i'm back! Apologies for the long gap between videos. But here's a rather short one that I hope you'll find interesting. Please don't forget to leave a like and comment below your thoughts on the video or just about casual mode in general. If you haven't subscribed yet, please consider doing so and if you can afford it, become a member too!
Kinda unrelated, but whole appeal of Pokemon Nuzlockes feel like they're meant to replicate that "tension" Iwata and IS talk about over the idea of losing your units in old-school FEs, which is interesting to think about. Also I find fascinating how even IS thinks FE's appeal is overall a mix of story, gameplay and characters. It really puts into retrospective how much of an experiment both 3H and Engage were.
Woth pointing out on a technical level with Nuzlocke’s you’re not losing much when losing a pokemon Pokemon in the games aern’t really that important. You’re not expected to use every pokemon you get nuzlocke or otherwise, you can always get, there’s no story or personality except for the one you make in your head. There’s an infinite supply of pokemon (barring Nuzlocke rules). Each pokemon you get is albeit varryingly ranzomized and you’re only meant to care about a handful of pokemon. So all you lose when a Pokemon dies in a nuzlocke the only thing you’re losing is the emotional bond you make with the pokemon that came in thats only formed due to your choice of doing nuzlocke. Fire emblem units on the other hand comes with a story, comes with a personality, supports and somewhat of little goals that you do. There is more of a FEELING of incentive to keep them alive whether your playing on classic or not. So when they die, it really hurts more not just the emotional connection, but its a stain on your record. Its taking a way a lot more stuff you may be interested in getting like supports and specific events that are needed for your character. Just sucks even more and incentives you to avoid killing even if you don’t have an emotional relationship with your Unit. But, that said a lot of things in a nuzlocke can apply to classic mode and why people may or may not want to do either. But I hope I pointed out why people are less into the idea of losing in one of them.
@@venomw6823 But still, that only makes those emergent narratives and personal stories better. I kind of dont like the modern trend that both the developers and fandom have that further and further distances the series from its roots. Fire Emblem is about an army of units going to war, some of them are going to day, but thats okay because you have more to spare and future pre-promotes if all else fails, each one decently fleshed out ideally. Trust me, I get why players feel less incentivized to let units die, but I think more players need to allow SOME units to die. Even I struggle to do that sometimes because im so used to resetting :/
@@mikethepokemaster2012 The problem there is that it did it in a way that ruins one of the core aspects of Fire Emblem; you're supposed to be an ARMY, not a slightly larger-than-average DND party. It sacrificed numbers for that quality, when that isnt necessary to do at all.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 We both know THAT's a PAINFULLY hard thing to sell. (Much less sell the idea that it's NEEDED) It does exist kind've and it's called an Iron Man run. Which is FE's higher equivalent to a nuzlocke. Like Fire Emblem doesn't really compliment the idea of the fact that not all of your units will survive even in the early games back then, though it was easier. Because of how the game doesn't really show death as an inevitability especially the rate of it. Since you're not meant to make a lot of mistakes, and the game sort of implies that they want you to keep everyone alive. And designing it where death or even a few deaths are an inevitability. Would cause an even bigger divide than casual mode and more arguably make it more of a different series than it is now. I do agree having more in-depth characters hurts to it but FE did have it roots planted there even in the older games, hell this channel whom's video we're commenting on is dedicated to that aspect. So right now that's an even tougher nail to pry. But I am curious on a way to compromise on it, without just making it optional.
My first FE game was Sacred Stones, and I remember being frustrated because I wasn't that good back then, and I accidently saved and had to live with Ewan's death, and he was my favorite. That was a few chapters before the final chapter, so I didn't want to start over. I almost stopped playing entirely. I'm glad there's Casual Mode today. There's literally zero downside to having it. Player options are a good thing to have, and should remain in Fire Emblem.
I couldnt agree more, I would have never picked up the series without it, I have played three houses on classic mode later on because I was familiar with the mechanics of the game but I enjoy seeing the story first on casual before trying classic.
I started playing FE last month and started with FE7. I didn't know there was permadeath, and I accidentally got Florina killed in her join chapter. Luckily it was Lyn mode so she came back later.
Considering it's entirely optional, there are basically no downsides of casual mode existing. Some may argue that it's against the spirit of FE, but it's not like classic mode isn't right there as an alternative. Without it FE has rather steep entry level, in my first FE, Shadow Dragon, i didn't know what most of the stats represent, what weapon triangle is etc. However i played my fair share of rpgs and did a wiki dive to figure things out eventually. But if that was my first game period i propably would've get everyone killed and dropped the game because i didn't understand what it wants from me and why this cool pirate guy getting so bad level ups.
Eh, as a strong proponent of classic mode, it's not so much that casual mode has a downside as it is when they start building the games AROUND casual mode. I think the best way forward is for IS to go back to building games around the potential fact that you're going to lose some of your units on an average playthrough, but still have tools later on that help you stay afloat.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 exactly three houses cannot be played as an ironman because of that Even if it’s more the turnwheel than casual, it’s the same end
I agree with you. I personally think that it's better to have FE _with_ Casual Mode (CM) than _without_. Also, I wanted to note something about how some say that CM is against the spirit of FE. A lot of those people are the types who tend to reset when they lose a character, which itself is against the spirit of permadeath (and by extension, FE). Thus, it's a bit hypocritical of them to bash on CM like this when they themselves rarely do Iron Man runs.
Casual certainly can provide a new gateway to players, especially because up to that point IntSys' main method of convincing players was saying those units were no big loss. The problem is that if the map design is built with Casual in mind, Classic isn't unscathed. That's the thing with optional modes, they still influence the game as a whole. Just to give an example, a lot of Mighty No.9's development was dedicated to figuring out how to add the multiplayer backer reward. The results speak for themselves, as the main game features cheap obstacles that its inspiration had already figured out how *not* to do and crashes. And it turned out to be fruitless too given multiplayer is *even more unstable* than the main game.
@@Tidalley The existence of permadeath can be appealing even if you're not doing an iron man run. Like Iwata and Higuchi were saying, it's the feeling of tension that exists when there's a big penalty for mistakes that makes it interesting. The penalty can either be: You lose a character or you restart the chapter. I think it's fun and an interesting decision both gameplay and narratively that you get to decide your own punishment for making a mistake. That's not an accident either; the game's have always been designed ever since FE1 to give you the option to restart the chapter if you want.
