A person who will play Fire Emblem with "Permanent Death" off.

  • 85 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Neonie (438 posts) -

[s]Note: That title is supposed to say "off" at the end. Forgive me I'm typing on a half-cracked nexus 7 as my computers out of commission.[/s] Fixed it.

I've noticed there are some people who think including a character perma death option in this game is stupid or don't know who it's for. So I thought I would mention in here that I think it'd be stupid to not include that. I've always had a hard time understanding certain aspects of gamer culture, such as berating someone who plays on easy or the sentiment behind the term "save scumming". It kind of reeks of "If you don't play it the hardcorest of hardcore ways you suck and should just die." Ignoring completely the fact that everyone who plays games plays them for different reasons and is in it for different experiences.

One of the things I have the hardest times understanding is why people like to put them selves in discomfort for entertainment purposes. I simply will never be able to understand the concept of stress, horror and tension as fun. These things have never been fun to me, so in fact it falls completely flat to me that if you don't turn on the optional item that will add more of these things to a game you playing it "the wrong way". However I fully understand certain people enjoy these aspects very much, to the point of doing "no death" runs of games like Fallout and Farcry 2. I always enjoy seeing how people with perspectives different from me play games, it's interesting to hear how people who enjoy putting them selves in discomfort think and approach games.

I play games to have fun, to see a story, to relax and escape. I don't need them to bring me more discomfort. I'm uncomfortable enough. However I thought I would share this sentiment. I will be playing Fire Emblem with character death off because otherwise I will just "save scum" to make sure no one dies and the game just becomes a complete ordeal instead of an entertaining experience.

#1 Edited by Neonie (438 posts) -

[s]Note: That title is supposed to say "off" at the end. Forgive me I'm typing on a half-cracked nexus 7 as my computers out of commission.[/s] Fixed it.

I've noticed there are some people who think including a character perma death option in this game is stupid or don't know who it's for. So I thought I would mention in here that I think it'd be stupid to not include that. I've always had a hard time understanding certain aspects of gamer culture, such as berating someone who plays on easy or the sentiment behind the term "save scumming". It kind of reeks of "If you don't play it the hardcorest of hardcore ways you suck and should just die." Ignoring completely the fact that everyone who plays games plays them for different reasons and is in it for different experiences.

One of the things I have the hardest times understanding is why people like to put them selves in discomfort for entertainment purposes. I simply will never be able to understand the concept of stress, horror and tension as fun. These things have never been fun to me, so in fact it falls completely flat to me that if you don't turn on the optional item that will add more of these things to a game you playing it "the wrong way". However I fully understand certain people enjoy these aspects very much, to the point of doing "no death" runs of games like Fallout and Farcry 2. I always enjoy seeing how people with perspectives different from me play games, it's interesting to hear how people who enjoy putting them selves in discomfort think and approach games.

I play games to have fun, to see a story, to relax and escape. I don't need them to bring me more discomfort. I'm uncomfortable enough. However I thought I would share this sentiment. I will be playing Fire Emblem with character death off because otherwise I will just "save scum" to make sure no one dies and the game just becomes a complete ordeal instead of an entertaining experience.

#2 Posted by project343 (2838 posts) -

People tend to seek out and enjoy stressful content because it elevates the experience beyond 'mundane.' You can only enjoy so much unmediated pleasure without it becoming the stale, predictable standard.

It's the same reason I coat a lot of my food in hot sauce.

#3 Edited by OmegaChosen (647 posts) -

I like the permadeath aspect of Fire Emblem because it forces me to play more carefully, otherwise I just kind of rush the enemy forces with my units cause hey, they'll come back after the battle ends. But I understand why you wouldn't want that and personally, I'm gonna do casual mode for my Lunatic run because if the demo was any indication getting through that setting while trying not to die would probably cause me to snap my 3DS in half.

#4 Posted by dungbootle (2428 posts) -

If the option is made available to the player, you can choose to use it if that's how you wanna play. There is no "wrong way" and the shaming aspect of that is silly.

