|
I don't see any way to implement that kind of soul-consumption system without deliberately killing off characters to form a god-unit. Most likely the mid-game prepromotes you usually don't use because their growths are too low or their bases aren't high enough to compensate for smaller room to grow. Really, just bringing back the Aum staff would let you take a mulligan or two on a chapter you just can't beat without someone dying, or a bullshit 1% crit or whatever.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Honestly the only thing that could convince me to leave people permanently dead would be something that isn't just isolated in gameplay mechanics, but rather that deaths had more of an impact on the plot and other characters. But I doubt anyone is going to put Alpha Protocol in Fire Emblem any time soon without carving the cast down to like 12. That's always been kind of the illusion Fire Emblem games have had since as long as I can remember. People die but everything still marches on perfectly fine (well I guess not quite in Geneology). I'm not a fan of having gameplay so detached from story, so I've always kept everyone alive. I do miss the very limited charge resurrection staves though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
The series is in an odd position for people dying, because while the plot takes into account everyone that can die (by simply not having them be relevant), people still feel attached to the characters just because they know about permadeath. I'm not really sure how you can balance out giving a "prize" for death and not feeling gimped by having all your guys alive, but they need to do something. I think Shadow Dragon had a good idea, but people seemed to take it the wrong way. The gaidens we not supposed to be the same as gaidens in other games, it was the game saying "Wow, you really don't know what you're doing, here's some weak guys to get some EXP on".
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Momomo posted:The series is in an odd position for people dying, because while the plot takes into account everyone that can die (by simply not having them be relevant), people still feel attached to the characters just because they know about permadeath. I'm not really sure how you can balance out giving a "prize" for death and not feeling gimped by having all your guys alive, but they need to do something. I think Shadow Dragon had a good idea, but people seemed to take it the wrong way. The gaidens we not supposed to be the same as gaidens in other games, it was the game saying "Wow, you really don't know what you're doing, here's some weak guys to get some EXP on". My main issue with the gaidens is that the character limit gets waaaayyyyyy too small later chapters, especially that one that dumps Midia and useless pals on you right before one. Sure you could just ignore them, but it really chafes to have to miss game content for not playing awfully enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
I fully admit, and I doubt I'm the only one, to liking the idea of ironmanning in principle but being too weak-willed to go through with it. I feel too guilty, and invariably end up restarting the chapter. I wonder how feasible it would be to add an Xcom-like autosaving ironman mode to the difficulty. I bet the gameplay experience of going throuh that would be radically different than what most of us are used to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:On the other hand FE:Shadow Dragon gave you consolation prizes if you lost characters and it was just frustrating and dumb and lead to stupid minimaxing by killing people off. I mentioned that in my post though. Shadow Dragon did it in a really lovely way that didn't jive with how people play Fire Emblem. You shouldn't lock things away from the player and force them to kill characters. That's unintuitive and forces you to look up FAQs for the ideal way to play. It's different from just giving you a way to bring another character you already have a little closer to the average level of your group so that you don't necessarily feel like resetting is your only option. Now keep in mind that I, too, prefer to play without character deaths. However, I've seen quite a few people lose interest in the game because they got tired of that anxiety they felt every time they started up because they felt like the game was expecting you to play without casualties. I'm not saying that that way of playing is bad, because it's how I play, and it also causes you to think more strategically. All I'm saying is that the game should have a system in place to keep people from getting overly frustrated when they lose a character they've invested so much time in, especially when dumb luck can have such a big impact on battles. If, near the end of an long, otherwise-flawless battle a character gets killed on a 1% critical hit chance, the player isn't going to feel like they should play the chapter again and make better decisions. They're going to do the same thing again and probably get it right the second time, without it really adding to their experience. I'm just saying there should be an alternative to that. quote:I got to a specific point late in Shadow Dragon where no matter what I did in the chapter I ended up losing at least one person and I couldn't live with that. IT PAINED ME TO NOT FINISH IT. I spent hours upon hours trying different strategies to not lose anybody and ended up not beating that chapter or the game. I guess that makes me a sperg or whatever but I don't careeeee. I rarely sperg out about games when it comes to playing efficiently, but I always reset for Fire Emblem, so I can't really shake the feeling that the games encourage this type of play. I think that it's better to offer an alternative to players who would normally walk away in that scenario you described, though. It's not like it would take away from us doing a no-death approach. quote:You're assuming that letting characters die is the "correct" way to play and that all we need is a slight nudge in the right direction and we'll see the light. The developers have known since at least FE3 that some players will accept deaths and move on, and some will reset incessantly to save everyone, and have designed the games accordingly. I never said that was the correct way to play, just that some people get the idea that Fire Emblem