I actually really like casual mode! As someone who mostly plays FE for the stories and characters, it's nice to not spend hours and hours trying to keep everyone alive. For me, difficult and fun don't really go hand in hand. Without casual mode, I probably would've dropped FE awhile ago.
isnt that what difficulty options are for in the first place tho? Like I appreciate that more people can enjoy the series with casual now but its like I cant hardly imagine many people's brain ever really being put to the test on any of the games easy mode, I guess I can get wanting it to not be handed to them but not severely punished either, but idk thats kinda just what a strategy game is really
@@SSlash I don't play it for the strategy though. If you took the same story and the same characters and put them into say... a full dungeon crawler like certain segments of SoV, or any other genre of game, then I'd just play that instead. Casual mode just allows me to enjoy the parts of the game I want to enjoy without forcing me to spend hours racking my brain for strategies, because I don't find enjoyment in that. But to each their own! I understand that there are plenty of people who want in-depth and challenging strategy, and I'm glad that classic mode and higher difficulties are still there for those people! It's just a good thing that FE has become more accessible to a wider audience.
Yeah, same. I've played Fire Emblem since 7, and have beaten all of them that came out in the US (other than Echoes, which kinda bored me), so while I CAN play Classic, I definitely appreciate the addition of Casual. It's less stressful, and means I don't have to reset an entire map every time someone dies (which is what I did with all the older FEs - I only did an 'iron man' once, and didn't enjoy it).
@@therealjaystone2344 I can see that. I didn't like Engage much either, definitely one of the worst FEs I've played, but I did manage to beat it, and I will say that I actually enjoyed it more towards the end. Not everyone shares that opinion though, so... 🤷
6:18 Oh hey, it's me! Neat video about Casual mode! I never thought they were an issue and heavily welcomed it as it would mean more people can join in without feeling stressed out about losing units along with having more expanded strategic options because permadeath is gone, so there's more room to make different decisions that one wouldn't normally make in Classic mode. Of course, I do feel that Phoenix mode in Fates was just too overkill and they thought the same, too, considering it never came back for Echoes and onwards.
Here's the problem, truth be told. Its not that casual mode exists, its that fire emblem games nowadays are being catered towards not only casual mode, but the freakin' turnwheel system. Casual mode worked so well because, in part, the games were still built with classic mode in mind, and you still wanted to ideally play with a proper strategy, if only so you werent down a unit for the whole chapter or they wouldnt get too far behind from lack of experience gained that round. But when the games abandon their perma death roots and completely shaft us perma death/classic fans? Thats when we take issue. To add onto this; when I say "designed around perma death", I mean they gave you a strong, solid number of units (and not that piddling amount in Three Houses), each of them unique and decently fleshed out once supports kicked in, and for the most part, expendable. If you lost a couple units? No problem, you had more to spare, and the late game would factor in the fact that you may need extra firepower, hence where the pre-promotes come in, like Isadora or Echidna.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 I'm all for having perma-death be a design focus in future Fire Emblem games, but expecting permadeath be an essential focus in every FE game is where other fans "take issue". You yourself described units in other games as being "for the most part, expendable". As for Three Houses' playable units, they're rarely sitting on the bench twiddling their thumbs or only showing up in story scenes and pretending to be important; EVERY playable unit and character can matter, mechanically and narratively, ONLY because the cast is smaller and is expected to survive long enough to matter. Three Houses isn't for everyone, but its playable characters are consistently great and arguably the best cast in all Fire Emblem. This character writing is what drew many of us story focused fans into discovering FE to begin with, and it just wouldn't have been nearly as successful at this if a permadeath focus had choked out the writers' incentive to do so much character building. All that said being, Engage by comparison would've benefited IMMENSLY from balancing itself towards permadeath. It had a massive cast of characters of middling depth, including late game pre-promotes and a relatively short, straightforward story, it had a near-perfect template for accommodating that mechanic (though that's not to say this excuses it's writing quality). THAT was a game that could've appealed to permadeath fans, to give you all a much needed break after Three Houses. Permadeath doesn't belong in every Fire Emblem game, some would be worse for it, but I have to agree it deserves more spotlight that the token treatment it''s had for several games in a row.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958They really aren’t being “catered to casuals” as far as map design goes, though. That’s the part of the argument I’ve never understood.
I can understand why casual mode was a thing. Honestly, I play classic, but I almost never continue a battle if I lose a character. I simply reload a save and go from there.
I load state, though sometimes I forget to save, the other day I had Jill dying to a ballista crit in PoR and had to start over because I forgot to save a state Truly the FE experience
I always complain to myself when i reset after a character dies, especially if it happens towards the end of the chapter, sometimes i even stop playing for the day. But after i finally beat the chapter without deaths, the positive feeling is stronger. I don't want to go on after a unit died, victory would just feel... empty and undeserved. So, i reload to do better. Playing on casual wouldn't change that, i'd still reset after a death
Yeah that's usually what I get out of it, that's why you see that in most game when you choose a difficulty, for those who want to enjoy the story and for those who want a challenge, unfortunately you have those who could care less for the story and just go right into Hell from the first playthrough
@groudon2006 That's me, but i do enjoy the story as well. Being able to fully understand my options at the early stage will make my progress much more fulfilling
The thing is, in half of the games that have it the story is not worth enjoying in the first place. Wich is my main problem with "story difficulty". Most games are just not worth playing on plot alone.
I think it certainly helps every FE game have more replayability. Wanna just enjoy the story? Casual mode. Wanna play newer FE in the original style? Classic mode. Wanna have dark souls FE? Hardcore mode. I find myself playing the new games more because I play each game all the way through at least 3-4 times before it starts to get stale.
I hate this mode only because it gave birth to a ton of idiots who misunderstood what it entails Common clownery: 1) *It's a mode for people who just want to enjoy the story.* Wrong. Just play easiest mode. Also it never mattered if chars die anyway, it's not like you suddenly can't enjoy the story. Also do kids who lack critical thinking seriously think Casual Lunatic/Maddening is "enjoying the story"? 2) *It's the same as soft resetting when a char dies!* Fucking wrong. It turns every char besides the mc and the given chapter's "dont let X die" into a meatshield which changes the game completely. Also softresetters reset at every death, sometimes even forcing themselves to suck it up and accept deaths when deaths happen at the end of a very long chapter. It isn't the same as just choosing this retarded mode.
