important as well.
SigmaXVII_ meh
@@nathankeel6667 I will say, I don't really hold the same opinion of heroes anymore, lol. I liked it when it first came out, but due to the fact it hasn't really evolved since then, I don't really like it much anymore.
On Three Houses, someone pointed out that it's designed remarkably different from the games that came before. It's almost the polar opposite of more traditional FE games. The pre-TH ones keep giving you units in case your earlier ones fall. SoV held this same basic principle too, despite giving you the ability to turnwheel. TH on the other hand expects you to low man everything, and unless you go out of your way to recruit other house members (or are playing on NG+) you won't be getting anymore. It's not ironman friendly at all, which is certainly interesting. In that regard, yeah, I do agree it's not a perfect FE game when it comes to checking all the boxes. Some parts of it as well almost feel like it's built around divine pulse, which I'm not sure I really agree with. As for actually raising your units? Eh, I think it's fine for it to be different. I have always been more a fan of linear FE games to open-map ones.
@@qazentro4444 i commented on the wrong comment woops
I tend to dislike when people try to categorize which games in series are objectively more “Fire Emblem” than the other, because most of the time it’s actually just them projecting their own definition and choosing which games do or don’t fit their taste.
When I ask these people to define Fire Emblem for me, I hear something different every time, and it annoys me how 99% of the time it’s definition built around subjective thoughts. Yet, they don’t seem to think so, which causes a lot turmoil in the community.
This video actually delves into the traits that have been prevalent throughout the series, what it is that separates Fire Emblem from other games, and establishes a general idea of what draws people in. I applaud it for doing so in a very informed manner.
I’d like to ask this question though: What separates a good game from a good Fire Emblem?
I know your comment is 2 years old but i think i have a answer to your last qustion 3 houses its a great game and i enjoy playing it but as a fire emblem game its not the best with how you raise your units and how perma death barly exits but it explfies other aspects of fire emblem to so its still a fe game kinda like how breath of the wild despite being a amazing game is a bad zelda game
This quality of videos is amazing. Keep it up.
I just found this video and I love it. It made me think about why I always use Charlotte to beat Conquest. I wondered why I would invest the most in her, even if she's not that great of an unit. She's axe lock and foot lock while Camilla joins earlier, is a pre-promote, uses axes and tomes and rides a wyvern, which makes her a much better unit by evey objective measurable standarts. The reason why I love Charlotte so much and always use her over Camilla in every scenario, is because she would often beat every all the odds and get that lucky crit. She would often reverse a situation by overcomming fatal match ups and triumph despite low expectations. I could rely on her to handle nearly evey choke points and she would always come on top. That's why she's grown so much on me and has much more to offer than being Xander's backpack in my book. I guess that's why Fire Emblem is so unique to every player.
I would personally drop the Permadeath category and instead focus on the campaign structure. A Fire Emblem game isn't just a series of maps, each its own isolated challenge; it's a story which happens to include a series of maps. This goes beyond the mere inclusion of story, though that is important. There needs to be _continuity_ between levels; this can be achieved by permadeath, but things like finding items in one map and use them in the next also accomplish that goal. The more mechanics that retain continuity between levels, the less that levels feel separate, and the more that they feel like one whole.
Thank you for making so much content for our fandom, I love your videos!
A personal extremely important factor is the Underdog effect.
Because our hero's team in any given game is usually outmatchedーusually we start our journey meeting the heroes while routed/on the runーit gives an intense roleplaying feeling that our tactics are valuable/turns the tide. Especially in situations where a character would normally die, but we were able to save/recruit them.
Great video, I loved the editing animation and graphic design. Also great content, and you seem well informed.
This video is making me consider creating a video game based on Fire Emblem, thank you!
Everyone talks about how awesome permadeath is for creating these narrative consequences, but then most just reset until everyone lives anyways. That changes the consequence from "loosing a loved character" to just another level restart.
Kristen truth
Actually the fact that you could lose anyone in an instant really changes the way you play. Even thou its just a soft reset away no one wants to play a whole chapter agian. I know this from experience because i used to be a casual player, but then i started to implement more tactics into my gameplay to make sure i lose no one.
