Fire Emblem if Official Site Snippets

As reported earlier, the Japanese official site opened not long after the Nintendo Direct.

feif-mainsite

Right now, the site is just one page, but there are a lot of interesting things lurking within.

To begin with, here’s a blurb of the general story, loosely translated by me.

At the heart of this world is a conflict between the peace-loving kingdom of Hoshido and the glory-seeking kingdom of Nohr. As the strained relationship between the two nations reaches its critical point, a large-scaled conflict breaks out.

The protagonist was born in the Hoshidan royal family, but raised by the Nohrian royal family; he or she is faced with a great decision.

The keyword for this new Fire Emblem is “if”. With the conflict between Hoshido and Nohr as the backdrop, the player must make a choice of which nation to side with, resulting in two very contrasting stories with different events, battles and obtainable characters.

As some fans speculated, the last part explicitly states the characters you can recruit can vary depending on the choices that you make.

Then we have some key facts about the different versions of the game; in Japan at least, there are multiple versions. In particular, the main game itself is split into two versions: “Fire Emblem if Hoshido” and “Fire Emblem if Nohr”.

hoshido0 nohr0

Which game you pick will mostly likely decide which nation your character decides to side with, as well as the underlying story.

Note: It is not yet known how the North American or European versions will be handled.

Fire Emblem if Hoshido

A story focusing on protecting your Hoshidan birthplace and royal siblings from the Nohrian invasion. Outside the main story, you can earn experience and funds and freely develop your characters.

Fire Emblem if Nohr

In this story, you work with your Nohrian royal siblings to revolutionise the unruly Nohr from the inside. Compared to Hoshido, the difficulty is higher, with limited opportunities to earn experience and funds.

Interestingly, Nintendo wasn’t lying when they said the Nohr path would be harder. It seems as if there will be a world map or some other facility in the Hoshido path that lets you level up characters outside of the story like in Awakening, The Sacred Stones and Gaiden. But not in the Nohr path.

feif-april058

Should you go down the digital route however, there is only one digital version of Fire Emblem if. During Chapter 6, you must choose which nation to side with–at that point, you will be permanently locked into the Hoshido or Nohr campaign

But what “if” you don’t want to choose? You can purchase the other campaign as DLC for a discounted price (2000 Yen with tax versus 4700 without tax).

Amusingly enough, the site stresses that each of the two versions (Hoshido and Nohr) contains a similar amount of content as the previous game, Awakening. So you won’t be paying for half a game at all, if you buy just one of the versions.

feif-april059

Finally and rather excitedly, there will be a special edition of the game, which includes both versions (Hoshido and Nohr) on an exclusive game card, the 3rd scenario DLC, a special artbook and limited edition Fire Emblem TCG card. All for 9250 Yen (without tax).

Hang on… more DLC? Yup, you can pay 2000 Yen with tax for a major DLC expansion, which follows a story where you don’t side with Hoshido or Nohr. This particular DLC will be made available at a later date.

About the Author: VincentASM
Author Website: http://serenesforest.net
  • An Tran

    So about as much content as Awakening? Disregarding DLC, Awakening had a decent amount of main game content and side stuff. Not quite as much as I would’ve liked from an FE game, but it was still a good amount.
    So it’s not too bad of a price. Hopefully we get the bundled version, too. I don’t want to have to switch carts in order to experience the entire story.

    • Xeon2

      Awakening not including DLC was 41 Chapters of Content, that’s actually more than previous games.

      • An Tran

        If it’s only 41 chapters, that actually just about matches Radiant Dawn’s content. With Awakening though, a massive chunk of that is side story content. All of Radiant Dawn’s content is main story. I want another FE with as much story content as RD.

        • Xeon2

          This is some speculation on my part but I suspect that the Nohr path might resemble what you’re expecting while the Hoshidan path is more like the awakening route.

  • Sentinel

    Wait, is the DLC where you don’t pick a side the same as the 3rd scenario DLC?

    • Xeon2

      Yes there is that DLC scenario, which ultimately raises the cost of everything to $70 ish dollars, which costs less than everything than in awakening.

  • “the site emphasises that each of the two versions (Hoshido and Nohr) contains a similar amount of content as the previous game, Awakening. So you won’t be paying for half a game at all, if you buy just one of the versions”

    Yeah right, IF they cut the world exploration on Nohr’s route (game) doesn’t that just make the game “shorter”. You can’t do anything else other than playing the main story. So that means if you bought the physical version of FE Nohr, you ARE missing some content when you compare it with Hoshido version. If that the case Nohr’s game SHOULD cost less than Hoshido because some content was CUT from the game.

    At first I thought I’m going to choose Nohr, but if that means I’m getting a game that have less content, NO THANK YOU NINTENDO

    I hope the NA will combine both version, I don’t mind if the price is a little bit higher because it’s better than buying a version of one of the game that have less content with the other. They can make the game harder in many ways, cutting content just to make it seems harder is BS

    • M Hollingsworth

      You seem to assume that because something isn’t featured, it means it was gonna be and was “cut.” Not every Fire Emblem game has a map and world exploration. And it’s quite possible that in place of the map, there will be other content.

      Also, just because there’s no map does not mean there are no side stories. There are other ways to integrate them into the game.

    • Nai

      Correct that Hoshido probably have more content but if you wanted to play Nohr side it would cost around 20$ and vice versa for Hoshido. The whole game would be around 60$ with both sides. I mean who would only buy one side of Fire Emblem am I right?

      • Xeon2

        To be fair, assuming that they hold true to their words, that’s a little under 80 chapters of gameplay not including free DLC and I spent well over 200 hours with Awakening’s 73 chapters including DLC which totaled in value to $85.50 for everything. Actually now that I think about it, getting everything in IF costs LESS than getting everything in Awakening. What the hell Nintendo?

    • configchan

      What exactly would they be cutting? If you mean paralogues, they’ve traditionally been linearly inserted into the story if you meet the conditions at the time. If you mean whatever the Risen fight equivalents would be, frankly, that’s a poor caliber of content.

  • resuri

    If NA choose to follow Japan’s path, it’s more cost efficient buying Hoshido and then buy the DLC version of Nohr. Man, my mood just went from excitment to confusion to agitation in just a couple hours. Thanks a lot Nintendo.

  • IsaacGravity

    So for choosing those that raised me I’m rewarded with choke-point battles and possibly less to see and do? Pretty obvious who Nintendo wants me to side with. Yeah, no, Nintendo I’m choosing loyalty.

    …Hopefully NA just skips that mess and goes right to the special edition.

    • TheLastBattalion

      Same.
      It just seems that they are being biased with the Hoshido faction.
      Not to mention “Peaceful Hoshido” and “Glory seeking Noir” when Japan has always been glory seeking and stuck in civil wars for most (if not, entire) history until about 100 years ago.
      Either way, I’m going to have fun with the Noire faction as it seems for the veterans of the series.

      Honestly though, if I don’t get the special edition (or at least, both), I’ll just stick with one side of the game as Noir.

    • Chromatustigmata

      I’m probably just going to buy both of them even if we don’t get the special edition. Maybe we’ll also get some of those trading cards, am I right?
      And I’m sort of hoping if they do the DLC characters thing like they did in Awakening, it’s a little more fleshed out and not just modeled Avatars made to somewhat resemble old characters that are in normal classes.

      • Husky

        Japan was in a civil war, however this game is not the same as the real world, they are inspired by the Japanese culture, but i don’t think they really mean that they are. Japan also have been unified by Oda, which was prosperous then.

        U.S will release both game separate, they wont bother to merge it, however the special package will release on the following day’s of Fire emblem IF 2 version (JP only). U.S will take some time to convert the third package, and will vary if they will include those mischievous items. Game might release on April 2016 for U.S, 11 month after the release of JP version.

  • NekoKnight

    I want to be excited for this game but making two versions with an expensive DLC add-on just reeks of a money grabbing ploy and less content for your money. You don’t just develop 2 games worth of content and release them at the same time.

  • VonSeux

    people wanted a more traditional Fire Emblem; you got it!