I'm glad for casual mode because it allowed my friends to start the game , I am not going to use it anytime soon but I do appreciate it for those who were too scared to try Fire Emblem because of the Perma Death so it's nice that we have more fans because of it.
Being someone who started on the GBA, the idea of casual mode turned me off initially. But then u fight the same enemy multiple times thru the story and it got me thinking "if they can retreat after defeat, then why shouldn't i"
If reviving units was more common players might be more likely to continue playing without a character for a few chapters instead of restarting. That could actually make more people engage with the (semi)permadeath mechanic.
revival items being present would fix that have just a few items and it be a cost of a rare item. have a true ending chapter earned by not using revival items on classic mode. it still encourages the true fire emblem expierence
I personally really like casual mode, due to being a very character driven person I want to learn about the various casts without having to redo maps every time I screw up or get unlucky. Although in 3H and Engage I'm more inclined to do classic thanks to the rewind mechanic. I just don't want to be criticized or treated like my opinions don't matter because I didn't play the game in the hardest way possible
I personally feel Casual mode is the best addition they could've done to the series. Phoenix on the other hand I never played and it just sounds outright stupid to me, especially in a game like Fates with no weapon durability. It makes the game just much more accessible. Fire Emblem is a series with a fair bit of RNG tied into it through hit chance, crits, skill activations and a few other things I'm sure I'm not thinking of right now. It's not exactly fun to lose a character because you had a bad dice roll, and at the same time when those rolls DO happen and they cost you a character, a lot of the time people just reset back to a previous save. Classic is definitely worth playing, it's fun and rewarding, but at the same time it makes 0 sense to play if you're just going to reload saves. It's pretty much the no perma-death modes with extra steps.
Classic still makes sense to play even if you reset the chapter. In Casual mode you can play a map completely differently doing strategies that sacrifice characters to win making the game way to easy. In classic you can’t do that even if you intend to reset a lose of character.
@@rurijo3169 That's fair, especially if you're unsure of how the game works. For me I played Awakening (a lot) before Fates, so I just stuck to casual.
@@cmt5140 This here is why I always liked the idea of the turnwheel over classic mode. POR and Radiant Dawn are probably my favorite entries. Every time I think about replaying I remember how much time I spent trying to beat Elincia's Gambit with everyone alive and how once I lost someone to* the last enemy of the last enemy phase and had to restart.
I did a playthrough of Birthright on Phoenix mode just to try it out. Very strange Although it got stranger when I decide to see what would happen if ALL my units died in a single turn. Turns out nothing happens. They are all just revived my next turn.
This is what three houses did to it's fan base, bunch of fake Fire emblem fans. Should give Mario a jetpack because I can't reach places like everyone else
Casual for me is basically my testing mode. I always start games on normal causal when a new game comes out, to see what characters I like, who are good units and how good the story is. Then I do normal classic, then hard casual to compare when liberties I have compared to normal, then hard classic once I get the hang of it. In my opinion casual is not a bad thing, it helped people who are newer fans into the series and gave them a way to test whether are not they are comfortable to do classic. Sort of like a pool has shallow end for newer and shorter swimmers, and a deep end for more advanced or taller swimmers.
As someone realtively new to the FE Series, I think casual mode is a great concept, it’s a great way to learn and understand the gameplay concepts of Fire Emblem without having the consequences of losing a unit for new players
Casual is a great addition to get people into the game! I started as a casual user when I first picked up awakening, but then have never looked back from classic mode.
I’ll never understand the people that get angry that casual mode exists in fire emblem, they are called options for a reason, and people should have the option to play the game in the mode they’d like
Probably every single game franchise of these more elaborate game genres have a portion of grumpy veterans who rage and bash new ideas, even good ones, if they change the feel that the older games had. We will always find the same thing if we look at communities of many different long running franchises. It's a ridiculous bunch, all of them.
Is it really an option when the game is clearly designed around one mode though? No one would have issues if the modern games played the same, but playthroughs have gotten excessively longer due to team building, story etc being put over combat, and casual mode explicity enables that length. Letting a unit die is much harder to justify now.
Sometimes I like the challenge of classic mode, and other times I want a somewhat more relaxed experience. Having both options doesn’t take anything away from the game.
I like that they added casual mode and made it optional. For people who are new to the series and don’t want to lose anyone they try casual once they feel confident then they can try how veterans had to do it lol
@@DestinyZX1sales for fe were so bad, they were literally going to end the franchise if awakening didn't sell well. Localization cost money and distribution cost money. Nintendo also has a track record of being fairly conservative when it comes to decision making.
2:37 nice smack to the bell Agree retaining Kaga's vision of perma-death and tracking resets would be a great addon. Say an icon your game status or challenging optional chapters for extra lore you wouldnt get otherwise on casual.
8:31 As a Casual-mode player who uses rewinds, I am ENTIRELY in support of giving extra rewards/incentives to Classic-mode players or players who don't use rewinds. I'd never even thought of it before, but now I absolutely want it to happen.
As someone who joined with Three Houses if I didn't have casual mode I wouldn't have enjoyed the game as much as I did even with divine pulse. Plus I mainly play games for their story. However I get people wanting to have more of a challenge and glad they give the choice.
I don't think "acknowledging players who don't use rewind" needs to be a niche thing. Fire Emblem has for a while had themes of time manipulation, it would be fun to have a game that goes all in on that and responds to your use of the rewind function in-game, not just via achievements. It'd be a perfect opportunity to throw in a callback to Awakening/Fates offspring optimisation gameplay too, which is great fun, and could be taken in a more dynamic direction in a game with time travel at its thematic core (and not necessarily have to involve 'child units' if you for example go back in time to change what a unit was trained in growing up).
As a kid I had all the time in the world to replay the maps in which I lost a unit by enemy crit in FE7.. but the rewind feature FE3H does come in handy being an adult with less time on their hands.. great video btw. I'm glad they opened up to the idea bc it helped bring in so many new fans to the series.
For rewind topic. It s a good thing they added Rewind function. As you know in FE gameplay. The moment RNG fucks ypu up. You will lose your unit. And for those who wants deathless run they have to restart the entire chapter, which can be hassle. So rewind feature is truly a QoL nintendo brought in to save the player time from restart the samr chapter so many damn times over fricking RNG and Ambush.
Personally I think casual mode is wonderful but I really like the idea of the “being killed 5 times is ok” since it seems like an interesting middle ground between permadeath and casual mode.