Can’t wait for your stream on Thursday!!!
Being able to see stats quickly and easily is important because if you can’t see it ,strategies can fall apart in seconds
Welp, if you didn't get me listening with just the topic of Fire Emblem, using music of the City Ruins in Nier Automata most definitely got me listening ahahah.
Check out the album that cover of City Ruins is from, it's amazing.
(open.spotify.com/album/33I1hxl8p9jenKZXiES77V)
Pavise Productions will do! I unfortunately don't use Spotify, but I'll find it!
Fantastic video Pavise! I agree with every element you incorporated in this theory. Every single piece contributes to not just the game fire emblem is, but the feeling fire emblem is. The joke that it's a "waifu simulator" is really getting old. I shouldn't let those people bother me, and having a marriage system in the game doesn't bother me at all. I just don't want it to ever detract from what fire emblem really is, that's all.
Great video, Pavise.
what if fire emblem heroes have perma-death? ohh i dont want to think about that....
That would make summoning a whole lot more necessary, especially if you're bad at keeping units alive. Because if a unit dies, and they're an unlikely summon, that probably means you won't be able to get them unless something very special happens. Which would really make it interesting.
I would add the maps to that list. If you look at Final Fantasy tactics, that game shares many things with FE but due to the nature of their maps, the battles feel more like a battle royal in a small open arena and without a real strategy while in FE the maps are bigger and you have to know how to use all their elements to your advantage.
Great video! I certainly agreed that what you said applies to the whole main series. #Permadeath forever. I think it is amazing Kaga managed to fully integrate so many of his ideas ever since the first game. Here is my ranking of the franchise (the remakes replace the originals)
14. Fates: Revelation
13. Shadow Dragon
12. Sacred Stones
11. Awakening
10. Fates: Birthright
9. Echoes: SoV
8. Path of Radiance
7. New Mystery of the emblem
6. The binding Blade
5. Genealogy of the Holy War
4. Thracia 776
3. Radiant Dawn
2. Fates: Conquest
1. The sword of Flames
The grey area comes with heroes, as I believe it lacks the soul portion you describe. There is the obvious lack of permadeath, causing a unit to become an annoyance at a loss of stamina and exp rather than a character you put time into. Also, the characters are all glorified cameos: They introduce themselves, but don't react to the fact that they are fighting the longest war they have ever participated in or show concern towards their enemies like in the other games. Characters are mostly a reason to place stats and abilities on a certain unit, not to create a personality for players to feel attached to. In all seriousness, does anyone feel anything about killing a hinata to feed fury to a new unit? I don't think so, because stats and unique abilities are all that matter in heroes, which is why I think it ultimately lacks the soul of the franchise
Very cool. Thank you
I don't like heroes or warriors. The traditional fire emblem gameplay is what makes the games so fun for me.
Preach
What's if fire emblem didn't had casual mode but was replace with revive shop like in Shining Force 2 making a bit balance
With the exeption of Gaiden/Echoes
Something that all the fire emblems have is well
"The Fire Emblem"
It would be nice to give the FE some extra significance for the next game like a super special stat bonus for like 2 or 3 units or protection against the ultimate attack of the final boss
Maybe?
Well, in FE 1, 3, 11, and 12, it can pick literally any lock.
Perfect
Great video! :)
Good video 👍🏼
That Nier music ♡♡♡
Great video. Although the music volume was a little high
-slow claps- I LOVE IT!
Bro, Yoko Taro and Tommy Wiseau are winning awards... What has the world become?
Can you pleaseeee do a Heroes competitive/skill/weapon guide? I've played a majority of the games yet the app makes all the heroes and exclusive and transfering stuff all too much.
Sorry my man, not knowledgeable enough about Heroes to make a proper guide.
Aw. Well thanks.
Why Nier music for the background though?
I was just feeling it at the time. I love Nier music. Nowadays I mostly stick to FE music in my videos though.
Pavise Ah I see actually I just recently started playing Nier and I have to agree the music is good too!
what font does Pavise use?
Nexa Bold and Nexa Light
that was fast thx!!!
how is yours 3d?
Tell me one of your many times you and a friend overcame amazing odds and adversity...