And I get where you're coming from. I'm actually on the fence about how I wanna play FE once I get it. Casual would get rid of a lot of the fluff; after all, if I lose a dude I'm just gonna reset the chapter anyhow, why waste the time? But at the same time Classic would make me feel pressure enough to be careful about how I play, and value each character more, which I'm certain I would lose if I went Casual. I feel like I'd just cheese my way through battles if I knew I'd always get my guys back at the end, alive or not.

#5 Posted by Neonie (438 posts) -

@OmegaChosen: I can see that. I tend to be overly cautious in games anyway. Even in games without perma death like Disgea I get very frustrated when a character dies in battle so I've learned to play very strategically. I'm not adverse to hard games, but the option to tweak the difficulty is always nice

#6 Posted by believer258 (12184 posts) -
I simply will never be able to understand the concept of stress, horror and tension as fun.

Society these days tends to apply the word "fun" to "anything that ends in a pleasurable feeling".

Let's use Dead Space as an example. Some people don't consider this game those things you've mentioned, but it still serves my point. When played on the highest difficulty and there's a lot of tension and stress about what's going to happen and whether you're going to have enough ammo and health to deal with it, it's not actually "fun". The feeling is one of quick catharsis and relief when something does happen and you pull through it. It's a struggle that you passed, no matter how small, and you felt that struggle within you. Yes, it's an achievement, but it's almost one of beating yourself as well as the game because when you're that tense and scared, there's a little part of you saying "give up, you don't have to do this, you can turn it off and go make a sandwich."

I realize that Dead Space isn't necessarily the best example of this, but it's the first one that popped up in my head.

Anyway, the above only really appeals to some people. To others, Dead Space might actually be fun because of how cartoonishly over-the-top the gore can be. Yet others might not care at all for it and would rather go play The Witcher 2 on Easy mode for story reasons. If you're enjoying something, then you aren't playing it wrong, except in the case of multiplayer games where you might be ruining someone else's fun by cheating or something.

#7 Posted by NegativeCero (3039 posts) -

I would fall under the camp of enjoying the danger of losing ky unit in these games, and would probably only try out the easier mode to see things quicker a second time. I almost find that it saves me time because although it wouldn't fit this game, a system like Advanced Wars, where I will send my guys into a meat grinder as I slowly take the map -- or slowly realize that I can't. Whereas in this series as soon as I lose someone, I will immediately start over. Maybe I just play Advance Wars terribly.

Also, having to justify how you choose to spend your time playing a game you're interested in is stupid.

#8 Edited by Encephalon (1332 posts) -

It struck me as bizarre that the guys took the "play the game how its meant to be played!" position on the Bombcast, especially considering their collective ignorance of the series.

People should play games how they want to play them.

#9 Posted by Slag (4859 posts) -

@Neonie said:

I've always had a hard time understanding certain aspects of gamer culture, such as berating someone who plays on easy or the sentiment behind the term "save scumming". It kind of reeks of "If you don't play it the hardcorest of hardcore ways you suck and should just die." Ignoring completely the fact that everyone who plays games plays them for different reasons and is in it for different experiences.

One of the things I have the hardest times understanding is why people like to put them selves in discomfort for entertainment purposes. I simply will never be able to understand the concept of stress, horror and tension as fun. These things have never been fun to me,

Victory is meaningless without challenge.

It isn't stressful, it's exciting when the stakes and challenge are high. Sure it can be frustrating if you hit a wall especially in a game like Fire Emblem which can be punishing, but there is nothing as satisfying as a hard fought challenging win. That huge spike of adrenaline fueled endorphin laced exhilaration when you achieve victory, makes it all worth it.

It's the same thing in Sports (who doesn't want to beat their Archrival?) or really any competition.

At least that's how I feel about it and that's why I play games on the toughest difficulty that I feel I'll be able to reasonably well. I wouldn't say I'm hardcore by any stretch of the imagination fwiw.

That being said, everyone has in fun different ways and I certainly don't begrudge someone for enjoying the same games as I do in a different way. I personally don't understand your approach to games either, but I don't see why you should be criticized for playing that way. And certainly turning perma-death off in Fire Emblem is nothing be ashamed of, especially if that gets in your way of having a good time. That series is not exactly known to be easy.

Bottom line is game are supposed to be fun. So play them in the way you find fun and don't worry about what others think.