I remember when casual first became a thing, I thought it would be cool to have a semi-casual mode, where units are effectively given a stock of extra lives, which is basically what that system would have been. Put something on the stats screen like "Injuries 0/5", and have it say that an injury happens when HP hits 0, and if they do reach 5 injuries, permadeath kicks in.
i dont have a problem with casual mode or milas turnwheel mechanics at all. ive been playing since the gba era, and especially with POR i would rest whole chapters just to save one character, so havin gthe option to keep permadeath or not is great.
I've been playing Fire Emblem games since Path of Radiance, and I always play on Casual Mode when it's available. I play videogames to enjoy the characters and story, and I personally would rather not feel compelled to reload my save any time I make a blunder and lose someone.
It'd be really interesting to see a fire emblem game that offered things as a reward for picking classic or actively avoiding rewind. Thinking back to echoes, there's a moment in Alm's route where he's offered the mila turnwheel. Maybe in the next game, when the lord is offered the rewind gimmick, you get a scene similar to the one you get when choosing to side with edelgard where the game actively warns you about there being story consequences after explaining the mechanics use. Foregoing that gimmick could reward the player with an alternate ending, if you really want to be harsh with it, or more realistically something like extra paralogues to recruit new units or a more efficient way to get weapons.
More newbies = more sales = more sequels So what could be wrong about a newbie-friendly mechanics that's completely optional - when it helps us get more FE games?
I think casual mode was a good feature to get new players into the series even if I personally never use it. The one big problem I have with it is the fact that it essentially makes it so there is no consequences for misplay. Because your characters can never really die (except the lord in most games which leads to a game over) there is no REAL punishment for bad play except not being able to use them for the rest of the map. I feel like it heavily diminishes the strategy aspect of the games and lets you play like all your units are FE11 replacement units. If I were to change anything it would be to penalize the unit that died (maybe they have to sit out the next chapter or something to recover) but still keep them alive.
@@TheKabuto90 i never understood that argument. resetting on classic is not the same thing as playing casual. if you play classic and you lose someone, you still have to redo the entire chapter if you choose to reset. casual has no such limitation unless the lord died
sit out the next chapter (instory to recover) and they lose any level up or items for them the chapter would reasonably do it. it would still be a punishment that can not be used freely with out cost but it would not be so long term of a punishment
The games are designed around Casual mode now, most units are an investment and losing them is just gonna force a reset on the highest difficulties. Classic exists as the secondary option for people looking for a challenge, but is no longer the primary concern of IS
Genuinely, I feel casual mode is no longer needed now that rewind is standard. With casual mode, you never learn how to play properly, but with rewind you have to learn how to make it through and figure out what the correct plays are. Rewind feels like a teaching tool whereas casual feels like permission to not learn anything...
I do feel like for recent entries, the "Classic" mode is more and more just a hind sight. As in, the ludonarrative experience feels worse off when you play on Classic. For example in Engage, if half my roster died on Chapter 11 I would be really happy since it make sense story wise. But in practice, Ch11 is surprisingly easy and it's just a minor test of your ability to not make mistakes. Meanwhile, you have Marth and friends be like "let's strengthen our bonds with me killing 6 of your friends!" Same for Three Houses, the most infamous Hunting by Daybreak, is thematically just "let's go kill some bandits", but the difficulty is "hope you had a backup save otherwise your run is no more".
I would actually be okay with a x losses till you die mechanic. Dark Doety does something similar, where you do not die but permanently lose stats when your unit drops to 0. My personal idea for the rewind mechanic is to let you use unused rewind charges for some sort of buff between missions, to reward players for not using them. Maybe you manipulate time to have your blacksmith instantly complete his forging of a rare weapon, or quickly grow stat boosting food, that sorta thing.
Much as I'm not an opponent of Casual Mode, I honestly never have played with it on; part of this is just that most of my playtime in relevant titles is in Three Houses, where you have the much more interesting turn-rewind mechanic introduced in Echoes. While Casual Mode works as a straight-up easier difficulty mode, turn-rewinds present the player with the option to trade in uses of their "safety cushion" in exchange for taking tactical risks and gambles on RNG. It also softens the danger level while still requiring the player to find tactics that do not require sacrifice plays, and still *does* come with a limit to how many times you can roll back a mistake or a high-risk move that didn't pan out. So ironically, I feel that Intelligent Systems landed on a better *answer* to the "problem" of Fire Emblem's unforgiving permadeath difficulty mechanic after they'd already gone several games with the easy, straightforward answer. Not that I have a problem with both answers existing in the same game. So long as they continue to design the games with permadeath in mind, it's fine. Although, I do understand that some of the recent games have been troublesome for people who want to do "Ironman" runs-where you accept your losses and never reset. In my opinion, the maps should still be designed under the assumption that a player will attempt to preserve all units without using any rewinds, because the actual *design* of the games is the place where any and all problems will arise. Turn-rewinds and the option to switch off permadeath should only ever be considered optional by the developers when tuning the challenge level.
I'd love to see rewinds as a game long mechanic, you get 10 to start, and they don't reset each map. Then you can find some around as treasure on some maps, and to cap it off having enough of them at key story moments changes how things progress. Like, if they did this in 3H then for the Scene where your dad dies if you have enough resets you can save him, but you have to have maximum attainable divine pulse uses or something.
My personal idea was to keep refilling the resource, but give it some use if you have charges left over after a battle. Like winding time forward on forging a new weapon or expanding your base, that sort of thing. I find your idea of using it to save characters in story segments both brilliant and evil. It certainly is a much more impactful use than my idea, but it could lead to ragequits for fans of those characters when they suddenly realize they lost their chance to save them hours ago, and they never knew it. One trick would be to start in medias res with that character's death, have some dialogue about rewinding time but the characters not knowing if they have enough power to do so. Then they try to overload the rewind power, causing it to glitch and time to rewind to the actual start of the story, when they get the rewind power. At this point, you can foreshadow that the rewind power they get is somehow weakened, because they misused it in the future. That way, the player at least gets a warning that they should conserve the power, with a nice opportunity for story telling. The downside is, players may feel scared to use the power, removing the QoL improvement that rewinding was supposed to provide. Especially if they don't know how many charges they'll need, how many they'll collect, and how many chapters there are until the plot point happens. So maybe something as big and mid story as Jerald's death is not the best idea, especially considering it would mean extra development work on the split story line. But perhaps reserving a golden ending for players that haven't been using the rewind willy nilly would be good. As long as the non golden ending doesn't feel like an unsatisfying game over, it can be a nice motivator for a second playthrough.