+Yeah Showtime Haha, maybe I overdramatized a bit but I'll talk about a time.
I enjoy playing Smash Bros. competitively and often doubles is a popular event. I'm pretty good but not the best in my region and decided to team with a pal who I talk to a bit but not often. We weren't expected to win by any means, since the top 2 players in the area were teaming. But by some miracle we managed to beat every single team at that tournament, including the top seeded team. Since then, me and said pal arnet I necessarily closer, but it's a moment we shared together and can talk about for years to come in the future.
That's the type of feeling I'm referencing, a situation where failure is a very real possibility but regardless you succeed, and also share that experience with another person. Except in Fire Emblem's case it's with units and characters.
I enjoy your content a lot, but it would be nice if you lowered the background music next time. It's very hard to hear you clearly
I'll keep that in mind, thank's for letting me know.
NieR Automata music at the beginning of a FE video? Interesting.
This should be good...
Ooooh nier automata music
Okay Nintendo give us Geneology remake on Switch now thanks
So, if soul is so important, and permadeath is part of soul, how would that relate to Heroes, or when you play on Casual? Would that be stripping away a crucial part of the experience, making it not Fire Emblem?
Heroes/warriors=spinoff
And I'd argue that losing permadeath does make it "less fire emblem" , part of fire emblem is nearly winning a tough battle having a unit die and being heartbroken by that death but deciding not to start over for that character because you've almost beat that chapter. Playing conquest on casual is a completely different experience than playing conquest on classic.
Heroes is a spinoff so it can do whatever it likes. As a mobile game it has to take liberties with the game and it does, but there's a reason we don't call treat as a main series game.
As for casual mode, it is a totally different experience to play than classic and technically by my definition "less Fire Emblem", but that's just a technicality. I'm really not a fan of calling a thing "less Fire Emblem" than others. It has it's own goals it is trying to accomplish and I really don't mind it's inclusion as long as classic is an option.
I'm inclined to argue that permadeath isn't a central mechanic of Fire Emblem so much as a mechanic which can convey continuity between levels, and hardly the only mechanics which can do so...but I've made that argument elsewhere and don't want to repeat it. The comments section isn't that long yet, right?
Well... imo, FEH isn‘t a real Fire emblem experience, mostly because of not having Permadeath. I know why they didn‘t add it, because the game would be playerless within a week, but still. FEH allows for a stupidly aggressiv playstyle, you don‘t really need to think about it, but any other FE game, that shit wouldn‘t work.
+benington
I think you are wrong to say "FEH allows for a stupidly aggresive playstyle you dont really need to think about it". Let me know how well your Level 10 unit would do if you send them straight to a level 15 with weapon disadvantage. "That shit wouldnt work" there either.
I would say that since FEH's maps and teams are so small, the punishment for puting a character on the wrong spot is less so than that you would potentially see in a mainstream titlem, while at the same time being exactly that.... punishment for putting your unit on the wrong spot
Heroes: "Oh no! I left my healer in range 2 assailants! Now they are death for this level"
Mainstream: "Oh no! I left my healer in range of 7+ enemy units.... but holy shit! Only one of them actually landed their attacks so somehow she's alive after all that!"
Harder punishment, but a smaller chance of actually being less "written on stone" outcome. In heroes, if you go aggro and the numbers say you are weaker, you ARE going to die.
Why is virion a red unit
Haha, guess it should have been the other around.
Anybody else click on this expecting to hear what the word “fire emblem” means. Like seriously I have never once played a game and heard these two words brought up together.I mean it’s not like names like Metroid or legend of Zelda and it doesn’t need to be. But still why is it called it.
Someone told me Fire Emblem is just a “chess dating sim”
If Nintendo was smart, they would grab up and produce the IPs of the other "Kings" of this genre before someone else does...Namely Shining Force and Dark Wizard (the later was only one title, but to be as popular as it was on a dying console means its floating out there for some dev to grab up and bring back) so that thier competators dont jump on the rising wave of TRPG popularity nintendo has begun....Just my opinion on it. The genre has never been as popular as it is now, and just as when Final Fantasy rose to dominate, other competitors were not far behind, only this time their are already IPs that exist that have large followings, especially shining force (the classic ones).