    • Xeon2

      Not that it’ll matter for Lunatic…

  • Burning Gravity

    hype

    • Xeon2

      More like Hype? This Marketing Scheme is so freaking convoluted and Stupid, they should’ve just released the two games in a pack for the 6550 yen, instead of this weird two versions shite. I’m still gonna get the whole thing because its actually cheaper than Awakening’s total cost and appears to be a better designed game, but I’d rather they just went the simple route and be upfront about the cost of the game for the sake of the consumer.

      • Burning Gravity

        Nah, straight hype. I’ve already used apparently-not-so-common-but-should-be-common sense to reason out why they’re doing what they are. If they were “up front” about the cost people would be spewing bullshit about how a single 3DS game is $59.99 or $79.99. Most people would NOT pay that much for one handheld game, so people would be bitching about something else/accusing Nintendo of milking us through inflated prices even when the pricing is actually pretty damn fair given how much content there is. The “passionate” fans are generally just never happy and are kind of the worst fans because of that (they spend more time complaining and whining about everything as opposed to the people who just sit back and enjoy the game).

  • Candlehearth

    So from what I understand, Kamui=Theon Greyjoy.

    • Dragoon24

      sounds about right

  • Maso

    I really hate what they’ve chosen to do with this game. As far as I’m concerned, the special edition version is the only that should even exist period. I don’t take kindly to the idea of FE: Pokemon Edition, in which I will be squeezed and prodded for extra cash just to be able to enjoy the complete experience.

    And I really hate that the Nohr campaign has no overworld. A massive amount of Awakening’s appeal is the ability to do whatever the fuck you want, instead of basically playing stages, hitting the credits, and *poof*. Roll credits. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth when games do that; it removes replay value along with fun. I thought *Choice* was supposed to be the central theme of If, but now if I want Nohr, I’m basically robbed of choice?

    Say whatever you want about how grinding made Awakening too easy. But no matter how you feel about it, the fact still stands that nothing forced you to do so if you didn’t want to (Lunatic (+) doesn’t count). So if you didn’t want to grind, you didn’t have to, in which case you would still be getting your core FE experience. But it was the freedom and added content of that option to grind or do side stuff or shop or whatever that made Awakening last hundreds of hours for me.

    But nope. If I want to have fun, I have no choice to side with Hoshido every single time. Call me a scrub and a newbie and an Awakening fag if you want, but I stand by that opinion. I’ll probably buy it anyways, but only if I can get the special edition.

    So much for “If”.

    • Xeon2

      But what else was there to do on Awakening’s world map besides grind? I mean, the DLC was better for that idea anyway.

      • Maso

        It’s the principle of it, though.

        It’s like the difference between driving a car when you’re in Driver’s Ed. (Nohr) and when you have your own (Hoshido).

        In one case, sure, you’re behind the wheel, but you pretty much can only go where the instructor tells you to. In the other, you have complete and total freedom to go where you want, when you want with only traffic laws and your gas tank to guide you.

        I greatly prefer the idea of a world map where I can say “well, I’ve done 5 story chapters, but that Paralogue over there looks interesting. I’m gonna do that instead“. Or “hey, I’m playing Lunatic+ and could use a little training; I’m gonna go grind in the DLC for a bit”. Yeah, it may admittedly not be the most incredibly amazing piece of side content ever, but at least you can tackle it on your terms.

        To me, repeatedly emphasizing how FE:If is all about choice, but then removing a lot of that choice from me because I *chose* a different version is ridiculous and self-defeating, nevermind the bullshit of splitting the games in two to sucker me out of more money instead of just giving me the full experience in one.

        • Xeon2

          To a certain extent I agree with you, I believe that there should’ve been one version of the game+ the DLC. I didn’t care for the world map at all in Awakening, others said it actually hurt the game’s design. But from an actual value proposition perspective as most people have as “problem” with this game, I actually don’t have that complaint as I have demonstrated in the other comments. I just hate this from a marketing standpoint and I hope the NA version is different. Otherwise, I’m actually quite happy that there’s some satiation of rabid fans who prefer the (generally harder) linear FE games vs the world Map FE’s.

    • Misogynerd

      The open world map design greatly hurt Awakening’s design, as it also screwed over Sacred Stones. It disallows maps from having too many gimmicks. Awakening barely has any treasure, lacks different objectives, has plenty of “square” and lineal maps, lacks fog of war and Arenas/Stores.
      It also opens the game up for incredibly lazy design like Awkaening’s Lunatic and Lunatic +. You either have to cheese the game with Avatar/Chrom/Frederick or grind (with the DLC of course unless you want to be extremely patient and cheese the game) until your units are. In older games Hard Mode had to be actually balanced. Older games also had ranking systems to encourage value and FE7 had alternate maps and characters.
      Awakening’s good but it shouldn’t be the game the design revolves around.

      • Maso

        Awakening barely has any treasure, lacks different objectives, has plenty of “square” and lineal maps, lacks fog of war and Arenas/Stores.

        I don’t think any of those are things that couldn’t be fixed while still retaining the open map. Different objectives, for example, is literally as simple as providing a greater objective variety within the maps themselves? I mean, Awakening didn’t *need* to have “route the enemy” as the objective for 95% of its maps, nor did they need to be so simplistic in layout. The world map’s existence had nothing to do with the decision to do so.

        I think Nohr’s heightened difficulty could be accomplished so much better if its maps featured more challenging layouts with more difficult enemy placement (i.e., don’the put all the Wyvern Riders into one group gaggle where a mage with a single wind tome can easily kill them all without threat of, say, Sorceror retaliation) ,and more difficult map objectives compared to the Hoshino campaign. Limited access to experience and money, to the point where it’s practically like being feed through a stomach tube, is artificial difficulty to me. There’s no need for Nohr’s difficulty to come from such methods, when more creative means would do the job infinitely better.

        The same thing would also offer a way to balance higher difficulties. “Harder” should mean “more difficult”, not “now with 50% more bullshit per tile”. The existence of a world map has nothing to do with how well designed the missions it contains are designed; a better design will solve virtually all of Awakening’s problems, save for the grinding DLC, which I think should be maintained for those that want it. Properly designed difficulty won’t be as easily broken by gridning: after all, grinding can’t make smarter AI less smart, for example. If the enemy is difficult by nature (not just because it’s the Prologue and they’re using Steel weapons and have 5x your stats).

        Bottom line: I want If to improve on Awakening, but at the same keep its freedoms. That’s why I’m upset about Nohr’s handling.

        • Misogynerd

          That’s the point, part of the difficulty of Fire Emblem is resource management, both equipment and monetary. The reason the map design is so flat in Awakening is so you can’t get into an unwinnable situation. Plus there was stupid RNG shit like the Barracks and tiles. Maps also have to be flat to allow them to be replayable. Critical Treasure are a non-factor in awakening.

          The open world is what allowed the x5 your stats BS. A more lineal experience forces IS to not be lazy with their design. It’s like a Free to Play game, it inherently makes the devs lazier, and makes them not consider everything correctly. The biggest evidence is the unwinnable chapter 1 in Awakening plus all the random elements that game introduced.

          • Maso

            I don’t see how an open world map should have any bearing on the design of chapter maps. If the game is designed without the DLC’s existence having any factor, then you can still design a competent map whilest still allowing for outside freedom.

            I want to keep the freedom of Awakening, but make the maps themselves more challenging. As far as I care, chapter maps and the world map should two completely different aspects of the overall game; once you begin a chapter, you have walked into the lion’s den. It should challenge you, and providing a challenge should have nothing to do with also having an explorable world with side content.

            The way you design a difficult map is by having a difficult game, but doing so fairly. I dislike the idea of flat limits on experience and funds because the completionist in me hates the idea that I can’t cap my army out. I also hate it because it feels like difficulty created by neglect. Difficulty should be entirely based on your skill as a player; you should have all the tools to win available to you, but actually winning should still be up to your skill. In other words, smarter AI that responds to your moves more like an opponent and less like an algorithm. I want to punished for my mistakes, not because I’m just not allowed to have enough experience to go around, meaning that the majority of my army is reduced to nothing but bench-warmers (I like unit variety, especially being able to bring different units for different situations). I want interesting map design that’s doesn’t just look like a random section of a math graph. If I do something stupid and get people killed, backing myself into an unwinnable corner, that’s my fault because I made it unwinnable; that’s not unwinnable by design.

