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

  • 84 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Hailinel (23985 posts) -

@McShank said:

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.

It hasn't always had the option. This is really only the second game to feature casual mode (the first being the second DS game, which was never released outside of Japan).

Online
#52 Posted by The_Ruiner (1023 posts) -

how people enjoy single player games is nobody else's business...

#53 Posted by OmegaChosen (644 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

@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.

For you. Others don't like being frustrated or anxious in their experiences. Some people like their food to be spicy while others don't. That doesn't mean the latter are missing out but a personal preference.

#54 Posted by LikeaSsur (1497 posts) -

@OmegaChosen: I think they're missing out. You don't.

#55 Posted by OmegaChosen (644 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

@OmegaChosen: I think they're missing out. You don't.

People with weird fetishes probably think others are missing out as well.

#56 Edited by dubios451 (134 posts) -

I don't think anyone has mentioned it but its not like fire emblem has like six characters and losing one is going to cripple you/remove swathes of content. I've played a few of them and usually they have way more characters that you can bring into a battle and sometimes so many that you forget they are even on your roster. I restarted chapters a bunch the first time I played but as the game progressed and I saw just how many characters they throw your way I just stopped restarting and started accepting the deaths because I already couldn't keep track of the ones still alive!

edit: That said, if it isn't fun, play the way that is fun. But maybe give it a try once you beat it once or something, we should all try to play outside our comfort zone sometimes.

#57 Posted by Hailinel (23985 posts) -

@OmegaChosen said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@OmegaChosen: I think they're missing out. You don't.

People with weird fetishes probably think others are missing out as well.

Nah. If anything, people with weird fetishes just assume that others are just into weird shit of their own.

But all talk of deviant sexuality aside, there's room for both arguments here. There are those that will appreciate the inclusion of casual mode, and those that don't. I personally will not touch casual mode because I can't fathom playing Fire Emblem any other way, but I can understand why others might gravitate toward it. However, I would also encourage any Fire Emblem newcomer that starts with casual mode to give classic mode a shot, because I find the nature of the classic Fire Emblem challenge incredibly rewarding. If they try it, don't like it, and settle for casual, that's fine, but I do believe that anyone that dismisses classic mode outright because of the difficulty is missing out on at least the opportunity to see what classic Fire Emblem is all about.

Online
#58 Posted by OmegaChosen (644 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@OmegaChosen said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@OmegaChosen: I think they're missing out. You don't.

People with weird fetishes probably think others are missing out as well.

Nah. If anything, people with weird fetishes just assume that others are just into weird shit of their own.

But all talk of deviant sexuality aside, there's room for both arguments here. There are those that will appreciate the inclusion of casual mode, and those that don't. I personally will not touch casual mode because I can't fathom playing Fire Emblem any other way, but I can understand why others might gravitate toward it. However, I would also encourage any Fire Emblem newcomer that starts with casual mode to give classic mode a shot, because I find the nature of the classic Fire Emblem challenge incredibly rewarding. If they try it, don't like it, and settle for casual, that's fine, but I do believe that anyone that dismisses classic mode outright because of the difficulty is missing out on at least the opportunity to see what classic Fire Emblem is all about.

And I agree with you. What I was trying to get across was that you shouldn't place on objective value on something subjective. Everyone has their likes and dislikes and what holds true for you may not hold true for others.

Like inviting a shy person to a party. You may think that by taking them to a party they'll come out of their shell and have a great time but a lot of the time the person just ends up standing in a corner or sitting in a chair the whole night because it just isn't their thing.

#59 Posted by Neonie (437 posts) -

@OmegaChosen said:

People with weird fetishes probably think others are missing out as well.

Everyone is into some weird thing or another. Some just have way harder times admitting to them selves what they like is weird or try to justify/qualify it to them selves. Also, chances are good that if someone who saw what you were into and didn't agree, the word "weird" would come up.

#60 Posted by rjayb89 (7717 posts) -

I'm certain I would reload the game once I lose someone, so casual mode, in a way, will make it more difficult for me because I won't have whoever died for the rest of a battle. Sure, it's not lasting but I know I would reload the game to get that person back and prevent whatever happened last time from playing out again. Anyway, fuck what you said, Patty Kleps.

#61 Posted by JCGamer (659 posts) -

I wonder how many people will play with the permadeath on but reset the game if they loose a character. Not sure what I'll do come to think of it.

#62 Posted by egg (1450 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@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.