The moment you remove the waifus, you are no longer Fire Emblem.
sasukeuchiha998 pls leave
Funny.
Many smash players saying there's *too many* FE characters but I say,
if you *think* that's a lot........you're a fool.
That is a joke. Please don't get offended.
I don't think RNG is necessary, Heroes feels pretty Fire Emblem like. I don't think level are really necessary. 0% Growth is a thing. I don't think Permadeath is essential. It's just "Game Over on character death" for most people.
I would say the following is enough to be fire emblem :
1) Your technical FE for a base
2) Unique characters ( -Can share portraits with a few others, but the name needs to be different- EDIT: I've come to the conclusion that portraits are unnecessary. Only a different name tag and stats are sufficient to make a character different.)
3) stat (MOV & Range included) variations
"I don't think RNG is necessary, Heroes feels pretty Fire Emblem like. I don't think level are really necessary. 0% Growth is a thing."
RNG is the main risk that is outside of just "grinding" a unit to become infinitely overpowered and annihilate things without stopping. The main fault with Heroes is that it is a Gacha game, the speed stat has no use outside of doubling, and whoever attacks first normally wins the battle, unless there is a build for most units that can block that type of gameplay. Levels are necessary as well, as they give the player more challenge along the way, as well as grant the enemies a reason to become stronger as well. 0% Growth is done to see who can use the hardest of hard strategies to beat the game, which tends to defy what Kaga stated, he did not want his series to be dry and hard to just be hard.
"I don't think Permadeath is essential. It's just "Game Over on character death" for most people."
It is essential mainly because that is what Kaga intended with the gameplay, to be an Iron Man run. People reset BECAUSE of that permadeath feature. Take out the permadeath, it would make no sense.
"1) Your technical FE for a base
2) Unique characters (Can share portraits with a few others, but the name needs to be different)
3) stat (MOV & Range included) variations"
This is pretty much just Final Fantasy Tactics, Pokemon Conquest, and other games as well. There is no connection to the game, as the characters that you described are known as "copouts."
"The main fault with Heroes is that it is a Gacha game, the speed stat has no use outside of doubling"
There is no problem with that. It is sufficient to give the SPD stat a use. FE11 pretty much has SPD only for doubling, and it's undeniably Fire Emblem.
"whoever attacks first normally wins the battle, unless there is a build for most units that can block that type of gameplay."
That's a balance question because of skill availability and stat lines.
"Levels are necessary as well, as they give the player more challenge along the way, as well as grant the enemies a reason to become stronger as well. "
Aren't most Fire Emblem games notorious for being hard at the start and easy at the end? That's how it is for me, anyways.
"0% Growth is done to see who can use the hardest of hard strategies to beat the game, which tends to defy what Kaga stated, he did not want his series to be dry and hard to just be hard. "
Kaga, Kaga, Kaga... Kaga did not intend for many things. Besides, there is a HUGE difference between generic soldier and Bob who has the generic soldier stats, but is named Bob. I'm going to sacrifice generic soldier for Bob every time.
"I don't think Permadeath is essential. It's just "Game Over on character death" for most people." It is essential mainly because that is what Kaga intended with the gameplay, to be an Iron Man run. People reset BECAUSE of that permadeath feature. Take out the permadeath, it would make no sense."
The author is DEAD! If you give Casual mode, it's still Fire Emblem. What I meant though, is that If you give game over for any character death, it's still Fire Emblem.
"This is pretty much just Final Fantasy Tactics, Pokemon Conquest, and other games as well. There is no connection to the game, as the characters that you described are known as "copouts.""
Did you -play- see any of FE1? Cain has the same portrait as Abel, just red.
For background: I've wanted to try Fire Emblem for a few years but never had a Nintendo system that could run it. I started playing Heroes this summer and got hooked, but still haven't gotten to play another game (despite wanting to even more).
The argument that only RNG can prevent grinding rings hollow. RNG isn't effective at preventing grinding; it either doesn't add serious risk to grinding or adds serious risk to non-grinding combat, which renders it either impotent or interferes with strategic components of core gameplay. There are plenty of other ways to discourage grinding, from tweaking how much XP you get for kills under various conditions to just reducing the value of all those extra levels.