            I see absolutely no reason why If can’t fix the problems of Awakening while still retaining what it did well.

          • Misogynerd

            OK, sure Intelligent systems could make separate maps for story chapters and stupid grinding easy baby mode. Still the problem is that the world map in Awakening and Sacred Stones ended up affecting the overall design of the game. It takes time, resources and makes the devs less likely to balance the game correctly. This is why Awakening has a bullshit Lunatic mode and why some Sacred Stones missions spike the difficulty way too much.

            The existence of grind-able maps makes the game pretty hard for having diverse maps or creating much unique situations. No doors or many chokepoints, because the enemy army has to throw itself at you like pikmins. No need for long winding maps or maps with various routes because that increases the time you need to reach the enemy so they can go kill themselves. Defend maps also have to go because again the properly designed ones make your units fight in a small face filled with chokepoints.

            No climbable terrain, no traps. It’s not a coincidence Awakening and Sacred Stones had less gimmicks overall. Sacred Stones does have more varied elements than awakening, but it lacks them compared to its two GBA predecessors.

            As I also mentioned, Resource management has always been an important part of the FE Experience and Awakening reduces it. No need to have iron weapons late in the game. Just deck out everyone in silver/brave forged weapon that never go away with Armsthrift. No real thoughtful choices about when to promote units. No need to save gold to recruit one or two units.

            Don’t worry if the devs are doing their jobs correctly and not making stupid decisions that make them have time to not balance the game you could clear the game with the default units. If Fire Emblem 6 can be cleared with 0% growths so can the Nohr version (if it’s done properly).

            The end point is this, as can be seen in Sacred Stones and Awakening the open world design causes:
            1. Difficulty spikes (Chapter 15 in sacred stones and the unbalanced, unfair lunatic mode in Awakening)
            2. Less importance of resource management, leading to less meaningful choices. (No need to choose who get’s Delphi’s shield or the boots, or when to promote, when to use the powerful staves)
            3. More restricted map design (it has to be open so you can grind fast)
            4. Far less gimmicks/Interesting map design (No traps, no fog of war, no treasure balancing, barely any Status effect enemies, no ballistas, barely any long ranged tomes, enemy AI very rarely retreats, no stealing, no need for NPCs that meatshield you, no need for objectives other than rout and kill commander)
            5. Less importance in character roles. Although that’s solved if they remove the second seals.

            The solution could be a sacred stones style zone(s) that are separate from the chapters but that still gives less time for the chapters to be truly polished. For 10 games the series has worked perfectly and the installments with the open world map design have always been controversial.

          • Maso

            I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.

            When I say “world map”, I’m referring to the existence of a world hub that you go to in between chapters, instead of going straight to the next chapter as if you playing levels in a Mario game. I see absolutely no reason why a competently designed game should need to worry at all about a hub world map: side content is side content, DLC is not even considered to be a factor PERIOD (meaning the game is designed with the assumption that you will NOT be using it), and the barracks mechanic is removed all together (I don’t feel it added anything to the game).

            Now, on a completely different note, there is the actual chapter stages (read: “maps“) themselves. As in, the stages that are accessed when I walk over to Chapter X on the hub map and select it. At this point, I enter the stage map, and thus map has literally NOTHING dictating what it can and can’t be. You want a defense map? You can have a defense map. You want traps and choke points? Of course you can have them! Want Fog of War? So do I! And you can have it! Want a larger variety of enemy weaponry and tactics? Why the hell not? Nothing says you can’t! Interesting map design can absolutely be had, because when you’re in a stage map, you’re in a goddamn stage map, and there is absolutely nothing that says you can’t. It has nothing to do with being grindable or not; that’s what other maps are for!

            I don’t understand your idea that just because Sacred Stones and Awakening faltered in their design, that automatically means that no future FE could ever do a hub world correctly. More to the point, I want a hub world because hub worlds offer choice. If I want go off and do a Paralogue just to take a break from the main story, why should the ability to do so automatically be required to completely ruin the game, as you claim?

            I will always campaign for freedom and choice in games. I have always hated resource management-based difficulty with a burning passion, because I feel like difficulty by virtue of limitation is a poor substitute for evolving challenge. So what if I can armor units up with Silver and Brave weapons? If the enemy also has the same quality of gear, what’s the difference? I will agree that Armsthrift is overpowered, but that is easily solved by making it less accessible (make it a Second Tier skill, for crying out loud).

            I don’t understand why so many FE veterans refuse to allow any good changes to their precious franchise as if the only way a new FE can be good is if it regressed back to GBA era and never, ever improves. It’s just like the people who refuse to allow the demon known as “optional Casual mode” into their beloved franchose, even though they can still select Classic and forget Casual even exists.

            Even the Zelda fandom isn’t this resistant to change.

          • Misogynerd

            “I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
            When I say “world map”, I’m referring to the existence of a world hub that you go to in between chapters, instead of going straight to the next chapter as if you playing levels in a Mario game. I see absolutely no reason why a competently designed game should need to worry at all about a hub world map: side content is side content, DLC is not even considered to be a factor PERIOD (meaning the game is designed with the assumption that you willNOT be using it), and the barracks mechanic is removed all together (I don’t feel it added anything to the game).”

            I understand it perfectly, the problem is that OK if you can only go to the next chapter what’s the point of adding that. No more heroes had barely anything in the world map so they removed it for the sequel.

            I’m guessing you want to fight random trash mobs to gain resources, but this messes up a fundamental theme of the series. To feel like a tactician, managing an army with limited and valuable resources.

            You don’t think people design games with DLC in mind, especially Awakening which had the Gold and Experience pack a month after release in Japan and are almost required if you want to use more units than Chrom+Avatar in Lunatic and Lunatic+.

            “Now, on a completely different note, there is the actual chapter stages (read: “maps”) themselves. As in, the stages that are accessed when I walk over to Chapter X on the hub map and select it. At this point, I enter the stage map, and thus map has literally NOTHING dictating what it can and can’t be. You want a defense map? You can have a defense map. You want traps and choke points? Of course you can have them! Want Fog of War? So do I! And you canhave it! Want a larger variety of enemy weaponry and tactics? Why the hell not? Nothing says you can’t! Interesting map design can absolutely be had, because when you’re in a stage map, you’re in a goddamn stage map, and there is absolutely nothing that says you can’t. It has nothing to do with being grindable or not; that’s what other maps are for!”

            OK, so you want grindable maps to be completely separate from the chapter maps, great so either the devs have to spend less time in each chapter map while making the grindable maps or they hire more people to make those. That’s the best solution but well it impacts costs and IS isn’t running a charity unfortunately.

            “I don’t understand your idea that just because Sacred Stones and Awakening faltered in their design, that automatically means that no future FE couldever do a hub world correctly. More to the point, I want a hub world because hub worlds offer choice. If I want go off and do a Paralogue just to take a break from the main story, why should the ability to do so automatically berequired to completely ruin the game, as you claim?”

            They can do a hub world, but my problems is if they started including trash mobs to grind and ruin the resource management aspects of the game. Ok, Nohr unlocks paralogues and can do them any time, just access them from your base menu or make a linear map that’s empty and you can sidestep and do the paralogues or distinct version of a chapter. My only problem with the hub world and map is the trash mobs.

            “I will always campaign for freedom and choice in games. I have always hated resource management-based difficulty with a burning passion, because I feel like difficulty by virtue of limitation is a poor substitute for evolving challenge. So what if I can armor units up with Silver and Brave weapons? If the enemy also has the same quality of gear, what’s the difference? I willagree that Armsthrift is overpowered, but that is easily solved by making it less accessible (make it a Second Tier skill, for crying out loud).

            So again you want to remove all individuality for units (I assume you want the second seal and reclassing to be brought back), the theme of overcoming struggles, the theme of meaningful, impactful choice (who do I promote?) and give the devs a lazy way to not properly balance the game for people who don’t want to grind. Besides you could sort of grind in FE 6 & 7 with the arenas, but it was more like gambling and screwed up your ranking and took forever to do. I don’t mind that.