Games got deeper with PS1 gen but came with more baggage. You wanna just sit back and play a game? HAHAHAH no you have loading screens, 2 hour cutscenes, memory cards, manual saving, save points, save scumming, game over screens, randomly triggered encounters, etc. A lot of the games were mostly just this baggage. In RE series these are core component of the "game" due to ink ribbons. Save scumming wasn't a choice in that game, it was a game mechanic.

Also until this thread, I didn't know save scumming even had a name. God bless this thread if God exists, but hopefully he doesn't.

#63 Posted by Hailinel (23985 posts) -

@egg said:

@Hailinel said:

@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.

Games got deeper with PS1 gen but came with more baggage. You wanna just sit back and play a game? HAHAHAH no you have loading screens, 2 hour cutscenes, memory cards, manual saving, save points, save scumming, game over screens, randomly triggered encounters, etc. A lot of the games were mostly just this baggage. In RE series these are core component of the "game" due to ink ribbons. Save scumming wasn't a choice in that game, it was a game mechanic.

Also until this thread, I didn't know save scumming even had a name. God bless this thread if God exists, but hopefully he doesn't.

You're confusing permanent death for a lack of depth and complexity?

Online
#64 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7056 posts) -
@Hailinel

@egg said:

@Hailinel said:

@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.

Games got deeper with PS1 gen but came with more baggage. You wanna just sit back and play a game? HAHAHAH no you have loading screens, 2 hour cutscenes, memory cards, manual saving, save points, save scumming, game over screens, randomly triggered encounters, etc. A lot of the games were mostly just this baggage. In RE series these are core component of the "game" due to ink ribbons. Save scumming wasn't a choice in that game, it was a game mechanic.

Also until this thread, I didn't know save scumming even had a name. God bless this thread if God exists, but hopefully he doesn't.

You're confusing permanent death for a lack of depth and complexity?

And what the hell do memory cards, game over screens, ink ribbons, 2 hour cutscenes and random encounters have to do with fucking Fire Emblem? You're just rambling here. Game Over screens? In what reality is that a new concept? They're nearly as old as the medium itself? You're either a crazy person just rambling or you're the weirdest troll ever. I don't even know anymore.
#65 Posted by LikeaSsur (1497 posts) -

@OmegaChosen: I'm not placing any sort of objectivity on something subjective. In my PERSONAL OPINION, I think that by shying away from emotional conflict that most stories present, you are not, TO ME, experiencing the fullest the game/movie/book/TV show/song has to offer.

Clearly you disagree, and I am not, nor was I ever attempting to, change your mind or point you out as being wrong. Obviously, we're going to have to agree to disagree, unless you continue to feel that my way of thinking is just pants-on-head stupid and need, by duty alone, to change my views to the "right" way.

#66 Posted by Aronleon (740 posts) -

It all comes down to personal taste like you said, I like Fire Emblem with permanent death cause after all this is a war story and you loose people you like in wars, it gives the game a serious note that I really enjoy and like many have said if you loose someone It was all your fault.

#67 Posted by OmegaChosen (644 posts) -

@LikeaSsur: Dude, what are, or were, you even arguing? I can't see in ultraviolet so am I "missing out" on that spectrum? Sure, if you care enough about that and see any experience not had as "missing out". My life's not exactly any worse for not seeing it and I certainly don't care that bees see it either. But fine, agree to disagree since this conversation seems pointless if you believe I see your posts as "pants-on-head stupid".

#68 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1543 posts) -

The game seems to have been designed with permadeath in mind, so it’s probably true that leaving it will result in a more “authentic” experience, but it doesn’t make you less of a gamer to turn it off. If playing without permadeath is more enjoyable to you, do it. That Bombcast segment was annoyingly elitist considering how little experience most of them have with the genre.

#69 Edited by MONOLITHIC_ERECTION (9 posts) -

I would normally agree with you, but for some reason with this game, part of the fun is the permadeath. Part of the challenge, at least, comes from actually strategizing and planning your moves in advance - kind of like chess in a way. The first FE I played was the GBA one after Melee was released and I remember being like 11 and still planning my moves for like 5 minutes before taking a turn, where in games like FFTA and especially FFTA2 it doesn't really matter, it's less about "tactics" and more about whose stats and eqipment is better. I would just put my units wherever to get what hits I could make because there is no real risk. While it is "simpler" and less obnoxious (I still havcen't actually beaten FE7 because of the bullshit RNG I think, I put it down for some reason), it's just not the same game without it. I don't mind casual mode being in there and I dont care how other people play their games as long as they don't become "that guy" who bitches about how hardcore he is, but as someone who was going to play casual mode, I'm sort of sitting on the fence about it now.