Speaking of which, levels. The argument that you need levels to "give the player more challenge along the way" rings hollow if you have ever played a game without levels. Mario, Doom, Command and Conquer, and more have figured out ways to increase challenge without anything resembling a level system. Though, really, anyone familiar with games that _do_ use level systems can probably see a hole in the argument. After all, leveling up can often amount to little more than getting bigger numbers to counter the bigger numbers of your opponent. This actually works against having a nice, challenging experience; it lets you grind (not an option in levelless games) if you want to eliminate challenge, and if you try to avoid grinding you might discover that you accidentally rendered your game unwinnable by leaving your characters with too small of numbers.
Permadeath is a matter of personal taste. You can say that resetting after character death is "playing wrong," but given the number of games which find ways around such "save-scumming" (Dark Souls comes to mind) and how Nintendo implemented a casual mode instead of such features, I don't think the game devs would agree with your draconian definitions.
Finally, trying to criticize a bare-bones Fire Emblem game by naming other bare-bones games doesn't work unless you actually explain why those games don't work and how the problems with them could be fixed by...for instance...not drawing IP from a property whose classic gameplay is entirely divorced from the model proposed? Fire Emblem follows those general rules and adds on top of it, Final Fantasy and Pokemon build on *completely unrelated* models of gameplay. Of course giving them Fire-Emblem-style gameplay and settings means they won't be related to the original!
"There is no problem with that. It is sufficient to give the SPD stat a use. FE11 pretty much has SPD only for doubling, and it's undeniably Fire Emblem."
Actually, this is incorrect. FE11 uses Speed to subtract from weight, and to initially both add to the ability to double the opponent (once weight has been taken into consideration) and for Avoiding an enemy blow. Yes, FE11, the remake of FE1, is still Fire Emblem.
"That's a balance question because of skill availability and stat lines."
...How is the main way of achieving victory "Having the first turn be yours" balanced? That removes the partial RNG, and throws it straight to "First turn = win."
"Aren't most Fire Emblem games notorious for being hard at the start and easy at the end? That's how it is for me, anyways."
No, actually, unless you select the Easy mode, then it stays upon a dynamic level of difficulty (I am unsure about easy mode, I have no played on it, so I have no personal experience on the matter. Not like Personal Experience means much to start with.).
I would also like to say also that unless one holds the ability to grind constantly such as on a world map, then the levels would get harder as the player's strategic thinking and understanding of the AI does as well.
"Kaga, Kaga, Kaga... Kaga did not intend for many things. Besides, there is a HUGE difference between generic soldier and Bob who has the generic soldier stats, but is named Bob. I'm going to sacrifice generic soldier for Bob every time."
I mean, when he literally stated he meant for the game to be played as an Iron Man, I would take his word for it.
"Besides, there is a HUGE difference between generic soldier and Bob who has the generic soldier stats, but is named Bob."
Yes, there is. That difference is who they are.
You sacrificing whoever is up to you, that is not my problem, that is not the game's problem. The fact that the player holds the ability to just sacrifice whoever without thinking and just have them come back does not do anything outside of make the game much easier to beat and bore the player, as they will not have to think upon "How do I beat the chapter without losing any of my soldiers." it would go to "I can have this person be offed by this guy, lure him closer, and just keep attacking until he dies to death."
"Did you play see any of FE1? Cain has the same portrait as Abel, just red."
I want to learn how strikethrough on TH-cam so badly right now.
Also, Cain and Abel do not have the same mugshots, actually. Their garb is the same due to them being the same class, at the same rank, doing the exact same thing. Their mugs hold different facial features, making them not the same mug. My link for evidence is this:
i.imgur.com/SzLjObW.jpg
Actually, now that I look at it again, their hair is different as well.
"The argument that only RNG can prevent grinding rings hollow. RNG isn't effective at preventing grinding; it either doesn't add serious risk to grinding or adds serious risk to non-grinding combat, which renders it either impotent or interferes with strategic components of core gameplay."
Admittedly, the statement I gave could have used better wording.