            “I don’t understand why so many FE veterans refuse to allow any good changes to their precious franchise as if the only way a new FE can be good is if it regressed back to GBA era and never, ever improves. It’s just like the people who refuse to allow the demon known as “optional Casual mode” into their beloved franchose, even though they can still select Classic and forget Casual even exists.”

            They are not good changes, they are changes to make the game more like an RPG. Go play Final Fantasy Tactics, which is a great game by the way, but don’t start trampling on the fundamental themes and design of Fire Emblem and start crying when a title appeals to the themes and design that made the franchise successful.

            Fire emblem 9 and 10 had the best base management system (You can buy equipment, you can use your BEXP, The supports were done the best in that game, You could have funny and insightful side conversations, you could get some fancy items). Awakening did the pair up and marriage system good and the skill system was OK. I don’t mind casual, but there should be a reward for playing on classic, just like Reflex mode in MGSV.

            So basically:
            – The trash mobs need to go, or at least not provide you with more resources.
            – DLC is fine as long as again it doesn’t provide you with resources.
            – World map is fine as long as you can’t get more resources. Make split paths. Make the paralogues (maybe not all) accessible when you want to tackle them. Have you choose from saving X or impacting Y storywise based on which of two or more chapters you choose.
            – The arena system is fine, you can spend all day on that and grind and buy whatever gear you want, but if you fail prepare to restart… now that I think about it Casual mode ruins that a little.
            – Make grindable maps (for the Hoshido version) separate from chapter maps.
            – Make choices more meaningful by making top gear and promotion items more limited. There is a feeling glee when your Silver weapon you spent all your cash on helps you clear a chapter you were having trouble on. It also makes meaningful choices to see which units you promote. Awakening diluted the effect of promoting your units.
            – Remove reclassing, ruins the characters designs and individuality of the characters IMO.
            – Make supports based on chapters, not on turns spent together like glue.
            – Put the ranking system back.
            – Reward players for choosing classic mode.

            So yeah make the game Fire Emblem again not Final Fantasy Tactics 2.

          • Maso

            I understand it perfectly, the problem is that OK if you can only go to the next chapter what’s the point of adding that. No more heroes had barely anything in the world map so they removed it for the sequel.

            The point is to allow the player the freedom to go do other things between story chapters, such as Paralogues, shopping, arena grinding, DLC (IF they so desire), instead of simply being pushed along as though they were playing a Mario game (“alright, that chapter’s over, onto the next one”). I dislike the idea that I can’t have the freedom to fuck around or maybe enjoy side content—also known as spending more time with the game and characters—at my leisure. Awakening offered plenty of things to do besides just grinding Risen, and it’s that aspect of choice that I want preserved in If.

            I’m guessing you want to fight random trash mobs to gain resources, but this messes up a fundamental theme of the series. To feel like a tactician, managing an army with limited and valuable resources.

            Enlighten me as to where exactly I stated as such. Oh wait: I didn’t. Why do you assume that just because I like Awakening means I somehow think it was absolutely perfect and demand If to be Awakening 2? In fact, it hasn’t happened in the timeline of this reply, but I’m going to agree with you on arena grinding.

            OK, so you want grindable maps to be completely separate from the chapter maps, great so either the devs have to spend less time in each chapter map while making the grindable maps or they hire more people to make those. That’s the best solution but well it impacts costs and IS isn’t running a charity unfortunately.

            Um…I’m completely lost here. I literally just stated in that paragraph that I’d like chapter maps to be created with a different design philosophy than “grinding” maps; I want chapter maps to feature enhanced variety and offer up a greater array of experiences. Bringing back some of those features I rather like the sound of, such as Fog of War, isn’t an issue of not having enough personnel; it’s about making an interesting map, and anyone can do that if they actually try (one of Awakening’s biggest flaws, in fact, was its uninspired map design and objectives; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that maybe “rout the enemy” gets boring as an objective after so many repeats). It has nothing to do with labor force, and everything to do with creativity.

            They can do a hub world, but my problems is if they started including trash mobs to grind and ruin the resource management aspects of the game. Ok, Nohr unlocks paralogues and can do them any time, just access them from your base menu or make a linear map that’s empty and you can sidestep and do the paralogues or distinct version of a chapter. My only problem with the hub world and map is the trash mobs.

            I will fully agree on this front; random Risen battles weren’t a good way of doing grinding, although we’ll always disagree on resource management. On that front, may as well agree to disagree.

            So again you want to remove all individuality for units (I assume you want the second seal and reclassing to be brought back), the theme of overcoming struggles, the theme of meaningful, impactful choice (who do I promote?) and give the devs a lazy way to not properly balance the game for people who don’t want to grind. Besides you could sort of grind in FE 6 & 7 with the arenas, but it was more like gambling and screwed up your ranking and took forever to do. I don’t mind that.

            Making a skill Second-Tier class exclusive =/= removing all individuality. I literally just stated that I want skills like Armsthrift to be less accessible, meaning that less units can get it. It’s the same reason Galeforce is so problematic; less because it’s a ridiculously powerful skill, and more because so many units have access to it that an optimized Awakening playthrough is literally all about getting as many Galeforce units as you can. The skill isn’t broken because it’s powerful; it’s broken because my entire army can consist of Galeforce units, which makes damn near any map a joke, no matter how well designed.

            As for Second Seals, I don’t think they should be removed, but I do agree that they could use some tweaking. Second Seals are nice for allowing a unit to continue leveling within their class; the majority of my Second Seal use in Awakening was simply so that units could reach capped stats. I would remove the ability to go class hopping from Sage to Dark Flyer (instead making it so that you could simply change between the 2 promotions of the unit’s base class), and instead would simply retain it’s level-resetting properties (because believe it or not, some people like to cap units out because it gives them a feeling of completeness).

            They are not good changes, they are changes to make the game more like an RPG. Go play Final Fantasy Tactics, which is a great game by the way, but don’t start trampling on the fundamental themes and design of Fire Emblem and start crying when a title appeals to the themes and design that made the franchise successful.

            Oh, OK, I see. So because my idea of a good time in FE is different than yours, I shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy FE for anything else it offers besides the most controversial aspects. A lot of Casual-mode haters use the same logic: if you don’t like permadeath, play a different franchise. And that’s a stupid thing to say no matter what franchise (within reason) we’re talking about. How hard would it be to include extra modes distinct from actual difficulty that allowed you to turn certain things on or off? Such as a “True Classic Mode” in which resource grinding is impossible and Second Seals don’t exist? This way, the people that like it a little different can also have a slice of the cake, instead of there only being 1 slice.

            The arena system is fine, you can spend all day on that and grind and buy whatever gear you want, but if you fail prepare to restart… now that I think about it Casual mode ruins that a little.

            So what? I very much like the idea of arena-based grinding, but playing on Casual or Classic is entirely up to the player. For example, I always play Causal not because I’m a shit tactician or don’t want a challenge, but more so because permadeath has never been my cup of tea for as long as it has existed (there are various reasons for that, but they don’t really matter here). If you don’t want arena to fucked up by Casual, play Classic and it won’t be an issue.

            Remove reclassing, ruins the characters designs and individuality of the characters IMO

            I disagree on removing it altogether, but agree on fixing it. The reason for reclassing in the first place was because many classes in Awakening had poor skills available. Get rid of every single last [Stat]+X skill and replace them with actually interesting ones. I honestly never once used a Rally ever either; either improve those, or do the same as with Stat+ skills. Additionally, rebalance Second-Tier classes so there aren’t just 6 classes that are all clearly better than the rest (that everyone has access to), leaving little reason to leave units within their original class family (those 6 being Hero, Falcon Knight, Sorcerer [because Nosferatu is broken as fuck], Manakete, Bride [DLC], and Dread Fighter [DLC]).

            As for the characters themselves, how about we make the characters more interesting in the first place. I kinda liked Awakening’s cast, but very few of them did more than amuse me; I only really ended up loving a small select few, whereas the rest were there for entertainment value. Improve characterisation, and their individuality will improve along with it. Rebalance the promoted classes as mentioned before, and it will be more or less ideal; the problem was always that most base promotions just weren’t as good, not that I actually wanted half my army to be Heros.