Also the retreat dialogue is written as if the characters were dying, I believe, so it's weird to have someone say like "MY LIFE FOR THE EMPIRE GUAARGHHH!" then be back the next map.

EDIT: It reminds me of the argument in modern shooters about regenerative health, where you can go out and play poorly and get shot a whole bunch but then duck behind cover and restore your health. The "hardcore guys" hate it and it seems dumb but the games with it sell better and so it has become like a standard. They have put casual mode in the past two FE games and they have both sold more than other FE games recently, so I assume it will become a staple. I stand by my argument that you play the game differently with permadeath, because, not to sound super-smug but there was a guy in this thread who said he lost units in the demo and the only way I could think of that happening is if you are like "Okay well I'm gonna make all my guys go all the way forward all the time" then get surrounded, but with permadeath I find myself playing much more like the game is like Advance Wars, where I sort of naturally build formations of units and let the first few rounds play out then decide how I am going to play the map.

DOUBLE EDIT:

@dubios451 said:

I don't think anyone has mentioned it but its not like fire emblem has like six characters and losing one is going to cripple you/remove swathes of content. I've played a few of them and usually they have way more characters that you can bring into a battle and sometimes so many that you forget they are even on your roster.

There are also characters you can only get by losing other charactters, in certain games.

#70 Posted by AgentJ (8778 posts) -

You won't value your comrades in arms as much unless their lives are in your hands.

#71 Posted by ViciousReiven (821 posts) -

Personally I'm playing on Normal+Casual for the first playthrough so I can enjoy the story and battles without stress, this way I can get to know a little bit about all the characters, for my second I intend to go Hard+Classic and use what I learned the first time around, and be protective of the characters I learned to like the first time, maybe not so much for ones I didn't care for. 

#72 Posted by I_Stay_Puft (3062 posts) -

Helps adds an extra layer to gameplay mechanics. The idea that permanent death is on just gives player that more reason not to play casually and know their isn't any significant changes that will happen. I'm in the same boat as you and will play this game with the permanent death thing off, I enjoy strategy games and this is one of the things in the past that has turned me off of the Fire Emblem games. Really happy that Nintendo decided to add this mode for players like me, who enjoy strategy games but don't want real outcomes to effect their experience from the game. Meaning, I don't really want to play this game again and again to save my beloved characters.

#73 Posted by Kyoshi9 (9 posts) -

Fire Emblem from what it is worth is a game about tension. It is stressing that you are a somewhat limited force fighting a larger force and that you have to be careful when attacking so that you don't lose a unit. I enjoyed the moments where you cringe when you see a critical hit to your units, you are retreating a unit with one health while covering their flank the best you can. The moments where you breath a sigh of relief that you got everyone through a tough mission. There isn't any risk/gain when you can rush your characters to their deaths and the next mission everyone is like the black knight, " 'Tis nothing but a flesh wound!"

Play it how you want to, if the option is there it is all about your preference. But perma-death isn't technically the hardcore difficulty for Fire Emblem, it is just playing it like it originally was. And as the game developers wanted to make a game that would appeal to a younger market that don't like perma-death. Strategy games are usually about the hard choices, if you don't like them having tension they just may not be for you.

#74 Edited by HH (599 posts) -

the game is trying to evoke a broader range of emotions, play it how you want, but why not just let the character die? it makes for a better story.

stories in games have less of a chance to evolve if players keep insisting they get it all their own way.

#75 Posted by Farbelowaverage (47 posts) -

I took a hard-line stance against this on XCOM, but in Fire Emblem I will admit to a certain level of save-scumming. I've played a handful of Fire Emblem games, and usually end up with an A-Team that I like and want to carry with me through the end of the game. For example, there's a young Cavalier in Sacred Stones named Franz. No idea why, but Franz became my go-to-guy, and near the end of the game was a defensive powerhouse that could hold off an entire side of the map if he was standing in front of Amelia. I grew attached to him, and I did restart on the rare occasion that he received a ridiculous crit and died.... however, on the last map, I sacrificed him in a Rescue action, where he took a massive hit for Eirika (whose death would have caused me to fail the mission), and that just seemed like a fitting end.

My first run through of this game is on Normal/Classic. I probably will scum a bit, especially in an early play-through, just to hear everyone's personal stories. The reason for this is that while you get attached to your characters in XCOM as well, they don't have inherent character arcs, whereas the story for an XCOM soldier is invented by the missions they do and ultimately don't return from. (We miss you, Finn "Hoagie" Hagen, thank you for your sacrifice.)