I did not state that RNG would prevent grinding, I stated that if you just grind and grind, RNG is the only other thing that I can think of (Unless there are other methods that I do not know of.) that can prevent that one unit from just walking around as a giant supertank and annihilating whichever thing they please. This statement refers to the stats being high due to grinding, and the only thing making maps longer would be just the enemies, objective, or just missing because RNG is a dick.
"There are plenty of other ways to discourage grinding, from tweaking how much XP you get for kills under various conditions to just reducing the value of all those extra levels."
If I recall correctly, the XP bit is already being done in FE. Having just one unit run out and kill things to grind against the same type of foe does lower the XP is grants them, and not just from their levels that they gain.
" The argument that you need levels to "give the player more challenge along the way" rings hollow if you have ever played a game without levels. Mario, Doom, Command and Conquer, and more have figured out ways to increase challenge without anything resembling a level system."
Yes, but this is a game that uses that said level system, the other games holding a way to make their game better without the level system is good for them, but holds nothing at the topic at hand.
"Though, really, anyone familiar with games that do use level systems can probably see a hole in the argument."
I think you might've got the wrong definition from what I meant by "Levels." This is an error on my part, as I should have stated chapters instead.
"After all, leveling up can often amount to little more than getting bigger numbers to counter the bigger numbers of your opponent. This actually works against having a nice, challenging experience; it lets you grind (not an option in levelless games) if you want to eliminate challenge, and if you try to avoid grinding you might discover that you accidentally rendered your game unwinnable by leaving your characters with too small of numbers."
I would actually like to see what you mean that levels make the game against the nice, challenging experience. If you avoid grinding, and your units just head for the objective to complete it, that will possibly lead to your game being unplayable? I have not tried it, nor seen it often tried myself, so I cannot combat that point in this way without holding an idea as to if it makes the game unplayable or not.
As far as I know, by defeating the enemy units and just rushing the objective, the player units gaining EXP should be enough to continue performing the same action, as long as they get the needed EXP to level up, and if not, that would be upon the player's fault (Unless of course, an unfair difficulty spike occurred, then the player would be even more screwed. :/)
"Permadeath is a matter of personal taste. You can say that resetting after character death is "playing wrong," but given the number of games which find ways around such "save-scumming" (Dark Souls comes to mind) and how Nintendo implemented a casual mode instead of such features, I don't think the game devs would agree with your draconian definitions."
The player can go against the intent of the devs by all means, nothing is stopping them. The idea that they can chuck units nonchalantly and just win by using no strategy at all is not necessarily fun (unless the person in question finds it fun, in whichcase they can go ahead and keep on doing.)
In my argument, I stated that the loss of the permadeath mechanic would make the game easier, to which it would more than likely be, as fodder is useful in nearly all scenarios.
"Finally, trying to criticize a bare-bones Fire Emblem game by naming other bare-bones games doesn't work unless you actually explain why those games don't work and how the problems with them could be fixed"
I did not criticize the games, I compared them metaphorically, which in hindsight that falls upon me not using proper games to compare against FE, since FFT did seem to be very akin to FE, it was used. For this point I do apologize, it was not thought through completely.
For your starting bit actually, "For background: I've wanted to try Fire Emblem for a few years but never had a Nintendo system that could run it. I started playing Heroes this summer and got hooked, but still haven't gotten to play another game (despite wanting to even more)."
I would recommend emulators if you're willing to use them on a computer, as Visual Boy Advance can be used on practically and system nowadays (I say this because VB is pretty well-known, and other systems that emulate FE either are still in a Beta phase, or there are not really any games upon the system [Unless an english patch of FE12 is out there and easy to find. I haven't found one, but have not been searching thoroughly.])
For me permadeath is skippable and not make a difference being removed.
With the RNG, permadeath is not a good option because even saying is a "great reward" is not. Imagine your favorite character dying and not have anyone which can replace him/her?
We can imagine if Pokémon had permadeath as thing (Not counting nuzlockes) and your Pokémon dies because the enemy Pokémon had luck in hitting a powerfull move. Imagine this happening on the Champion. Is not a good thing when we have RNG.
Imagine if they apply status conditions in FE for a unknow reason and with permadeath on you loss your units just because they all was stuned because the RNG.