            In conclusion, I want to keep freedom, choice, and player options. I’m not saying make If Awakening 2; I’m saying Awakening had things it does right, and I’d like to keep them. My big issue with Nohr is simply the fact that it and Hoshido are built on 2 completely different philosophies. Perhaps you like a core FE experience; nothing wrong with that, but there are better ways to keep it than just forcing it down everyone’s throat and thus restricting its appeal (regardless of what you think, there’s no question Awakening was the most successful FE to date, and that’s entirely because it opened itself up and made the series more accessible to new players). I hate the way Nohr is being handled for this reason:

            Let’s imagine that perhaps I’m someone who hasn’t been with FE since it’s infancy. Let’s imagine that I’m a guy whose first FE was Awakening. Now, let’s imagine that as a result Hoshido’s setup appeals to me because of the extra content it offers (I’m hoping its easier difficulty can be offset by actual difficulty modes). So I play the Hoshido campaign for a while and what not, but out of curiousity I decide to also check out the Nohr campaign just for a change of pace. Upon starting the Nohr campaign, I quickly discover that it is dumbed down and restrictive compared to Hoshido, meaning that if I happen to enjoy the freedom of the Hoshido campaign, but perhaps prefer the Nohr characters and units more, then I’m just shit out of luck. Don’t you see the problem there? I’m literally punished for wanting to experience the other side by getting less content (and there’s no 2 ways about it; Nohr has significantly less content than Hoshido as it stands)!

            They can talk all they want about how “oh, well to make up for the lost content, Nohr has a more intriguing story”, but that stops being a factor after your first playthrough. Once you know all the twists and turns, “intriguing” is no longer a substitute for missing content when the other campaign very easily offers that missing content. If I want to enjoy Nohr for anything other than its story, I get punished for it. How is that a good design choice, no matter what you think FE should be like?

          • Misogynerd

            “The point is to allow the player the freedom to go do other things between story chapters, such as Paralogues, shopping, arena grinding, DLC (IF they so desire), instead of simply being pushed along as though they were playing a Mario game (“alright, that chapter’s over, onto the next one”). I dislike the idea that I can’t have the freedom to fuck around or maybe enjoy side content—also known as spending more time with the game and characters—at my leisure. Awakening offered plenty of things to do besides just grinding Risen, and it’s that aspect of choice that I want preserved in If.”

            OK, great, do that and only remove the trash mobs, that’s my only problem, because like I’ve said a 100 times they screw up the resource management. Shit make things like Trial maps, Challenges with predetermined armies, DLC maps and other diversions but make them not consume or augement your resources in the main campaign. Even better make split routes within the split campaign or different versions of the same chapter a la FE7. Make a post game where you can grind a la Sacred Stones. There can be a map in the Nohr version, but again I only don’t want that map to allow me to cap my characters in mission 7 where I can one-shot all enemies with a bronze sword. Sure you want to have that option, but that’s what the Hoshido version’s exists to do.

            “Enlighten me as to where exactly I stated as such. Oh wait: I didn’t. Why do you assume that just because I like Awakening means I somehow think it was absolutely perfect and demand If to be Awakening 2? In fact, it hasn’t happened in the timeline of this reply, but I’m going to agree with you on arena grinding.”

            Then why are you so insistent on maintaining the framework of Awakening? Also looking further in your comment you also assume things of me, don’t be a hypocrite. (Here’s when you’re assuming things of me: “Oh, OK, I see. So because my idea of a good time in FE is different than yours, I shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy FE for anything else it offers besides the most controversial aspects.”)

            “Um…I’m completely lost here. I literally just stated in that paragraph that I’d like chapter maps to be created with a different design philosophy than “grinding” maps; I want chapter maps to feature enhanced variety and offer up a greater array of experiences. Bringing back some of those features I rather like the sound of, such as Fog of War, isn’t an issue of not having enough personnel; it’s about making an interesting map, and anyone can do that if they actually try (one of Awakening’s biggest flaws, in fact, was its uninspired map design and objectives; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that maybe “rout the enemy” gets boring as an objective after so many repeats). It has nothing to do with labor force, and everything to do with creativity.”

            As I’ve also said, OK this is an assumption, but the fact that the maps makes me think that IS was making the game easier for people to grind and the maps and gameplay style were changed so that half the enemy army could surround you and die. There’s no explicit proof of it. I’m assuming the intentions of the map designers and well is there evidence to contradict my claims?

            “I will fully agree on this front; random Risen battles weren’t a good way of doing grinding, although we’ll always disagree on resource management. On that front, may as well agree to disagree.”

            Ok, great we agree that we’ll always have a different POV on this issue, but this is a franchise were weapons break all the time and your units have a limited amount of equipment they can have. There has to be a resource management element or the series will lose a part of the identity it forged. Same with permadeath and weapon triangle, that is always pushed in promotional materials.

            “Making a skill Second-Tier class exclusive =/= removing all individuality. I literally just stated that I want skills like Armsthrift to be less accessible, meaning that less units can get it. It’s the same reason Galeforce is so problematic; less because it’s a ridiculously powerful skill, and more becauseso many units have access to it that an optimized Awakening playthrough is literally all about getting as many Galeforce units as you can. The skill isn’t broken because it’s powerful; it’s broken because my entire army can consist of Galeforce units, which makes damn near any map a joke, no matter how well designed.

            As for Second Seals, I don’t think they should be removed, but I do agree that they could use some tweaking. Second Seals are nice for allowing a unit to continue leveling within their class; the majority of my Second Seal use in Awakening was simply so that units could reach capped stats. I would remove the ability to go class hopping from Sage to Dark Flyer (instead making it so that you could simply change between the 2 promotions of the unit’s base class), and instead would simply retain it’s level-resetting properties (because believe it or not, some people like to cap units out because it gives them a feeling of completeness).”

            I meant in general that the design and personality Frederick has clashes with him being able to become a priest. Same with Chrom losing the ability to use swords when well he has 3 exclusive swords for him. Plus again, besides personality, you remember and like characters for what they can and can’t do and if they fit an archetype like Est. Canas is pretty much popular because he’s the only Dark Mage in his game. Awakening removes that with the reclassing. Cherche talking about Minerva all the time even if you reclassed her is just silly.

            Second Seals could be left for the post-game. Sure I’ve gotten units maxed out, but there should also exist options that make the game enjoyable for people who want to clear the game the most optimal way possible (Spending funds, Turn counts, Exp gotten, no deaths).

            “Oh, OK, I see. So because my idea of a good time in FE is different than yours, I shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy FE for anything else it offers besides the most controversial aspects. A lot of Casual-mode haters use the same logic: if you don’t like permadeath, play a different franchise. And that’s a stupid thing to say no matter what franchise (within reason) we’re talking about. How hard would it be to include extra modes distinct from actual difficulty that allowed you to turn certain things on or off? Such as a “True Classic Mode” in which resource grinding is impossible and Second Seals don’t exist? This way, the people that like it a little different can also have a slice of the cake, instead of there only being 1 slice.”

            Ok, so why didn’t they put that in Awakening, I would be all over that mode? Apparently, you can’t have a game or mode like that like the Nohr campaign, because IS gets people making baseless complaints about “losing content” or “not being able to grind all day.” They are already giving options to different types of players, hell they are making games for different types of players, but now the more casual fans want to screw over the classic fans. I want the Nohr version to play like FE7 did and expand on all the good things that game did, but oh no, the casual fans who began with Awakening are gonna bitch and moan about it. I’m sure they’ll also blow a fuse if there’s no marriage and children like last game.

            It’s like Persona fans moaning about SMT IV because there’s no social links and party members. I’ll enjoy both versions thank you, but at least let me enjoy the fact and have fun with the version tailor made for me.

            “So what? I very much like the idea of arena-based grinding, but playing on Casual or Classic is entirely up to the player. For example, I always play Causal not because I’m a shit tactician or don’t want a challenge, but more so because permadeath has never been my cup of tea for as long as it has existed (there are various reasons for that, but they don’t really matter here). If you don’t want arena to fucked up by Casual, play Classic and it won’t be an issue.”

            It’s a long and interesting video but Epic Name Bro nailed it why sometimes options screw games up.

            The root is that easier or more lenient options can screw up the themes and message of a game. There should be space for food and music that’s an acquired taste and the same should be true of games. Don’t ask creators to water down their content, and if they do water down their content, heck make Casual players not get a star on their save file or have a lesser ending. MGS 5 handled the Reflex mode perfectly, you get a bonus on your score if you don’t use it.