If you’ve ever played Neo TWEWY, it does something sorta interesting with the whole “rewinding time has consequences” idea. Could do something like that, except in that game rewinding time is required but here it’d lead to a different story outcome
I think the series actually benefits more from Classic mode as an option as it lets you play how you want, but also when there are more than just the permadeath aspect to to the game. Echoes SoV may not be the most beloved FE game but was all konds of dialogue for if certain character had died and ot added a lot to Classic mode, even if most of the new dialogue was sad and depressing (for instance Matilda spends the rest of the game in a fit of dispair if Clive dies) and I don't know of the other games have done something like that since, outside of a few lines or two.
I really enjoy casual. I try not to have any units die regardless, but if I just played a map for an hour and a half and a unit dies and I’m out of charges to rewind, that’s where causal comes in helping me. I don’t have the time anymore to redo maps and all of that stuff
I like and use casual mode when it's available i just like to play fire emblem to see an epic story good music and a little brain teaser with grow in the power of your units i just like to do that with out an hours worth of resetting.
The RNG. As someone who played the old FE games. It doesn't matter how good you are. How well prepared you are. One bad dice roll will ruin your entire playthrough.
I wish they'd start to have built-in Randomisers that way. "You've proven mastery of the game by beating Lunatic Classic Mode? Now, go have fun, who knows, maybe you'll get 2 dancers this time~!"
Yeah I’m not touching a fire emblem game that doesn’t have a casual mode. That’s just too stressful for me and I want to actually have fun with the game I’m supposed to be having fun playing. Plus, I lose units all the time, so there’s no way I would ever make it past like the first 5 chapters.
I love casual mode, not because I personally use it, I like me some classic permadeath, but because it got one of my friends to play it and fall in love with the series! It may be a less fulfilling experience for me, but for others it's a way to enjoy the games, and for opening the series up to more players, I love its inclusion.
I haven’t watched the whole video through, but I just wanted to say that I mainly play Casual because every time I play Classic I always end up resetting multiple times to have a deathless run (and often overleveling my units and taking the fun out of it). I guess I’m just a perfectionist and want a full roster, even if I don’t use everyone. It’s a bit illogical but that’s just what my brain makes me do.
I've played both older FE's with forced permadeath and more recent entries with a 'Casual' option, and I can honestly see why they chose to finally add it. Basically, there are two kinds of FE-players - the ones who play it straight, accepting losses as they go, enjoying the tension of potentially losing beloved characters to an unlucky crit. Same kind of audience who adore Ironman-mode in things like XCOM. The second kind... *don't.* If they lose a unit, they'll restart the chapter or reload a save to avoid it - or use savestates if playing on emulator. Maybe they're perfectionists who just can't stand the idea of accepting such a setback, maybe they just love all the units too much to be willing to lose any of them, or maybe they just *don't like permadeath.* They aren't playing Fire Emblem *for* that tension, they're playing it *in spite* of it. Casual Mode just lets them do what they were always *going* to do, with less frustration and time wasted. The addition of rewind-mechanics *does* muddle things a bit, though. I used to prefer Casual, for a more easygoing experience, but since rewind was added, I've actually come to enjoy Classic more in combination - rewinding gives you some leeway, letting you sidestep the prospect of losing units to just getting screwed over by the RNG, or from a momentary lapse in concentration. But at the same time, it isn't an infinite resource, letting you feel the tension slowly rack up as you use rewind-charges to extricate yourself from troublesome situations, potentially wasting some of them by not going far enough back, or initially failing to alter the timeline sufficiently...
I think a "Unit has to die a certain number of times before they're actually dead" mode could be interesting. It could be in-between Classic and Casual, and so it isn't something crazy a unit could only have to hit 0 HP twice before staying dead. The first time it happens they just comeback in the next map like Casual, but then the 2nd time it happens they stay dead like in Classic, call it 2nd Chance or something
I think the mode is fine. As long as it is separate from classic, then it is perfect. If nintendo ever implements an "achievement" system like microsoft or sony have, then I think "no resets, classic, hard mode" should be one of the things to shoot for. That way it is optional, but a reward for doing it(or you could go unlocks route like re4 remake did with the cat ears)
The first FE game I ever played was Sacred Stones when I was like 10 or so (got it free with my 3DS because of the ambassador program) I remember when Awakening came out, I first played it on casual mode since it, unlike Sacred Stones, had the option. I found it to be very fun (albeit easier) fire emblem experience compared to what I was used to with Sacred Stones. While that was the only time I’ve ever played casual mode in a FE game, I do think it’s an extremely valuable aspect to the series now. So many people have given this amazing series a chance because of it. I just hope that they eventually replay the game on classic or even give the older games a chance!
if only the damn company would even LET people go back to the older games, you cant buy new gameboys or cubes or wii's to play like half the series let alone the SNES or whatever fe4 and older were on, but the first 3 have remakes at least so... I guess we're getting somewhere? They really should just have a huge bundled port of all the GBA games if nothing else by now, its kinda sad to see stuff relegated to being locked behind a higher tier subscription service
"We want Engage to appeal to a 'younger audience' so they can get into the series." Okay, so how are the previous titles being provided? "Next question."
@@therealjaystone2344Maybe because Three Houses was a great step forward for the series and instead of improving 3 Houses’ flaws, they just threw it all out and regressed back to Fates
It sounds like you want something like Steam achievements which I like. I can see achievements being given for not restarting a map in a playthrough or completing maddening on classic mode.
i play casual mode since awakening and cant say i regret it. i like the games but im not really a master strategist and im not a fan of resetting the game when someone dies. and i definitely wont continue when a character dies so i might as well play on casual. ive had a pretty hard time going through path of radiance back then and i dont feel like repeating that experience
I’ve done both, but i vastly prefer casual since it’s more of a time save. Otherwise I have to reset or turn wheel. That said, it’s not as bad in games with the latter.