#10 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12106 posts) -

From my personal perspective as a crazy person who likes his Fire Emblem sadistic and brutal, permadeath forces you to be a lot more cautious with your decisions and that level of challenge is ultimately more satisfying to me as a player when I get through a level without everyone dying a horrible death. I find that if I don't have this barrier, I tend to use some units as sacrificial pawns in order to more easily or efficiently finish the objective.

But seriously, play how you want to play. I'm going to say that you're missing out, but if you have more fun doing it the other way than who am I to care?

#11 Posted by Fawkes (253 posts) -

I lost a unit playing the demo, which doesn't even let you play the harder difficulty (or make a save for the main game), and I immediately wanted to restart. I think I should probably play with permadeath off.

Also I tend to get frustrated when I restart, not over difficulty or a feeling of defeat, but just over the lost time.

#12 Posted by Nottle (1915 posts) -

@Encephalon said:

It struck me as bizarre that the guys took the "play the game how its meant to be played!" position on the Bombcast, especially considering their collective ignorance of the series.

People should play games how they want to play them.

To be fair, it was just Patrick, Also to be fair it was just Patrick, he can use hyperbole from time to time.

I agree people should play game the way they want to, but I also think people should try out permadeath. I've learned that sometimes a good challenge in a game can be very exciting.

#13 Posted by Metric_Outlaw (1172 posts) -

I totally agree, I've beaten 3 of the Fire Emblem games and the permanent death mechanic always made me stress and never felt fun to me. I am really excited they're putting this in the game.

#14 Posted by BeachThunder (12407 posts) -

Personally, I've decided I'm going to turn it off. The issue I had with Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones (the only Fire Emblem I've played) is that if someone dies then it also dilutes the story/character interaction.

#15 Posted by DystopiaX (5360 posts) -

I like the permadeath. It adds a level of difficulty and also forces me to play more cautiously so that the characters I like don't die.

#16 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

Hold in a shit for three days or so, then enjoy the sense of relief when taking the long overdue dump. Or pick up a smoking habit, and enjoy that same feeling of relief every hour or so, for the rest of your smoking life.

It's not quite the same as relief, but it's a similar enough sensation. Overcoming difficulty in games is about gaining a sense of achievement from what you're doing - developing mastery at playing the game, and using it to find elation in victory. Unless you've heard 40+ players cry out in joy and ecstasy over a WoW raid-boss-kill, and joined their chorus with all your heart, you've not lived a gamer's life - and if you did, you'd not ask such a silly question. Without frustration and such, no violent opening of the floodgates of joy.

Perma-death is about giving meaning to your virtual life. Also - you aren't really a person, if you turn off perma-death in a Fire Emblem game. *just kidding of course, or am I?*

#17 Posted by ShaggE (6698 posts) -

Funny thing is, I absolutely love discomfort, fear, and stress in an entertainment medium, but I hate the majority of (but not all) games where "hard" is a defining trait or bullet point. Don't get me wrong, I want a challenge, but I'd rather the stress be psychological (i.e. horror or a feeling of urgency or, in rare cases, a sheer emotional draining) than a test of skill, if that makes sense.

For example, when I finished Amnesia, I was physically exhausted and sore from the tension, and it was a euphoric feeling that I imagine is similar to what drives adrenaline junkies. I immediately wanted to experience that again. When I finished Ninja Gaiden Black on the other hand, while I had fun, I never wanted to play it again.

#18 Posted by evanbower (1216 posts) -

Tension, my man. I don't know a game other than Fire Emblem that is so willing to drop a character you've invested so much in at a moment's notice. It's heart-wrenching and great.

#19 Posted by Flappy (2352 posts) -

To each their own. I'm not really sure how to describe it, but there's something...appealing about challenging the RNG. There's really no way for me to compete with the cursed thing, but that's just a small portion of the fun for me. Just when you think you're in the good graces of the RNG, He/She/It laughs at your foolishness and nukes one of your units with a lucky critical hit. There's nothing quite like it.

Nothing...

#20 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

Shaming someone for playing a product they bought the way they want to play it is dumb, unless they're cheating online or something. Play how you want. That said, Fire Emblem without permadeath just doesn't sound interesting to me. The soul of that series has always been playing extremely carefully and feeling like a failure when a character dies. Because it's. All. Your. Fault.