games are tedious and frustrating because of the perma-death combined with a relatively strong luck element. There's no correct way to play Fire Emblem, but the game does encourage certain types of play. I'm just saying that it'd be easier for people to get into the game if they could see the importance of keeping characters alive without necessarily feeling like they absolutely have to reset if they don't. Casual mode doesn't seem like it would accomplish this because now players don't need to worry about it at all. It's just the other extreme. quote:Really, just bringing back the Aum staff would let you take a mulligan or two on a chapter you just can't beat without someone dying, or a bullshit 1% crit or whatever. Allowing a couple mulligans would be fine, too. I do feel like there's a way to give the player a consolation prize without encouraging them to make god-mode characters, though. The overall point here, basically, is that because you can reset any battle in Fire Emblem, losses don't really have a chance to show meaning because I will always reset, every time and the only cost is just my time and sanity. I think it would be more interesting if I had to consider the in-game benefits of just accepting a loss and progressing versus using up more time to get it right. The way the game is right now, the further in I get the more likely that any unit I lost is one that I really, really don't want to lose. Nickoten fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted:My main issue with the gaidens is that the character limit gets waaaayyyyyy too small later chapters, especially that one that dumps Midia and useless pals on you right before one. Sure you could just ignore them, but it really chafes to have to miss game content for not playing awfully enough. Unless I remember wrong, the limit is always 15 characters. So yeah, you really have to pare things down to just the ones you really, really like even by the time the second gaiden comes up. It actually takes effort to get that many characters killed and still win an engagement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted:My main issue with the gaidens is that the character limit gets waaaayyyyyy too small later chapters, especially that one that dumps Midia and useless pals on you right before one. Sure you could just ignore them, but it really chafes to have to miss game content for not playing awfully enough. Yeah, I think the issue with the gaidens stems from how the game was designed in the first place. FE1 gave you a fuckton of similar characters because it thought you'd be losing your guys over and over and have to get new ones, but in the remake they added a gaiden on top of that. If you really want to see all the game has to offer, you end up having to look ahead at who joins to plan out who survives, which I really don't think they were going for. I think it could be more effective if they made an entirely new game with a similar mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
How about just giving characters a penalty every time they fall in combat? Like subtract a random number of stats from them, relieve them from the army unless you pay gold for medical fees, disable them for X chapters based on the severity of their death (1-10HP past their max takes them out for 1 chapter, 11-20HP past their max takes them out for 2 chapters, dying to a critical takes them out for 5, etc).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
I was discussing this game with a friend and he brought up the point that this whole reclassing mechanic seems like it would essentially force you to hop online and look for guides for the optimal set up on each character, or at least play through the game one or twice so you know what's coming and what skills everyone wants. I agree in principle that it's not very good game design but it doesn't really scare me in the same way because I don't mind not playing optimally. At least not when I'm not playing the hardest difficulty. Is he right or is there some in game way to check these things?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Maybe a good in-between is a mode that let you keep units that died, but with some kind of stat penalty that lasted the entire game. Maybe have some super rare item that reduces the penalty so the unit doesn't become absolutely useless later in the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Nickoten posted:I rarely sperg out about games when it comes to playing efficiently, but I always reset for Fire Emblem, so I can't really shake the feeling that the games encourage this type of play. I think that it's better to offer an alternative to players who would normally walk away in that scenario you described, though. It's not like it would take away from us doing a no-death approach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
supergreatfriend can apparently record from a 3DS; so you can yell at him for not knowing why his units can't counterattack at range, and listen to his anguish at the lack of feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX321UM0mhc
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
If you're not playing on Lunatic or Insane, I think you should be able to get away with pretty much any amount of reclassing (including none at all) as long as you use the other features like pairing up and dual attack/defense. Your first gen characters will only have 4 skills instead of 5 and lower stats overall if you never reclass, but that's hardly going to cripple you. Seriously, dual support gives +10 hit, avoid, crit, and crit avoid at high levels of support plus extra attacks, pairing up gives pretty hefty stat boosts, etc etc. Since there are no AOE spells in Fire Emblem, clumping up your characters is going to be a pure benefit except in chapters where you have to do two things at once (which just means you'll have two smaller clumps).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