I think the turn wheel mechanic and limiting its uses per map based on difficulty setting is the best accessibility option for both "vets" and new players. It makes sense as a timesaver since if people really don't want to lose a unit they'll reset the map anyways and the turn wheel just saves time from bad luck, unfair enemy ambushes, or just a misplay. In the end it allows people to correct mistakes without needing to restart the whole map and it still requires you to play and position your units strategically since you can't just run a party of unga bunga rambo units and just hope things work out. While more accessibility is great I think the problem with casual mode is that it pretty much fundamentally changes how the game plays different from other SRPGS. In other SRPGs where permadeath is not a thing, one of the most powerful and busted techniques to use is the ability to sac a unit to bait enemies. Throw a character you don't care about into a mob of enemies that will aggro them and then be in range to get destroyed by your army the next turn. This is a strategy that doesn't work nearly as well when your characters die permanently. Why wouldn't you just sac units at every opportunity to put yourself in a more favourable position? There's no consequence or loss to it the units come back next map anyways.
While I always play classic myself, I do like that casual mode exists in the 3DS era. However, I dislike that the Switch games (Three Houses especially) were seemingly made with only casual/turnwheel in mind. People often say "there's no downside of casual mode existing", but it's really apparent that the Three Houses Classic/Ironman experience really suffered from the fact that casual mode now exists and is a mainstay.
i've been playing fire emblem games since like 2007 and i've played them all multiple times. sorry, i know i'm a filthy casual, but i like casual mode. i'm bad at strategy, i'm generally a dumbass that sucks at planning moves in advance BUT i also want everyone to survive - casual mode makes them a lot less stressful for me
When played Fire Emblem for the first time (Awakening btw) I tried casual mode then classic and never looked back. When I was just getting into the series I didn’t know difficult or not it was going to be before I played it.
I used Casual when I started three houses. I liked the thought of not losing my units permanently, but with Rewind I'm not sure Casual is necessary anymore.
I play casual mode and enjoy the story, the character-driven narrative and my role in the plot. I'm into FE for much more than a challenging combat. Some characters from Three Houses, for example, have so many layers to their personalities, are so well written, and I wish to see their stories from as many perspectives as possible. No way I'd let classic mode ruin that experience. However I think it's good it's there. It makes me feel curious about it, and maybe sometime I'll try it just to experiment a bit, but not as the core of my countless playthroughs.
I've only ever played classic mode in Awakening and I can assure you that I feel tension in casual mode. Even if you don't have to worry about the character being permanently gone, losing a key character in a map can be pretty rough. Both have a role, but given that a lot of people (myself included) tended to reset entire maps when characters died, I'd call casual mode a good move. Plus, characters fall behind if they get killed in Casual mode, so dying is still not ideal
I remember playing Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn and saw one of the characters die and I was so sad that I couldn't play the game anymore, so I'm grateful they added casual mode
(I’m new in the FE games) I know classic mode is the real way to play it, but I just don’t like or can’t bear to see my units die forever just because a mistake I made, whenever this happened I always restarted because I wanted to see how they develop later. Although maybe I will try a permadeath play through even if I don’t like it. Really good video
I've played casual mode in every game its available in (2 of them being the warrior spinoffs) and I've rarely needed it if im being honest? Granted I usually play on normal but I've rarely lost a unit and even more rarely kept them lost (in games with rewind). So I guess its unesasairy with rewind but its nice to not miss out on a charcter due to bad rng.
As someone who is relatively new to the series (never finished FE7, my “first” fire emblem), then came back with 3 Houses I really appreciate casual mode. For me, I want to experience the characters fully while also having a slight buffer in learning gameplay mechanics. Once that part is satisfied I can switch to classic and feel even worse when characters I’ve grown attached to fall in battle. For me it makes permadeath a much more costly penalty than it would otherwise be. I imagine if casual didn’t exist I would just do the easiest difficulty to experience the characters and then move up.
Maybe make the characters not die right away but more so “fallen” and you have to use a turn to get the person up before the opponent finishes them and permanently die.
i was thinking something like a safety net. if a unit is defeated in battle, they retreat, but are marked as wounded. if a wounded unit is defeated, then they die for good
@@Underworlder5something like that would be a neat middleground option honestly, with also a minor stat penalty on wounded units. However an actual Casual mode isn't looking for a middle ground in implementation. But rather a way where the game has no stakes and is easily clearable on any difficulty.
In Shining Force, the unit dies and vanishes from the battlefield, but can be revived normally and easily outside the battle by going to a church and asking. In Front Mission, the unit (robot) is destroyed and the pilot escapes, but when the battle is over there's a money penalty for that loss, expressed as "costs to repair the destroyed robot". In Final Fantasy Tactics, the unit dies and gets in a temporary "fallen" state for 3 "turns" where he still can be revived, and only after that point he vanishes and is lost forever.
I play casual, but still trying to keep all alive. It is more like a safety net if someone dies at the end of a battle, which was no fun or very long. Just to prevent to play that battle again. It just takes the preasure away which makes me play more relaxed. Best one is that they keep you having the option and not force you to play in one of the mode.
I wonder what percentage of players use Casual mode. If you asked on an FE forum or video like this, you'd likely get a very low number of people who say they do because they're more into the series overall and likely more hardcore with it. I wouldn't be surprised if 25% or more of players who have finished at least one game play Casual.
The thing that interested me was that IS considered permadeath(PD) as part of Fire Emblem’s appeal. As a person coming from a non FE to casual FE fan I considered it of 2 greatest detriments to growth and success, the other was IS Systems themselves. Part of the reason I never looked into FE before casual was because of PD, the other was it’s spotty overseas venture. I always thought FE core was 1. It’s gameplay and 2. It’s story. It’s kinda enlightening that Kaga agreed with that sentiment all the way back to FE5 and shows how far behind IS was with FE roots and why it was kinda mediocre franchise. It also explains why IS had to go back to Kaga to basically reboot the franchise. It to Koei 1 mixed bag and ambitious attempt to do the same thing IS took 7 games to do all it took was FE nearly getting cancelled.
Just wanna say, I've been playing through Conquest Lunatic mode and damn, does this mode make Permadeath shine as an option. I have gotten so many in my army killed along the way, but I'm still trucking on through. If someone important like Azura dies I'll reset, but having that option to just keep trucking on just feels really good for some reason.
I'm looking to create an FE-like myself. And given how devisive Casual/Phoenix/Turn-wheel modes are, I want to implement a new system called the "Infirmary" system in my game. Basically, what is does is this: Whenever a Unit's HP would hit 0, they are then sent to the infirmary. They will be out of the battle for the rest of the Chapter, and the next Story Chapter. I genuinely think that this would fix 2 things. This would make it so that you are Punished for making delibrately bad moves, by sealing off any XP your Unit would could gain in those chapters that they are absent in, while simultaneously not being so brutally unfair because of some unforseen elements like reinforcemnts showing up in inconvenient spots for new players, or just general bad luck on an enemy crit-ing your prized units. Maybe to have it more fleshed out, it could be a good time to strengthen supports as well as other things. That's my hypothetical solution to this problem.