#21 Posted by Chibithor (573 posts) -

What I want out of Fire Emblem is the gameplay, which is quite significantly changed by turning off permadeath. I understand playing on the lowest difficulty possible in games like Spec Ops where the gameplay is actively slowing you down as you try to get to the interesting bits, but in Fire Emblem that gameplay is the most interesting bit.

#22 Posted by Slag (4859 posts) -

@Nottle said:

@Encephalon said:

It struck me as bizarre that the guys took the "play the game how its meant to be played!" position on the Bombcast, especially considering their collective ignorance of the series.

People should play games how they want to play them.

To be fair, it was just Patrick, Also to be fair it was just Patrick, he can use hyperbole from time to time.

Oh is that what this is all about?

That's a silly attitude, he promoted then. I agree with both of you.

Patrick's right in the fact that critics should probably Fire Emblem that way in order to rate it, and perhaps it is designed to be played that way (and thus the experiences is best enjoyed played that way), but to extend that as mandate to all Fire Emblem players is silly. If Nintendo wanted to, they could force you to play with perma-death on, but they don't. So obviously even the developer doesn't mind if people find different ways to enjoy the series.

#23 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3982 posts) -

You have different tastes. I like difficulty but I agree with you in a lot of respects as my biggest annoyance is wasting time, backtracking or distant check points or whatever. Part of the reason I never wanted to progress too far into Dark Souls. If it just had a quicksave feature, I'd probably love it.

Anyways, I have to laugh at some of this, like Patrick going on about how he's playing with permadeath and it's the only way to play, then resetting when a character dies. haha okay dude.... I guess. But whatever, that's fine, I just don't get why he keeps harping on it. I also am just annoyed at people who say something is only to be played X way. I don't get how a lot of people play games though. It reminds me of how some people say a game isn't fun because they just use a certain cheap ability the whole time or use item X and that makes the game no fun... why don't they just not use it? Jeff does this all the time and I hear it from others too. But just another thing I will never understand.

#24 Posted by Nottle (1915 posts) -

@Slag said:

@Nottle said:

@Encephalon said:

It struck me as bizarre that the guys took the "play the game how its meant to be played!" position on the Bombcast, especially considering their collective ignorance of the series.

People should play games how they want to play them.

To be fair, it was just Patrick, Also to be fair it was just Patrick, he can use hyperbole from time to time.

Oh is that what this is all about?

That's a silly attitude, he promoted then. I agree with both of you.

Patrick's right in the fact that critics should probably Fire Emblem that way in order to rate it, and perhaps it is designed to be played that way (and thus the experiences is best enjoyed played that way), but to extend that as mandate to all Fire Emblem players is silly. If Nintendo wanted to, they could force you to play with perma-death on, but they don't. So obviously even the developer doesn't mind if people find different ways to enjoy the series.

I'd probably agree it's "the way it's meant to be played." That's just how the series has been forever. But it's cool that people can play something the way they want.

Doesn't this game have an insane amount of options for a game made by Nintendo?

#25 Posted by StarvingGamer (8554 posts) -

@Nottle said:

@Slag said:

@Nottle said:

@Encephalon said:

It struck me as bizarre that the guys took the "play the game how its meant to be played!" position on the Bombcast, especially considering their collective ignorance of the series.

People should play games how they want to play them.

To be fair, it was just Patrick, Also to be fair it was just Patrick, he can use hyperbole from time to time.

Oh is that what this is all about?

That's a silly attitude, he promoted then. I agree with both of you.

Patrick's right in the fact that critics should probably Fire Emblem that way in order to rate it, and perhaps it is designed to be played that way (and thus the experiences is best enjoyed played that way), but to extend that as mandate to all Fire Emblem players is silly. If Nintendo wanted to, they could force you to play with perma-death on, but they don't. So obviously even the developer doesn't mind if people find different ways to enjoy the series.

I'd probably agree it's "the way it's meant to be played." That's just how the series has been forever. But it's cool that people can play something the way they want.

Doesn't this game have an insane amount of options for a game made by Nintendo?

Apparently you can play it in both English and Japanese. Awakening sounds like it's easily the best FE experience to date. It's so full of features and systems it's a bit intimidating to be honest.