Permadeath is frustrating and is not part of the soul of the Fire Emblem. Is just an annoying thing that will only make better if being removed forever.
The soul of FE may be a lot of other things like Growth Rates, Supports, the weapon triangle or a combination of the part of Tactics and RPG with this things I mentioned.
Seeing a character dying is like seeing someone you like or love and have the feel of being a useless thing that can not make nothing right even the fault is with the RNG. And people which like the "Casual" mode maybe like games like Dark Souls? Or like feel pain? Even an emotional one.
Is not true that I play on casual mode that I do not care about the characters. And you can not say is your proper miskate that a Witch teleported to a total random place and killed your low res unit that could not countered even if he/she was around the rest of the army.
Permadeath is unecessary and only to make the game harder without any real reason to do. Or do you want back the chance to miss the heal?
I already said Casual and Classic are bad names and the majorit of the older games fans think FE needs to be hard and no needing of that. And stop spreeding this cancer of saying on casual they are just "meat shield" and classic is the only place that you can have bonds with them.
Is bad needing to reset that 1 hour stage just because your favorite unit died just because of RNG (Or any unit in cases of players that want all characters alive)
And is trully a misconception that people think "casual not have penalties" and the real that have it. If one unit is defeated, that unit probably loss a good amount of XP againts other units that she/he could have if not defeat just because of RNG. And I do not even talked about griding for a new unit you receive in late game that you really want to use but she/he is not even an advanced class and yet the skirmishes (Misspell) are to dificult when spaw and you do not want buy the book to make an easier one.
Yet I said: Permadeath is not necessary to FE. Is just a thing that is laying out just to make the experience harder, annoying and make people mad towards the game. And I feel like describing a Dark Souls game...
Plus, games are for being fun and not frustrating. If you want to be frustrated just go to outside!
But yet have people that still watch horror movies...
Fire Emblem is very based off DnD. The Rolls to hit, getting attached to characters, simple plots, fun battles, and *losing characters*. Fire Emblem is also heavy into it's War aesthetic. People and soldiers get buddy-buddy with each other in real life. They also don't have plot armor, and you can watch them fall before you, like real life. Losing your DnD character you invested so much time and love into, it's supposed to have a heavy loss. Losing Cormag, Caeda, Mia, etc, you feel an emotional response and weight. But you didn't just lose your character, your allies lost a friend. Caeda dead, Marth is parterless as a unit and a character.
It's giving units a character and permadeath that exaggerates Fire Emblem as an artform and makes it different to other RPG or Stratergy games. Otherwise, you're better off playing XCOM, or Advanced Wars.
First: They realised that permadeath is a bad thing and make an option to be without. Now just have the names chances and not make nothing special for the ones which play on classic mode (Echoes have that medal)
And if you want to be frustrated, go play Dark Souls, go outside and play thia DnD. I will repeat what I said before: Permadeath *is not the soul* of Fire Emblem. Players could think this but is not. Even the weapon triangle not have in all games and the weapon uses will be vanish from now on.
Your way to think is to old. Thinking that permadeath is important, no, stop this too!
And not all the games that is based on War have permadeath for the playable characters, just see the unknow but best Turn-Based JRPG of all time, Suikoden. I played the 3 and 5 in the PS2 (And the DS one, but I not finished) and the only time a playable character really dies is on 5 and the game tells you that this a bad idea to do (He dies in a plot way)
IS probably know that having permadeath in FE is bad but stayed the classic mode only for the crazy people that like to suffer and can not see this improvement, living in the past and thinking that any good improvement is bad.
Just imagine a game like Pokémon that your friend just died because of the confusion or sleep or anything pure RNG like that.
And only to say that what I know is the creator of FE that made the FE5 and he probably wanted the "heal missing" thing. So yes, this guy is crazy. Just saying.
The triangle weapon was removed in Echoes because it is a remake from Gaiden, and it that game they didn't add triangle weapon. You know Nintendo has a thing for staying true to its source. So no, triangle weapon removal it's just temporary.
That's your opinion Atrie. What I told you is what permadeath means and is for the series. Not that it was good or bad. Nothing more.