            Why can’t I have a version of a game I want? Seriously Awakening fans sound like Persona fans wanting all games in the franchise to appeal to them and them only.

            I just want a game that handles itself like 10 of the 13 previous Fire Emblems. A playthrough that doesn’t allow me to max out my characters before the post game. I wouldn’t mind grinding post game and test myself against a similar mode like the Monster Ruins.

          • Maso

            OK, great, do that and only remove the trash mobs, that’s my only problem, because like I’ve said a 100 times they screw up the resource management. Shit make things like Trial maps, Challenges with predetermined armies, DLC maps and other diversions but make them not consume or augement your resources in the main campaign. Even better make split routes within the split campaign or different versions of the same chapter a la FE7. Make a post game where you can grind a la Sacred Stones. There can be a map in the Nohr version, but again I only don’t want that map to allow me to cap my characters in mission 7 where I can one-shot all enemies with a bronze sword. Sure you want to have that option, but that’s what the Hoshido version’s exists to do.

            Why does “capped characters on Chapter 7 one-shotting everything with Bronze Swords” have to be the only possible outcome of having a map with designated arena grinding? Why couldn’t it just be there for the units I keep having to bench for particular missions because bringing them would be suicide (i.e.; leaving Pegasus Knights out of a map with 20+ Archers)? Or to bring lower level units up to speed who would otherwise be impossible to level in chapter maps (units like Donnel in Awakening, for example)? This is what I don’t get; you seem to believe that the mere existence of the ability to grind even a little automatically means the game is unfixably ruined, when in reality you as a player have the ability to consciously decide:

            > 1) Whether or not you even want to do so in the first place. (Which is YOUR CHOICE)

            > 2) When you’ve done it enough and are ready to stop.

            > 3) How much is too much so that you don’t over do it.

            This is not a hard concept. A player looking for a challenge in Xenoblade Chronicles can’t do every single side quest in the game, or else they’ll end up constantly overleveled. Does that mean side quests should be removed? No: it means you just have to find a balance that works. (And please don’t ignore this entire paragraph because I equated Xenoblade to FE when they’re obviously not the exact same).

            Then why are you so insistent on maintaining the framework of Awakening? Also looking further in your comment you also assume things of me, don’t be a hypocrite.

            Framework is not the same thing as making If completely identical on all gameplay fronts. Hell, I want a lot of things changed from Awakening. The presence of a world map in Nohr is not one of them. Another one is the ability to support with everyone, because it added a ton of extra content. Improve the quality of those supports, yes, but don’t reduce them in number.

            Ok, great we agree that we’ll always have a different POV on this issue, but this is a franchise were weapons break all the time and your units have a limited amount of equipment they can have. There has to be a resource management element or the series will lose a part of the identity it forged. Same with permadeath and weapon triangle, that is always pushed in promotional materials.

            At no point did I ever suggest that weapons shouldn’t break or that the weapon triangle should disappear. I love the weapon triangle and the fact that individual weapons break (with the exception of plot relevant signature weapons; I’m hoping Yatogami [Kamui’s sword], Marx’s sword, and Ryoma’s sword are infinite just because it would be awkward for them to break and yet continue to be featured in cutscenes). Hell, I want the Anima triangle back as well! I think Casual Mode should stay though, because it was one of the biggest things that allowed Awakening to sell the best of the entire franchise, and we both want FE to continue selling and thus have more games made. Casual Mode is entirely optional, and thus I can’t really agree with any argument that attempts to factor them as “ruining the game” when anyone who doesn’t want it can select Classic, and forget that Casual ever existed (we’ll come back to this later).

            I meant in general that the design and personality Frederick has clashes with him being able to become a priest. Same with Chrom losing the ability to use swords when well he has 3 exclusive swords for him. Plus again, besides personality, you remember and like characters for what they can and can’t do and if they fit an archetype like Est. Canas is pretty much popular because he’s the only Dark Mage in his game. Awakening removes that with the reclassing. Cherche talking about Minerva all the time even if you reclassed her is just silly.

            Didn’t you read what I said? I said that Second Seals should only allow reclassing between the inherent paths of the unit’s base class. So say I have an Archer who can promote to either Sniper or Bow Knight. I promote them to Sniper, and then later on use a Second Seal. That Second Seal should only enable that unit to either revert to a “Lv. 1” Sniper or change to Bow Knight, and that’s it. So in Fredrick’s case, he would only be able to either stay a Great Knight or change to Paladin; not cross over to Armor Knight or hell even Thief (as Kellam can). This would largely solve all those issues you mentioned with characters, and would also prevent Awakening’s biggest problem: the ability for damn near anyone to get damn near any skill (because skills are class specific, and thus if a unit can’t change to that class, they’ll never be able to get that skill. This prevents me from having an army of Heroes with Armsthrift and Galeforce).

            Ok, so why didn’t they put that in Awakening, I would be all over that mode? Apparently, you can’t have a game or mode like that like the Nohr campaign, because IS gets people making baseless complaints about “losing content” or “not being able to grind all day.” They are already giving options to different types of players, hell they are making games for different types of players, but now the more casual fans want to screw over the classic fans. I want the Nohr version to play like FE7 did and expand on all the good things that game did, but oh no, the casual fans who began with Awakening are gonna bitch and moan about it. I’m sure they’ll also blow a fuse if there’s no marriage and children like last game.

            My entire issue with Nohr is because Hoshido has so much more to offer than Nohr, and the choice seems frustratingly deliberate for non-gameplay reasons. What if I like Nohr’s units better, but also like what Hoshido has to offer in terms of side content? Does that mean I should just fuck off and never be able to enjoy Nohr to the same degree as Hoshido (note that I’m speaking hypothetically here as someone other than myself)? Doesn’t that seem unfair that the Hoshido campaign is full of freedom and choice, and yet the Nohr campaign is restricted and confined on a multitude of levels? As in, not in a good way? I’m perfectly OK with Nohr being more difficult, but it bothers me that the only way this can apparently be achieved is by removing the world map, thus likely removing side content as well, and thus placing all focus on a narrative that you will know all the twists to after your first playthrough and thus not be able to enjoy as much on future playthroughs. That’s what started this entire comment thread in the first place; I don’t like that Nohr is being gimped compared to Hoshido. It is missing content; they outright stated that Nohr’s “more intriguing story will make up for [bold is word for word what was said]” what ends up being lost compared to Hoshido (in other words, Nohr will have less replay value). And then they’re gonna charge the same amount of money for the standalone Nohr campaign as for the Hoshido campaign that offers all number of side content.

            You can say whatever you want about Hoshido being easier. You can say whatever you want about it allowing grinding. But the fact still stands that it has more than Nohr for the same price. And that pisses me the hell off that IS would do that and screw over anyone who wants the content value of Hoshido in Nohr’s campaign. Talk about “Screwing over classic players”, but it’s not about being casual or classic; it’s about demanding equal content for an equal sales price. This is why the special edition is the only one that has any business existing, and the other 3 business models are utter shit. I will gladly pay extra for FE if it means I actually get my money’s worth.

            The root is that easier or more lenient options can screw up the themes and message of a game. There should be space for food and music that’s an acquired taste and the same should be true of games. Don’t ask creators to water down their content, and if they do water down their content, heck make Casual players not get a star on their save file or have a lesser ending. MGS 5 handled the Reflex mode perfectly, you get a bonus on your score if you don’t use it.

            There’s a reason options exist in video games, and that reason is most definitely not to “water them down”. In fact, quite the opposite; options expand the game for more players. I’m absolutely fine with rewarding those who go the extra mile in their playthroughs. I play Metal Gear Rising on Revengeance mode specifically because it rewards me for playing on max difficulty by increasing the Parry Counter’s damage by 10x, even if I still get my ass kicked. MGR also offers easier difficulty modes for other people as well, however, which allows them to enjoy the game just like I can. I don’t look down on anyone who plays it on Easy, because I recognize that perhaps some people want to play a Platinum Games game for fun, and not to have their ass handed to them on a silver platter. Just as you might recognize that people should be given the OPTION to enjoy FE without precise resource management and limited funds. Platinum Games games have always been about challenge, but they don’t force you to do so in order to have fun with their games. There is content in MGR that is locked behind higher difficulty modes, as well as greater BP (currency) being awarded from battle and Revengeance mode’s buffed Parry Counter (which you need).