#26 Posted by Slag (4859 posts) -

@Nottle said:

I'd probably agree it's "the way it's meant to be played." That's just how the series has been forever. But it's cool that people can play something the way they want.

Doesn't this game have an insane amount of options for a game made by Nintendo?

Yup it does, we're on the same page here.

That's why I can't figure out why anyone would tell the OP he's playing it the wrong way especially in a single player game. Nintendo clearly doesn't mind if he plays it with permadeath off. And I think it's nice they do, all it does is add fans to the series and gives me more chances to play new Fire Emblem games (since they will sell to more types of people).

#27 Posted by Flappy (2352 posts) -

@StarvingGamer: To be honest, that just has me more excited for it. If people go out and support this title, it'll help pave the way for similar experiences in the future.

#28 Posted by StarvingGamer (8554 posts) -

@Flappy: Oh yeah, I was pretty ho-hum about it but now I'm getting super hyped for it too. I've had the game preordered anyways because given the genre my options are limited, but since I pretty much only come to GB, I didn't know anything about Awakening's features. The only thing I had gleaned before today was the inclusion of the Dual Strike system. Now that I've had a chance to read some FAQ's on the systems and mechanics my mind is buzzing with all the stuff. It's like they took every secondary system from every FE and crammed them all into a single package, then added more top. There's so much planning to be done!

#29 Edited by ripelivejam (4841 posts) -

i like the idea of permadeath as it gives more of a stake to the gameplay. sure it's something that's easily circumvented by going back a save, but it was pretty neat the first time i lost a fairly crucial member of my party and had to work around his loss. i think it adds something really unique to this type of game, and gives you a stronger tie to the characters (even if they're broad-strokes stereotypes most of the time). by no means, however, would i berate anyone for not liking this feature, and i think it's only a good thing to offer the choice to turn it off so more people can experience the other terrific aspects of these games. just don't take the permadeath feature away in future installments is all i ask.

when i finally get my clammy mitts on Awakening i'm definitely playing with permadeath on, and i'm going to try to discipline myself to not go back to previous saves and live with the consequences. maybe if i can muster a 2nd playthrough i'll try to be perfectionist about it, or turn on the no permadeath feature.

#30 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

@Flappy: Oh yeah, I was pretty ho-hum about it but now I'm getting super hyped for it too. I've had the game preordered anyways because given the genre my options are limited, but since I pretty much only come to GB, I didn't know anything about Awakening's features. The only thing I had gleaned before today was the inclusion of the Dual Strike system. Now that I've had a chance to read some FAQ's on the systems and mechanics my mind is buzzing with all the stuff. It's like they took every secondary system from every FE and crammed them all into a single package, then added more top. There's so much planning to be done!

Yeah, the development team basically set out to design the game as a "best of" by throwing in all of the best elements of past games and putting more on top. Add in the extra content on top of all that that will be available via DLC and this could easily be the best game in the series by a wide margin.

#31 Posted by egg (1469 posts) -

It's stupid when a game has things like permanent death or make you pay out for losing, but don't have automatic saving. The game is practically begging you to save scum.

Resident Evil was undeniably about save scumming too.

This is why console gaming was shit.

#32 Posted by ripelivejam (4841 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@StarvingGamer said:

@Flappy: Oh yeah, I was pretty ho-hum about it but now I'm getting super hyped for it too. I've had the game preordered anyways because given the genre my options are limited, but since I pretty much only come to GB, I didn't know anything about Awakening's features. The only thing I had gleaned before today was the inclusion of the Dual Strike system. Now that I've had a chance to read some FAQ's on the systems and mechanics my mind is buzzing with all the stuff. It's like they took every secondary system from every FE and crammed them all into a single package, then added more top. There's so much planning to be done!

Yeah, the development team basically set out to design the game as a "best of" by throwing in all of the best elements of past games and putting more on top. Add in the extra content on top of all that that will be available via DLC and this could easily be the best game in the series by a wide margin.

i'm moist.

#33 Posted by stinky (1553 posts) -

two things.  

never tell someone else how to have fun. 
and...
perma death just means restarting every mission.