The reason that I always go for no casualty runs isn't necessarily because I'm attached to the characters, but probably more because I know that it's possible to do a no casualty run and I feel like I can do better. It's the same reason that the first time I played Dishonored I restarted the first level twice in order to get a no kill run. I know it's possible, the game was built with that in mind, but I just wasn't good enough to do it. I take it as a personal challenge to achieve that objective, even if the game will still let me continue on without achieving it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Miftan posted:I was discussing this game with a friend and he brought up the point that this whole reclassing mechanic seems like it would essentially force you to hop online and look for guides for the optimal set up on each character, or at least play through the game one or twice so you know what's coming and what skills everyone wants. I agree in principle that it's not very good game design but it doesn't really scare me in the same way because I don't mind not playing optimally. At least not when I'm not playing the hardest difficulty. Is he right or is there some in game way to check these things? I don't know if there's a way to look up what skills each class gets, but at the very least it seems like everything is reversible and you can't permanently gimp a character. If you get crappy skills, you can equip your old ones. If you turn your healer into a knight and suddenly realize her 15 def growth (or whatever) won't cut it, you only need to suffer to level 10 to go back. It seems like going super nuts with experimenting would only really screw you by jacking up the grind time if you're playing on Lunatic, and Lunatic seems like it's for the kinds of people who already have a clear min/max plan anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Miftan posted:I was discussing this game with a friend and he brought up the point that this whole reclassing mechanic seems like it would essentially force you to hop online and look for guides for the optimal set up on each character, or at least play through the game one or twice so you know what's coming and what skills everyone wants. I agree in principle that it's not very good game design but it doesn't really scare me in the same way because I don't mind not playing optimally. At least not when I'm not playing the hardest difficulty. Is he right or is there some in game way to check these things? Most units only have 3 options for class-changing (your base + 2 choices, along with the promoted versions of those classes). It's not like you can jump around to any class you want to pick up all the best skills. Since each class gains 2 skills at set intervals, that means if you cycled through all your classes, you'd probably have around 12 skills to choose from to select your core 5, give or take any skill manuals you read (mostly DLC stuff). My Unit and certain other characters are the only ones that can class-change to every other class barring a few exceptions, so they're prime for min-maxing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Rascyc posted:Yeah, it's called casual mode. Which does exactly what players had been asking for all this time. I think it's pretty refreshing that some devs actually listened to a lot of players and finally just implemented the simplest solution with absolutely no catches. I acknowledged casual mode in my post, and I'm glad it's there. I still think it's inelegant though because Fire Emblem is designed to be played with perma-death, so a lot of things can become much easier just by virtue of knowing that you don't have to worry about a character dying. I just feel like it's another extreme that removes a key element of the strategy from the game. Something like Final Fantasy Tactics has perma-death but it also has limitations put on that, and the game is balanced around it. Suicide tactics work in that game, for example (And obviously don't in Fire Emblem), but you still have to think about how you go about them and when you do so in the battle because of the crystallization system. That's a game where perma-death is a very real threat, but it's one that you get plenty of warning about. I don't think Fire Emblem should play like Final Fantasy Tactics, but I think having a mode where no one can permanently die ever kind of undermines a lot of what makes Fire Emblem hard in the first place. I'm glad more people will be able to play it because of that, but I can't help but feel like they get shortchanged on some level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Alacron posted:The reason that I always go for no casualty runs isn't necessarily because I'm attached to the characters, but probably more because I know that it's possible to do a no casualty run and I feel like I can do better. It's the same reason that the first time I played Dishonored I restarted the first level twice in order to get a no kill run. I know it's possible, the game was built with that in mind, but I just wasn't good enough to do it. I take it as a personal challenge to achieve that objective, even if the game will still let me continue on without achieving it. That's why I'm trying for an Ironman run of the next game. Play the game as its truly attended for. Lose that guy you spent hours on? Tough, that's life. Gotta keep truckin on. Should make for an interesting dynamic. I might make a sort of art-log of deaths and who I eventually have to end up using at end game. Not saying you are wrong or anything. You bought the game, you can play it however you drat well please, as long as it doesn't affect me in some way (does this game even have competitive multiplayer?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Miftan posted:I was discussing this game with a friend and he brought up the point that this whole reclassing mechanic seems like it would essentially force you to hop online and look for guides for the optimal set up on each character, or at least play through the game one or twice so you know what's coming and what skills everyone wants. I agree in principle that it's not very good game design but it doesn't really scare me in the same way because I don't mind not playing optimally. At least not when I'm not playing the hardest difficulty. Is he right or is there some in game way to check these things? The main campaign only has about 40-50 levels worth of experience in it. You're going to be reclassing maybe once per character in the main game--wandering from class to class to pick up skills is a postgame mechanic (and even then, there's only one DLC where simply having maxed stats isn't good enough and you have to have quality skills in addition, and it's the final DLC with the difficulty listed as "MAX").