            It’s a long and interesting video but Epic Name Bro nailed it why sometimes options screw games up.
            (out of order, but is better addressed here)

            On the subject of MGR, do you know how it handles different difficulty settings? By changing the game. On higher difficulties, enemies are not only more aggressive, but also appear in greater number. Revengeance mode even fundamentally changes the AI, which is normally set to only attack one at a time, so that everyone can attack you at once. In addition, enemies appear on higher difficulties (namely Very Hard and Revengeance) that wouldn’t be there otherwise. For example, the first real stage of the game normally has your first fight consist of 3 basic cyborgs. But play on Very Hard or Revengeance, and that fight will also throw in a free Mastiff; a tough enemy that’s hard as hell to fight on high difficulty, and which you normally wouldn’t encounter until the next scenario afterwards; a whole fifth of the game later.

            That is how you handle difficulty modes. IS could take some serious notes from Platinum Games in terms of how to design alternative gameplay modes. It would not be hard to create the modes I mentioned before, such as “True Classic” mode which would simply need to alter coding so that grinding maps are closed off (thus preventing EXP, funds, and resource grinding all in one fell swoop). Nor would it be difficult to do what Bravely Default did, and allow a more deeply customizeable experience (the ability to outright turn off things such as money, EXP, or Job Points when you don’t want them, allowing you to grind for what you specifically want without overdoing everything else). Classic and Casual modes already exist for the player to turn permadeath on or off; I personally believe that while permadeath is the “true” FE experience, it can still be enjoyed without it. Options are not bad things; they are good. The better a game can tailor itself to multiple different play styles, the better. And FE doesn’t have to sacrifice anything to do that.

            Will IS do that? Will IS add extensive options to FE that would do nothing but improve the game and allow more people to enjoy it in a greater variety of ways? I wish they would, but I have a sinking feeling they won’t.

            Why can’t I have a version of a game I want? Seriously Awakening fans sound like Persona fans wanting all games in the franchise to appeal to them and them only.

            Ah, OK. Wanting variety and expansive options so that FE can appeal to more people = (apparently) “I want FE to be Awakening always, and fuck everyone else, because I’m the only person who matters.” I was not aware that wanting IS to keep options open apparently makes me a self-entitled casual. But sure, I guess I am if you say I am.

            Don’t give me that bullshit. I literally just gave off a list of ways that a “compromise” (except not even, because everyone wins this way) can be achieved. If anything, it’s the hardcore FE fans that piss me off because they like to dictate that their way to play is the only acceptable way to play, and anyone who doesn’t is just casual scum with no right to possess an opinion (not necessarily pointing at you, but I’ve met plenty in my time who act as such). “It’s my way or the highway” is the biggest cancer on gaming since linear level design, and the sooner it dies, the sooner the industry can achieve a new renaissance.

          • Misogynerd

            “Why does “capped characters on Chapter 7 one-shotting everything with Bronze Swords” have to be the only possible outcome of having a map with designated arena grinding? Why couldn’t it just be there for the units I keep having to bench for particular missions because bringing them would be suicide (i.e.; leaving Pegasus Knights out of a map with 20+ Archers)? Or to bring lower level units up to speed who would otherwise be impossible to level in chapter maps (units like Donnel in Awakening, for example)? This is what I don’t get; you seem to believe that the mereexistence of the ability to grind even a little automatically means the game is unfixably ruined, when in reality you as a player have the ability to consciously decide:

            > 1) Whether or not you even want to do so in the first place. (Which is YOUR CHOICE)

            > 2) When you’ve done it enough and are ready to stop.

            > 3) How much is too much so that you don’t over do it.

            This is not a hard concept. A player looking for a challenge in Xenoblade Chronicles can’t do every single side quest in the game, or else they’ll end up constantly overleveled. Does that mean side quests should be removed? No: it means you just have to find a balance that works. (And please don’t ignore this entire paragraph because I equated Xenoblade to FE when they’re obviously not the exact same).”

            Sure it is a choice, can’t they give me a choice to not have that option present? Awakening didn’t, so I’ll have for now to assume they won’t give me that option if they include a world map in the Nohr version.

            ENB said that the problem with it is that devs either assume that you grinded and balanced accordingly to keep the challenge or they assume you didn’t grind and when you take your grinded units they curbstomp. Like you said, give me a True Classic mode or allow me to turn weapon degradation and EXP for trash mobs. Even better, reward me for doing that for playing the proper way and don’t reward or punish players who do that.

            Path of Radiance also presented a good choice for benched units. The BEXP system… which also gave you bonuses for being efficient or fulfilling secondary objectives. They can bring that back.

            Hilariously I did do every quest in Xenoblade Chronicles, but it’s a false equivalency. Sidequests in Xenoblade Chronicles tend to be harder than the main game, Gaiden chapters in Fire Emblem are rewards for playing well. FE 6 and 7 did this really well. They are taken into account into the rankings of those games.

            “Framework is not the same thing as making If completely identical on all gameplay fronts. Hell, I want a lot of things changed from Awakening. The presence of a world map in Nohr is not one of them. Another one is the ability to support with everyone, because it added a ton of extra content. Improve the quality of those supports, yes, but don’t reduce them in number.”

            I’d make them like FE 6-9 managed. It seems a little silly that Lon’qu who dislikes women can support with more women than man and can’t support Basilio and Flavia… Hell those two can’t support themselves. As I’ve said they can keep the map, the problem always comes around to… does the world map give me an easy way out of the game’s challenge? Not having that pressure for me lessens the experience and sense of achievement, especially if I had to resort to grinding.

            “Didn’t you read what I said? I said that Second Seals should only allow reclassing between the inherent paths of the unit’s base class. So say I have an Archer who can promote to either Sniper or Bow Knight. I promote them to Sniper, and then later on use a Second Seal. That Second Seal should only enable that unit to either revert to a “Lv. 1″ Sniper or change to Bow Knight, and that’s it. So in Fredrick’s case, he would only be able to either stay a Great Knight or change to Paladin; not cross over to Armor Knight or hell even Thief (as Kellam can). This would largely solve all those issues you mentioned with characters, and would also prevent Awakening’s biggest problem: the ability for damn near anyone to get damn near any skill (because skills are class specific, and thus if a unit can’t change to that class, they’ll never be able to get that skill. This prevents me from having an army of Heroes with Armsthrift and Galeforce).”

            This is a nice solution. Nothing to complain here and sorry if I understood you wrong.

            “My entire issue with Nohr is because Hoshido has so much more to offer than Nohr, and the choice seems frustratingly deliberate for non-gameplay reasons. What if I like Nohr’s units better, but also like what Hoshido has to offer in terms of side content? Does that mean I should just fuck off and never be able to enjoy Nohr to the same degree as Hoshido (note that I’m speaking hypothetically here as someone other than myself)? Doesn’t that seem unfair that the Hoshido campaign is full of freedom and choice, and yet the Nohr campaign is restricted and confined on a multitude of levels? As in, not in a good way? I’m perfectly OK with Nohr being more difficult, but it bothers me that the only way this can apparently be achieved is by removing the world map, thus likely removing side content as well, and thus placing all focus on a narrative that you will know all the twists to after your first playthrough and thus not be able to enjoy as much on future playthroughs. That’s what started this entire comment thread in the first place; I don’t like that Nohr is being gimped compared to Hoshido. It ismissing content; they outright stated that Nohr’s “more intriguing story willmake up for [bold is word for word what was said]” what ends up being lost compared to Hoshido (in other words, Nohr will have less replay value). And then they’re gonna charge the same amount of money for the standalone Nohr campaign as for the Hoshido campaign that offers all number of side content.”

            Why not try the Nohr version if you like the units battle? do you know if the third path will allow you to choice which units do you want? Freedom and choice aren’t always good in video games. Some of the best games are cinematic and linear and offer little choice. You can get the version that suits your needs.