#34 Posted by ripelivejam (4841 posts) -

maybe have 3 modes: regular permadeath with autosaves/whatever, no permadeath, and SUPER permadeath where there's only one save and you can't ever go back (only start a new game)

#35 Edited by Superkenon (1506 posts) -

For me, there's often a direct correlation between how much I enjoyed the game, and how much I struggled through it. I mean, that's not an absolute law -- in some games, the challenge is hardly the point. Though, a hard difficulty has never negatively effected a game for me.

I'm the kind of guy who's disappointed if I completely stomp a boss. I like being challenged. There's definitely a level of frustration that's there during the struggle, but it's nothing compared to the satisfaction of finally prevailing -- at last, coming back and seizing victory after bettering yourself and improving your tactics. Without that dimension there, the experience is so much more flat. So, if it's a game I really care about, that difficulty level's goin' up, baby.

That's me though. Everyone's got their pleasures.

#36 Edited by Canteu (2821 posts) -

@Neonie said:

"I play games to have fun..."

Me too, and I derive a lot of fun from certain games' permadeath. It just brings a certain tension, that if you fuck up, you're going to pay for it.

Yes, I play every game on the hardest difficulty, and if I didn't I think I would be pretty bored with games by now, but I would never consider anyone playing on easy to be some sort of miscreant. Play what you wanna play, fuck anyone who thinks your personal preference is worse than theirs.

#37 Posted by wemibelec90 (1828 posts) -

Many gamers nowadays have really adopted the idea of having that perfect game, one where everything goes right. With infinite save slots, we can make any choices we don't like go away. We don't have to live with any consequences we don't like. I will admit that I have fallen victim to this, but I'm trying to stop myself. What's wrong with a little consequence? Sure, I may not want that character to die, but I should have been more careful in the first place. If I'm not willing to let anything bad happen, what consequence can any action have? It feels like nothing I do has any meaning (even for a video game!).

At the same time, I can understand why we do it. If someone dies we really like, it can be very hard not to want to save them. Many people play games once and move on and therefore want that perfect game before they move on. Not turning permadeath on would allow those people to easily get the experience they want without the frustration of save reloading.

#38 Posted by LikeaSsur (1586 posts) -

You say you play games for the story, but what story is there without conflict? And what conflict doesn't bring any kind of discomfort? Do you only passively engage in a story, and never get involved in it? I wouldn't say that's "wrong," but you're definitely missing out.

#39 Posted by MildMolasses (3229 posts) -

@ArtisanBreads said:

Anyways, I have to laugh at some of this, like Patrick going on about how he's playing with permadeath and it's the only way to play, then resetting when a character dies. haha okay dude.... I guess. But whatever, that's fine, I just don't get why he keeps harping on it. I also am just annoyed at people who say something is only to be played X way. I don't get how a lot of people play games though. It reminds me of how some people say a game isn't fun because they just use a certain cheap ability the whole time or use item X and that makes the game no fun... why don't they just not use it? Jeff does this all the time and I hear it from others too. But just another thing I will never understand.

Reminds me of Jeff's theory that headshots are ruining games. While he was going on about it, I just kept thinking that he is probably much more skilled than the average player. I'm certainly not having a problem of killing everyone too easily.

#40 Posted by OmegaChosen (647 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

You say you play games for the story, but what story is there without conflict? And what conflict doesn't bring any kind of discomfort? Do you only passively engage in a story, and never get involved in it? I wouldn't say that's "wrong," but you're definitely missing out.

It's possible to get emotionally conflicted in a story without having to have actual conflict and difficulty. If they dislike being frustrated by something then I don't see how not having that as an option for them is "missing out".

#41 Posted by Sterling (2696 posts) -

All I know is that I will be playing this game. I will play it however I want. And I will enjoy it. So, yeah.

#42 Posted by Brendan (8127 posts) -

A lot of the "fun" in games for people, be they sports, chess, video games, comes from the "challenge".

I'm in the middle. I wouldn't play Fire Emblem without perma-death because it changes the way that I would play the game to be less fun. However, I always have, and always will, repeat levels until I make it with all my characters though. I don't see a problem with this because rather than play the entire game a dozen times, I just work at a puzzle until I figure it out. That, for me, is fun.