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
So I know everyon plays differently, but as someone who won't be able to play the demo in the forseeable future but still plans on picking up the game, would it be good to make the first run on normal or hard? For reference, I've played through all three GBA games and am currently on Path of Radiance, and managed to play through all of them with no casualties and very little restarts. Between the demo and those who've played the Japanese version of this game, where does Normal difficulty fall along those lines?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Nickoten posted:I don't think Fire Emblem should play like Final Fantasy Tactics, but I think having a mode where no one can permanently die ever kind of undermines a lot of what makes Fire Emblem hard in the first place. I'm reasonably sure that Lunatic/Casual and Insane/Casual are still going to be fuckoff hard. For one thing, characters that drop miss out on XP and support growth, which weakens them in the long run and makes them more likely to die again. For another, each time a character drops, that weakens your overall performance because dual support relies on strength of numbers to get the best results. For a third, Chrom and the Avatar still cause game over when they die, I believe. fount of knowledge posted:So I know everyon plays differently, but as someone who won't be able to play the demo in the forseeable future but still plans on picking up the game, would it be good to make the first run on normal or hard? The demo was really, really easy on Normal. Admittedly it's only the first two levels, but nothing did more than like 4 damage to anyone but the healer. I'll probably play on Hard. Zurai fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Zurai posted:I'm reasonably sure that Lunatic/Casual and Insane/Casual are still going to be fuckoff hard. For one thing, characters that drop miss out on XP and support growth, which weakens them in the long run and makes them more likely to die again. For another, each time a character drops, that weakens your overall performance because dual support relies on strength of numbers to get the best results. For a third, Chrom and the Avatar still cause game over when they die, I believe. You can grind characters like in FE8 so a lot of that stuff regarding supports and opportunity cost doesn't apply. And talking about the difficulty of Lunatic and Insane is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion, because if we're talking about how to ease people into the idea of perma-death and get them to play with it in mind without feeling like they're held hostage by the game, then really we're going to be talking about their first playthrough or so. I'm sure those two modes will be really hard even in Casual mode, but I don't think they're that relevant to the discussion of how Fire Emblem communicates the way the game works to a new player.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
fount of knowledge posted:So I know everyon plays differently, but as someone who won't be able to play the demo in the forseeable future but still plans on picking up the game, would it be good to make the first run on normal or hard? Normal mode is incredibly easy. It's easily soloable with MU starting around chapter 4 or 5 or so. Hard mode is legitimately hard, but feels like slightly too much of a jump upwards--it's somewhere around the "fair" chapters of HHM in difficulty (so once you've gotten your army going, but without bullshit like Cog of Destiny or Battle Before Dawn throws at you). Some of the characters (I'm looking at you, Stahl) are extremely difficult to use, but nobody is useless from the word go like they can be in lunatic. That said, MU can still mostly solo hard mode if you lean on them too hard. You'll need to do crazy shenanigans with rescue staves and pairing in creative ways for some of the harder chapters, but MU is pretty insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
General consensus seems to be that Normal is sort of like FE8 Hard. Of course, they might have done some rebalancing and changed some growth rates, so we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Terper posted:General consensus seems to be that Normal is sort of like FE8 Hard. Eirika route maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Nickoten posted:You can grind characters like in FE8 so a lot of that stuff regarding supports and opportunity cost doesn't apply. And talking about the difficulty of Lunatic and Insane is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion, because if we're talking about how to ease people into the idea of perma-death and get them to play with it in mind without feeling like they're held hostage by the game, then really we're going to be talking about their first playthrough or so. I'm sure those two modes will be really hard even in Casual mode, but I don't think they're that relevant to the discussion of how Fire Emblem communicates the way the game works to a new player. Normal difficulty is seriously close your eyes and roll your face across the 3DS easy. It doesn't matter