I never played casual before my second playthrough of Engage. But maybe I should have. Was resetting my way through Awakening and Fates a good use of my time? Eh, idk. I do love the rewind systems though. Not having a low chance crit be a reset was a nice change imo. Edit: No wait I totally did 3H Maddening NG on casual for the gold rays or whatever.
With Casual mode being entirely optional, there's absolutely no negatives to having it in modern games. With the additions of rewinds, the need for a separate Casual/Classic seems redundant to some, but there are people out there who make strategies out of the flexibility of Casual modes and others that want to be able to beat the games without the rewinds. The very first game I played was FE7 and I can't remember the times I restarted the chapters in order to keep everyone alive; but even with the option, I still don't play in Casual mode, because I sometimes think that losing a unit can make for an interesting run (like in Fates where the royals are extremely good).
New Mystery of the Emblem on the Nintendo DS was the first game to have Casual Mode. But that game was only released in Japan. So non-Japanese players associate it being introduced in Awakening.
While I get why casual mode exists I feel like it and the turnwheel have hurt the games because the developers have started designing the games around them instead of the classic experience. I’d honestly love it if they took them away for 1 game to try and get all these new fans who never played without them to see what FE can be at its best. Many people say they won’t play the old games without these features because it sounds too challenging. If u actually play FE1 for example though it’s constantly throwing units at u. There is no way anyone should ever get stuck because of a lack of characters. Anyway that’s my old man yells at cloud rant for the day.
The problem is that most of the people who like casual mode don't want to play a game that is just a png with stats. If you look at the criticism for engage, 90% of it was criticizing the story and characters because for many that has become as important if not more important than gameplay.
i think in between manic could be good, like a unit could live or die after being defeated by percent and maybe influenced how high and low it is. like a killing blow that does a lot of damage will increase chance of death or a crit kill will be guaranteed but a light power kill will likely not be a perama death, maybe chances of dying increase if unit gets defeated often
If they would introduce that I would connect the chance to the "overkill". E.G. 20HP unit get a critical hit which deals 21 is only -1hp which has a low chance of permadeath, while a unit having 1hp left get a normal hit auf 15 damage ends at -14HP which might end up in permadeath more likely. But I dont want to have that mechanic at all. ;)
Casual Mode is great for your first bout, and many people (myself included) never played a Fire Emblem when Awakening released so it was very needed. Although admittedly I was always resetting so I could get more EXP on certain units so that’s why I transitioned to Classic lol.
I have a really hot take on casual mode that I lose Reddit karma for if I ever try to mention, but I'm curious what people in these comments think since rewinds were mentioned in the vid as well: Casual mode at a baseline is actually more punishing than using rewind mechanics on Classic. Rationale here is that at least in Casual mode without rewinds, a dead unit can't get exp for the rest of the map and may struggle to keep up in future maps. Meanwhile, you have to really mess up several times to lose a unit with rewinds, so the end result of a completed map is almost always every character the player cares about having been alive the whole time. Even a little punishment is more than zero.
Absolutely true. This is a good take and I agree. If I had to get rid of one of the functions, I'd get rid of rewind over Casual every time. Casual uses a very different strategy of play and you have to account for things like the exp loss for the character if you're going to do any gambits with them. Rewind, especially when they give you like nine of them, does not, and makes the maps feel less fulfilling in my experience.
And they were right to downvote you, you are completely wrong and have it backwards lmao. To say casual is more punishing then rewinding is laughable, you aren't gonna let your characters die to a random generic unless you really suck ass at the game, but what casual let's you get away with is anything remotely difficult becomes a how many bodies can I throw at this boss until it dies plan. At least with rewinds if you throw a unit at a boss and they kill a unit, you need to live with that or rewind and think of a new plan. Bad position and your flier got shot down? Who cares next chapter. Whereas a rewind will have you change up your turn and strategy to not push the flier out of position.
I like casual cause I want to get all the character interactions, story and I dont want to just play easy mode. I enjoy normal/hard mode on casual. Classic isnt always for everybody I like the choice option.
I was most grateful for the idea of casual mode in recent FE games because I’m more into wanting to experience the story than having to constantly worry about losing units, which I’m aware FE has always been focused more on strategy. But I still feel the dire situation of making sure I don’t lose so many in a map in casual mode because I want to be sure I have the units to complete the map before the enemy eventually kills off every one, resulting in a game over (I had that near experience in Fates and 3H Cinder Shadows DLC at least once) 😅 I don’t mind classic mode for what I’ve experienced with Shadow Dragon (DS), it’s still my favorite game, alongside Sacred Stones, but at times like those games I fail to get through without having to reset my game to save my favorite unit lol
the best way to make casual mode work is to add a punishment of losing all gained xp for the unit, for the current chapter + they have to recover during the next chapter sitting out entirely so sacrificing comes at a cost and adding it at the end once the game was entirely designed around perma death so the FE expierence is not affected by broadening the game ofr newer players
Even though I always play on Casual I usually end up resetting/rewinding when a character dies anyway. I can't get away from that feeling that I have to do it deathless, even though that makes it more stressful. Stressful enough that in the case of a game like Engage where I think it's merely decent, I don't end up finishing the game.
What i found by using Casual Mode is if you play a harder game, like Conquest, Casual Mode makes it easier for you to spread your EXP and Levels too thin among your units. They cant keep up with the harder enemies and maps later in the game. My first playthrough of Conquest when I still used Casual Mode, I could not beat the final map and had to resort to Phoenix Mode to just beat the game after trying for a Year and not willing to replay the entire game. I can understand for accessibility reasons, but it can also lead the player astray to an even worse experience.
I will say, my first FE game was Awakening, I initially got the demo off e-shop, then got the full game later, and for me personally, if Casual Mode didn't exist I would not have gotten the full game or any of the future games, because Classic mode is too stressful for me, I don't like the idea of permanently losing characters outside of scripted story events. I'm glad that Classic is still an option for people who like it, but that play style is not for me. (Then there's Phoenix mode in Fates, which I only used when wanting to do dumb class builds, where having units come back the next turn just saved me some grinding)
i'm back! Apologies for the long gap between videos. But here's a rather short one that I hope you'll find interesting. Please don't forget to leave a like and comment below your thoughts on the video or just about casual mode in general. If you haven't subscribed yet, please consider doing so and if you can afford it, become a member too!