#43 Posted by LikeaSsur (1586 posts) -

@OmegaChosen said:

@LikeaSsur said:

You say you play games for the story, but what story is there without conflict? And what conflict doesn't bring any kind of discomfort? Do you only passively engage in a story, and never get involved in it? I wouldn't say that's "wrong," but you're definitely missing out.

It's possible to get emotionally conflicted in a story without having to have actual conflict and difficulty. If they dislike being frustrated by something then I don't see how not having that as an option for them is "missing out".

Seems to me emotional conflict is just as real as any physical conflict. It's not just frustration, it can be anger, sadness, anticipation, anxiety. These are all, by themselves, bad things to have, but when you're the middle of a good story, it's pretty awesome to feel one of those.

#44 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -
@egg

It's stupid when a game has things like permanent death or make you pay out for losing, but don't have automatic saving. The game is practically begging you to save scum.

Resident Evil was undeniably about save scumming too.

This is why console gaming was shit.

What?
#45 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre said:

@egg

It's stupid when a game has things like permanent death or make you pay out for losing, but don't have automatic saving. The game is practically begging you to save scum.

Resident Evil was undeniably about save scumming too.

This is why console gaming was shit.

What?

I have no idea. Apparently this guy isn't a fan of a game punishing the player, even if the player is choosing to punish himself by hitting reset.

#46 Posted by pyromagnestir (4339 posts) -

As with the Dark Souls easy mode thing, I say what does it matter? If I can still play the game the way I want to play the game and the only thing that changes is the game maybe becomes a bit more accessible for people who wouldn't normally try it, thus perhaps making it sell a bit better and meaning even more Fire Emblem in the future, then I don't see the issue.

#47 Posted by ExplodeMode (852 posts) -

I get where you're coming from. I don't think I want to play it because I know I would save exploit too and obsess over random stat gains when I level. I don't want to do that at all, but I know I would. If they put in a mode where gains were static and I didn't have to worry about it, I'd buy it in a second and wouldn't care about what anyone else had to say.

Personally, I'd keep it death on just to see how/if the story would change when someone died, which might give it high replayability -- but I'd be a huge hypocrite for faulting someone for not wanting to worry about it.

#48 Posted by golguin (4041 posts) -

@pyromagnestir said:

As with the Dark Souls easy mode thing, I say what does it matter? If I can still play the game the way I want to play the game and the only thing that changes is the game maybe becomes a bit more accessible for people who wouldn't normally try it, thus perhaps making it sell a bit better and meaning even more Fire Emblem in the future, then I don't see the issue.

I don't want to start up the Dark Souls easy mode thing again since it will probably come up again in the future if things go bad, but I don't believe you understand why a Dark Souls "easy mode" is the wrong decision. Many things could be done to that game to make it more accessible without changing anything about the environmental and enemy obstacles. A lot more information can be presented to the player instead of having to figure it out for yourself and the UI and/or the tutorial could explain why you would level up one stat over another to create a good build.

The Dark Souls easy mode argument is wrong for the same reason as a Super Meat Boy easy mode.

#49 Posted by McShank (1630 posts) -

I didn't know fire emblem had the option to turn that off. One of the few reasons I was always hesitant to get one. I guess when the fire emblem 3ds comes out that it will be less of a stressful time playing. Once I learn the game I will probably play it again with perma death but otherwise some games difficulty can turn people off at the beginning and can deter the advancement of some games popularity while others "dark souls / demon's souls" can actually bring in more. It all depends on how the game plays but at least for the fire emblem style its good to see there is an easier mode.

#50 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -
@McShank

I didn't know fire emblem had the option to turn that off. One of the few reasons I was always hesitant to get one. I guess when the fire emblem 3ds comes out that it will be less of a stressful time playing. Once I learn the game I will probably play it again with perma death but otherwise some games difficulty can turn people off at the beginning and can deter the advancement of some games popularity while others "dark souls / demon's souls" can actually bring in more. It all depends on how the game plays but at least for the fire emblem style its good to see there is an easier mode.

Yeah, definitely. If you're worried, take perma-death off and then play again with it on. After that, I bet you never play with it off again. It's stressful losing guys but it's so much more exhilarating when you finish a level without losing anyone. It's the same feeling you get from XCOM, except individuals aren't cookie-cutter in FE. They really, truly matter.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.