whether it's on Casual or Classic, there's not much difficulty there to cry about losing. This has been the case for most of the modern FE games; the lowest difficulty is not especially difficult with the exception of one or two chapters (Ike vs Black Knight, etc). And it's a little silly to complain about making the game too easy then say "but you can just grind everything up" to the counter-argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Oh man, I've been playing through PoR to tide me over for Awakening (not gonna be easy since I'm in Europe), and Ike has gotten absolutely screwed so far. He's just promoted, and so far he's -3.5 strength and skill, -3.5 luck, -2.5 def and -6 res. He couldn't even kill generic mooks with a forged weapon in one round, and couldn't use Steel Swords without losing AS until after promotion. I can only imagine how hosed I'll be come the Black Knight unless I get really lucky from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Normal difficulty is seriously close your eyes and roll your face across the 3DS easy. It doesn't matter whether it's on Casual or Classic, there's not much difficulty there to cry about losing. This has been the case for most of the modern FE games; the lowest difficulty is not especially difficult with the exception of one or two chapters (Ike vs Black Knight, etc). And it's a little silly to complain about making the game too easy then say "but you can just grind everything up" to the counter-argument. Fair enough, I didn't realize Normal was so easy on this one. I just remember having a pretty good difficulty curve on the American GBA games that would occasionally still result in me resetting over and over to get an ideal outcome. I think you're conflating two different arguments with that last line, though. I brought up grinding to point out that you're not required to ration experience as you are in other FE games, so a lot of costs associated with loss become meaningless. It's quite a bit different to get into one extra battle and let that character who died get up to speed compared to just grinding all of your characters until everyone is a couple levels higher before moving on to the next chapter. You have a pillow to cover your losses without requiring much time spent, is all I'm saying. Not having death, though? That actually changes the tactics you use while playing the game. It allows for a style of play that Fire Emblem maps are not normally designed for. Suicide tactics ala FFT is simply not something you're expected to be doing because of perma-death. All I'm saying is that splitting it into two modes when the difference is so fundamental and not having the maps work with that in mind is not really what I would call an ideal solution. Again, I like that they put in Casual mode. I understand that this one is apparently so easy that it won't even matter until later difficulties. I'm just saying that I think it's not really the most elegant solution to getting new players into Fire Emblem, because it removes an important component of the strategy behind the games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
How did SGF actually record the 3ds footage? that's what I'm most curious about. I guess he got one of those dev kits that review sites have to allow recording?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
FrickenMoron posted:How did SGF actually record the 3ds footage? that's what I'm most curious about. I guess he got one of those dev kits that review sites have to allow recording? http://www.3dscapture.com/ He has money to burn, basically. Terper fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
I did complete an "Ironman" run of FE7 a few years ago. I wasn't very happy about it though. At least Kent and Fiora found happiness in whatever counts for Fire Emblem heaven. Oh and, sorry about your wife taking that crit axe to the face, Pent hey please don't leave the party tooooo  If the units didn't have personalities, it'd be much easier to make "brave sacrifices" for the greater good, or simply to acknowledge mistakes and just move on. Because Fire Emblem lends them persistence, personality and even relationships between them, it's a lot harder for me to accept. Outside of any emotional attachment to the characters, it's a devastating loss mechanics-wise, since you'll have lost a potentially amazing unit due to a mistake, and training up a replacement(if anyone exists to fit the role) gets to be harder the farther in the games you go. That and I'm terrible at feeding weak/low level units experience during lategame. Nino's never gotten to be a sage in any of my playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