            How do you know Nohr is “gimped”? Do you know how they’re handling the side content in Nohr? What if there’s more replay value if they add alternate versons maps, different endings, Challenges, side chapters and other routes into it?

            You don’t think that putting restrictions into a player’s game is a conscious decision by the makers of the game? You don’t think a better experience can be achieved if they balance the game to always put pressure on you?

            All of this seems to stem from your hatred of limitations in games. Without limitations genres like survival horror lose their impact, luster and sense of achievement.

            “You can say whatever you want about Hoshido being easier. You can say whatever you want about it allowing grinding. But the fact still stands that it has more than Nohr for the same price. And that pisses me the hell off that IS would do that and screw over anyone who wants the content value of Hoshido in Nohr’s campaign. Talk about “Screwing over classic players”, but it’s not about being casual or classic; it’s about demanding equal content for an equal sales price. This is why the special edition is the only one that has any business existing, and the other 3 business models are utter shit. I will gladly pay extra for FE if it means I actually get my money’s worth.”

            This is hypotethical what if Nohr has 10 more chapters than Hoshido? Are you getting your money’s worth? What if the structure of Nohr allows for more replay value?

            “There’s a reason options exist in video games, and that reason is most definitely not to “water them down”. In fact, quite the opposite; optionsexpand the game for more players. I’m absolutely fine with rewarding those who go the extra mile in their playthroughs. I play Metal Gear Rising on Revengeance mode specifically because it rewards me for playing on max difficulty by increasing the Parry Counter’s damage by 10x, even if I still get my ass kicked. MGR also offers easier difficulty modes for otherpeople as well, however, which allows them to enjoy the game just like I can. I don’t look down on anyone who plays it on Easy, because I recognize that perhaps some people want to play a Platinum Games game for fun, and not to have their ass handed to them on a silver platter. Just as you might recognize that people should be given the OPTION to enjoy FE without precise resource management and limited funds. Platinum Games games have always been about challenge, but they don’t force you to do so in order to have fun with their games. There is content in MGR that is locked behind higher difficulty modes, as well as greater BP (currency) being awarded from battle and Revengeance mode’s buffed Parry Counter (which you need).”

            Not all games are made for everyone, I hate it when devs dumb down a franchise to appeal to more people. Awakening’s concessions to classic players watered down the game. Lunatic mode you have only two options: Either only use Fem!Robin and Chrom if you don’t want to grind or grind to get gameplay similar to the other games.

            To paraphrase the video:

            “The thing is that this statement that you need always control over the game is arrogant and close-minded and conceited, because it assumes that you know everything about fun and the devs can’t teach you anything new. Tastes can change. I don’t think you know everything fun. I want the devs to tell me what is fun. That’s why you vary your tastes in games and music for example. They don’t all need to be the same and have the same options. Give yourself a chance to experience something new.”

            “On the subject of MGR, do you know how it handles different difficulty settings? By changing the game. On higher difficulties, enemies are not only more aggressive, but also appear in greater number. Revengeance mode even fundamentally changes the AI, which is normally set to only attack one at a time, so that everyone can attack you at once. In addition, enemies appear on higher difficulties (namely Very Hard and Revengeance) that wouldn’t be there otherwise. For example, the first real stage of the game normally has your first fight consist of 3 basic cyborgs. But play on Very Hard or Revengeance, and that fight will also throw in a free Mastiff; a tough enemy that’s hard as hell to fight on high difficulty, and which you normally wouldn’t encounter until the next scenario afterwards; a whole fifth of the game later.

            That is how you handle difficulty modes. IS could take some serious notes from Platinum Games in terms of how to design alternative gameplay modes. It would not be hard to create the modes I mentioned before, such as “True Classic” mode which would simply need to alter coding so that grinding maps are closed off (thus preventing EXP, funds, and resource grinding all in one fell swoop). Nor would it be difficult to do what Bravely Default did, and allow a more deeply customizeable experience (the ability to outright turn off things such as money, EXP, or Job Points when you don’t want them, allowing you to grind for what you specifically want without overdoing everything else). Classic and Casual modes already exist for the player to turn permadeath on or off; I personally believe that while permadeath is the “true” FE experience, it can still be enjoyed without it. Options are not bad things; they are good. The better a game can tailor itself to multiple different play styles, the better. And FE doesn’t have to sacrifice anything to do that.

            Will IS do that? Will IS add extensive options to FE that would do nothing but improve the game and allow more people to enjoy it in a greater variety of ways? I wish they would, but I have a sinking feeling they won’t.”

            Sure but the last few FE games have abandoned that type of customization, again go back to the solutions they had for Lunatic: Either grind or cheese the game. This is what has Veteran players (not myself necessarily) angry, they’ve been pushing the casual angle too much and form half-baked concessions to the Veterans.

            “Ah, OK. Wanting variety and expansive options so that FE can appeal tomore people = (apparently) “I want FE to be Awakening always, and fuck everyone else, because I’m the only person who matters.” I was not aware that wanting IS to keep options open apparently makes me a self-entitled casual. But sure, I guess I am if you say I am.

            Don’t give me that bullshit. I literally just gave off a list of ways that a “compromise” (except not even, because everyone wins this way) can be achieved. If anything, it’s the hardcore FE fans that piss me off because they like to dictate that their way to play is the only acceptable way to play, and anyone who doesn’t is just casual scum with no right to possess an opinion (not necessarily pointing at you, but I’ve met plenty in my time who act as such). “It’s my way or the highway” is the biggest cancer on gaming since linear level design, and the sooner it dies, the sooner the industry can achieve a new renaissance.”

            Oh please don’t play the victim and straw man my argument. Putting more options isn’t always the best solution for the game or the player. Restrictions, linearity can be the point of a game, they can force the player to be more careful or creative in their approaches.

            I am only asking for a “True Classic” mode. I’ve also given some suggestions (re-adding BEXP, Rankings, Punishing or not rewarding players who choose casual or grind). Rankings can push more casual players to try the harder and more traditional modes.

            You assume Nohr will be lesser for some hypothetical reason. the game’s not out, again what if it has way more missions or side missions or Trial Maps or has the Ranking system?

            The hardcore FE fans are more likely pissed because they have a valid reasoning to why Options & Freedom > Good, Well balanced and considered game balance.

            “It’s my way or the high way” also seems incredibly dogmatic and restrictive. Not all games have to appeal to all human beings, like linear level design, it’s a tool for the developers to make the art they want.

            You would be clamoring for games that treat the games like babies, for example adding a Easy mode to Dark souls, when the whole point of the game is to “Prepare to die” and any sense of accomplishment is gone if you know you have an easy way out. Even worse, would you be in favor of games that remove all the gameplay like what Bioware was attempting? You don’t think the gameplay would suffer if they implemented that.

            Also, Human beings are elitist, some people like to feel better because they can do something others can’t. Rankings and True Classic Mode would be a great way to satiate the elitist Fire Emblem fans.

            To quote ENB once again:

            “The addition of an easy mode would detract from the experience of a game like Dark Souls. The possibility of failure is exactly what makes victory rewarding. Adding easy outs for the player to reduce the risk of failure lessens the experience for everyone- not just the people who use it.
            Some people believe that they should have absolute control over the media they consume. Some people don’t. I DO care about what I can learn from a game. There are in fact plenty of games that allow you to enjoy them on your own terms, but this one doesn’t. And that is not a flaw of the game- it’s a feature. You have to adapt to the game, or you don’t get rewarded. You either get it, or you don’t.

            This is not an interactive movie with a foregone conclusion. It’s a FUNDAMENTALLY different experience. If you want a title that caters to your whims, you are looking in the wrong place. One major reason why people love this game is BECAUSE it doesn’t hand you anything in a menu. You wanna see the end boss? Either get good or summon someone who is.”

  • Grey Koepp

    I hope America decides to just put the game in one version. The third campaign as DLC I can deal with, though i’d prefer it to be included from the get-go as well. Even though I love the box art for the two versions, I don’t want two versions. I can deal with it in Pokemon since story never been important and there’s never been a big difference between a game and it’s counterpart in the series, but this game is very story focused and two versions will pull apart and detract from the experience.
    Still, love the boxart, so can we have a reversible cover for this game Nintendo? (Assuming NA gets it all in one version)