#76 Posted by Hunkulese (2658 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.

It's great how you can boil down a discussion into one position that nobody on the bombcast took. Patrick was the only one talking about the game. He admitted to being completely ignorant of Fire Emblem and made the decision because of messages he received from people he respects in the industry who were familiar to the series. Permadeath has always been a part of the Fire Emblem series and it does have an important effect on how you play the game and how your story turns out. Losing a character you have a connection with does carry an emotional impact if handled correctly which often leads to a more satisfying experience. Somehow you took Patrick soliciting opinions from people who knew a whole lot more about the series than he did and turned it into everyone on the bombcast thinks you should play games as intended based on something they know nothing about.

#77 Posted by Encephalon (1240 posts) -

@Hunkulese: I'm not usually this petty, but... well, here I go.

I'd actually begun to question what I remembered from that podcast, so I skimmed through it again. Patrick does in fact advocate that very position, and most everyone else cosigns to varying degrees, with Ryan being the most bullish.

I'd provide the time stamp, but then I'd hate myself.

#78 Edited by year199X (62 posts) -

To be fair, permadeath has been a traditional feature of Fire Emblem games, so I can totally understand where Patrick is coming from. The same goes for X-Com, it's all part of the game and it definitely affects how you play. However, I wouldn't fault anyone for not wanting it on. I occasionally enjoy a stress free romp where I mindlessly destroy the competition, and I have save scummed in '94 X-Com.

Personally, for my first time through I have permadeath on. In subsequent runs, I might turn it off as a sort of personal reward, mostly to explore stuff I might have missed due to it being too risky.

#79 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@Neonie said:

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.

You treat games as a relaxing escape. As an easy way to entertain, to disconnect. Like books, music and some movies. But, to others, games needs to be demanding and exhausting. They need to stimulate and ask of your involvement. Personally, I like both. That's why I can beat Dark Souls and enjoy Harvest Moon.

#80 Edited by Superkenon (1399 posts) -

I've always known this series to be balanced around the fact that losing even a single unit is a big deal, so it seems like the whole thing would become a trifle on Casual. I mean, it's not like it's Advance Wars where you're often meant to throw units to their doom like so much cannon fodder -- every stage in Fire Emblem is designed to be completely doable without losing a single unit. Playing "sloppy" is losing one or two soldiers in a battle... but that hardly brings you to close to a Game Over. So, on Casual, the need for strategy would be all-but gone, and at that point, what are you playing Fire Emblem for?

I don't mean that to sound like I'm shunning anyone who plays this way -- I'm actually just curious. Do you get anything out of the gameplay in Fire Emblem with all the risk removed?

#82 Posted by Evelgest (122 posts) -

I haven't decided whether I'm getting Fire Emblem, but as someone who has played multiple FE games in the past, I have no problem with someone playing casual mode. I don't have much time to play games these days, and I know that if I ever lose a character, I'll immediately reset the game and re-play the mission. Casual mode removes that perfectionist urge and allows me to relax more when I play. Back when I was playing FE on the GBA, the very first mission I had access to the Pegasus lady I lost her in one hit near the end of the mission. Completely devastating.

#83 Posted by ma_rc_01 (364 posts) -

I you play Fire Emblem im no death mode you are dumb! I prefer being dumb and having fun than being a ''real hardcore gamer'' any day of the week.

#84 Posted by Sanity (1896 posts) -

I can see it both ways, on one hand sometimes you just want to relax and not think too much, but also i can totally see whats so appealing about the stress of knowing if you fuck up you really fuck up.

#85 Edited by Red (5994 posts) -

I just think that playing Fire Emblem without permadeath would be pretty boring. Fire Emblem is a very difficult game because you have to make sure everyone is absolutely safe, but if you go from mission to mission without worrying about any casualties, the game becomes so easy I think it would get dull, or at least not have nearly the strategic payoff of getting through a tough level without anyone dying. I think it's fine as an option, but I think the enjoyment of Fire Emblem hinges on the connections made with characters and the ease with which they can simply be washed away.

I completely agree that it's fine to just unwind and have an easy, relaxing time playing a game, but I really don't think a turn-based strategy game is the most relaxing power fantasy.

#86 Posted by Karkarov (3008 posts) -

@Neonie: Nice post. If I were playing it I would turn Perma death off. I will be honest, I work 40+ hours a week. I put in over 50 last week. I don't have time for "hard modes" anymore, maybe when I was a kid and all I had to do was hang out with friends and go to high school but I am not a kid anymore. I have more important things to do than replay a battle because Chrom's love interest died.

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.