I know that the reason I'll be playing on Classic is because I don't think I can resist the temptation to savescum - I'd almost certainly try a no-deaths run even without the death penalty. Had I been given a choice other than permadeath back when I was playing Fire Emblem 7 for the first time, I might not have even attempted to win with zero casualties. That in turn means that I may not have discovered that I find it more fun to regard every unit as mission-critical. Most of the time, perfect play is a source of stress with virtually no upside, but with Fire Emblem I find it's different. Maybe that is a matter of the game being "designed for" permadeath, with level design structured so that (most) deaths are nothing more than a sign that you could be doing better, and mechanics that permit extremely ballsy gambits. Maybe a first-time player on Normal difficulty with Casual mode turned on will have less pressure to outgrow their beginner's sloppiness, but that's fine. I consider the very demanding difficulty level, the thrill of not merely doing something that looks impossible but doing it perfectly, to be an inextricable part of Fire Emblem's appeal, but no part of that requires the game to be punitive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Nickoten posted:I'm just saying that I think it's not really the most elegant solution to getting new players into Fire Emblem, because it removes an important component of the strategy behind the games. That's fair enough, I guess. I can see where you're coming from, and I can agree that it's probably not the absolute best way to do it. It's very easy from a mechanics standpoint, though, and easy to implement. A more involved solution would probably be better, but it would also be more complex, which isn't always the best for newbie-friendliness. Dunno. Either way, we both agree that it's cool that the developers are willing to do things like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Terper posted:http://www.3dscapture.com/  Well, thats way too much money for me to spend on a 3ds that can capture video footage. Still pretty interesting though, makes me wonder how you manage to override the video output and install that usb adapter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Does anybody know if Awakening has side levels or towers you can choose at any time to fight in? I really enjoyed the inclusion of a multi-storied tower you can turn to instead of relying on chapters to level up your characters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
My complaint with Normal over Hard isn't the lower statical value of enemies but rather the lack of enemy units in general. I like having lots of enemy units to kill the maximize exp gain. If there's enemy reinforcements until X turn, I will abuse it until they stop coming. I'll probably start with Hard Casual my first run. I haven't played a FE without save states since when Radiant Dawn was released. Casual allows perma in chapter saves, right? I don't want to resort to save scumming, but I dunno how many empty levels I can take.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Zurai posted:That's fair enough, I guess. I can see where you're coming from, and I can agree that it's probably not the absolute best way to do it. It's very easy from a mechanics standpoint, though, and easy to implement. A more involved solution would probably be better, but it would also be more complex, which isn't always the best for newbie-friendliness. Dunno. Either way, we both agree that it's cool that the developers are willing to do things like this. It's definitely a good first step, yeah. Which game was it that introduced the resurrection staff, by the way? Was it one of the Super Famicom ones? I kinda wish they would have put that in the GBA games. quote:Does anybody know if Awakening has side levels or towers you can choose at any time to fight in? I really enjoyed the inclusion of a multi-storied tower you can turn to instead of relying on chapters to level up your characters. The OP says: quote:Awakening brings back the world map from The Sacred Stones. You can move between various locations, with the option to buy supplies or fight optional battles at certain locations. which seems to imply what you're asking for, but I'm not sure if I'm mis-interpreting what you're saying? Nickoten fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:Does anybody know if Awakening has side levels or towers you can choose at any time to fight in? I really enjoyed the inclusion of a multi-storied tower you can turn to instead of relying on chapters to level up your characters. There are skirmishes just like in FE8, and DLC maps can be repeated endlessly. No side dungeons though. e: ^^^ the aum staff was all the way back in FE1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
LPs of 3DS games are going to be an elite sort of crowd. Jeepers.fivegears4reverse posted:I did complete an "Ironman" run of FE7 a few years ago. I wasn't very happy about it though. At least Kent and Fiora found happiness in whatever counts for Fire Emblem heaven. Oh and, sorry about your wife taking that crit axe to the face, Pent hey please don't leave the party tooooo Kent and Fiora.  You just reminded me why I put that game down. I was trying to grind up their support (because I had to, you see?) and I was playing on Eliwood or Hector Hard, the map where you protect Nils. And she kept dying. It got to the point I just said screw it and turned it off. Trying to get everyone a paired ending is not an ideal way to play hard mode, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:31
|
|