Kinda unrelated, but whole appeal of Pokemon Nuzlockes feel like they're meant to replicate that "tension" Iwata and IS talk about over the idea of losing your units in old-school FEs, which is interesting to think about.
Also I find fascinating how even IS thinks FE's appeal is overall a mix of story, gameplay and characters. It really puts into retrospective how much of an experiment both 3H and Engage were.
Woth pointing out on a technical level with Nuzlocke’s you’re not losing much when losing a pokemon
Pokemon in the games aern’t really that important. You’re not expected to use every pokemon you get nuzlocke or otherwise, you can always get, there’s no story or personality except for the one you make in your head. There’s an infinite supply of pokemon (barring Nuzlocke rules). Each pokemon you get is albeit varryingly ranzomized and you’re only meant to care about a handful of pokemon.
So all you lose when a Pokemon dies in a nuzlocke the only thing you’re losing is the emotional bond you make with the pokemon that came in thats only formed due to your choice of doing nuzlocke.
Fire emblem units on the other hand comes with a story, comes with a personality, supports and somewhat of little goals that you do. There is more of a FEELING of incentive to keep them alive whether your playing on classic or not. So when they die, it really hurts more not just the emotional connection, but its a stain on your record. Its taking a way a lot more stuff you may be interested in getting like supports and specific events that are needed for your character. Just sucks even more and incentives you to avoid killing even if you don’t have an emotional relationship with your Unit.
But, that said a lot of things in a nuzlocke can apply to classic mode and why people may or may not want to do either. But I hope I pointed out why people are less into the idea of losing in one of them.
Imo Three houses succeeded in keeping both the story and characters engaging while engage didn't with it it character and story. Gameplay good though
@@venomw6823 But still, that only makes those emergent narratives and personal stories better. I kind of dont like the modern trend that both the developers and fandom have that further and further distances the series from its roots. Fire Emblem is about an army of units going to war, some of them are going to day, but thats okay because you have more to spare and future pre-promotes if all else fails, each one decently fleshed out ideally.
Trust me, I get why players feel less incentivized to let units die, but I think more players need to allow SOME units to die. Even I struggle to do that sometimes because im so used to resetting :/
@@mikethepokemaster2012 The problem there is that it did it in a way that ruins one of the core aspects of Fire Emblem; you're supposed to be an ARMY, not a slightly larger-than-average DND party. It sacrificed numbers for that quality, when that isnt necessary to do at all.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 We both know THAT's a PAINFULLY hard thing to sell. (Much less sell the idea that it's NEEDED)
It does exist kind've and it's called an Iron Man run. Which is FE's higher equivalent to a nuzlocke.
Like Fire Emblem doesn't really compliment the idea of the fact that not all of your units will survive even in the early games back then, though it was easier. Because of how the game doesn't really show death as an inevitability especially the rate of it. Since you're not meant to make a lot of mistakes, and the game sort of implies that they want you to keep everyone alive.
And designing it where death or even a few deaths are an inevitability. Would cause an even bigger divide than casual mode and more arguably make it more of a different series than it is now.
I do agree having more in-depth characters hurts to it but FE did have it roots planted there even in the older games, hell this channel whom's video we're commenting on is dedicated to that aspect. So right now that's an even tougher nail to pry. But I am curious on a way to compromise on it, without just making it optional.
My first FE game was Sacred Stones, and I remember being frustrated because I wasn't that good back then, and I accidently saved and had to live with Ewan's death, and he was my favorite. That was a few chapters before the final chapter, so I didn't want to start over. I almost stopped playing entirely. I'm glad there's Casual Mode today. There's literally zero downside to having it. Player options are a good thing to have, and should remain in Fire Emblem.
I couldnt agree more, I would have never picked up the series without it, I have played three houses on classic mode later on because I was familiar with the mechanics of the game but I enjoy seeing the story first on casual before trying classic.
I started playing FE last month and started with FE7. I didn't know there was permadeath, and I accidentally got Florina killed in her join chapter. Luckily it was Lyn mode so she came back later.
Considering it's entirely optional, there are basically no downsides of casual mode existing. Some may argue that it's against the spirit of FE, but it's not like classic mode isn't right there as an alternative. Without it FE has rather steep entry level, in my first FE, Shadow Dragon, i didn't know what most of the stats represent, what weapon triangle is etc. However i played my fair share of rpgs and did a wiki dive to figure things out eventually. But if that was my first game period i propably would've get everyone killed and dropped the game because i didn't understand what it wants from me and why this cool pirate guy getting so bad level ups.
Eh, as a strong proponent of classic mode, it's not so much that casual mode has a downside as it is when they start building the games AROUND casual mode. I think the best way forward is for IS to go back to building games around the potential fact that you're going to lose some of your units on an average playthrough, but still have tools later on that help you stay afloat.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 exactly three houses cannot be played as an ironman because of that
Even if it’s more the turnwheel than casual, it’s the same end
I agree with you. I personally think that it's better to have FE _with_ Casual Mode (CM) than _without_. Also, I wanted to note something about how some say that CM is against the spirit of FE.
A lot of those people are the types who tend to reset when they lose a character, which itself is against the spirit of permadeath (and by extension, FE). Thus, it's a bit hypocritical of them to bash on CM like this when they themselves rarely do Iron Man runs.
Casual certainly can provide a new gateway to players, especially because up to that point IntSys' main method of convincing players was saying those units were no big loss.
The problem is that if the map design is built with Casual in mind, Classic isn't unscathed. That's the thing with optional modes, they still influence the game as a whole.
Just to give an example, a lot of Mighty No.9's development was dedicated to figuring out how to add the multiplayer backer reward. The results speak for themselves, as the main game features cheap obstacles that its inspiration had already figured out how *not* to do and crashes. And it turned out to be fruitless too given multiplayer is *even more unstable* than the main game.
@@Tidalley The existence of permadeath can be appealing even if you're not doing an iron man run. Like Iwata and Higuchi were saying, it's the feeling of tension that exists when there's a big penalty for mistakes that makes it interesting. The penalty can either be: You lose a character or you restart the chapter. I think it's fun and an interesting decision both gameplay and narratively that you get to decide your own punishment for making a mistake.
That's not an accident either; the game's have always been designed ever since FE1 to give you the option to restart the chapter if you want.
I actually really like casual mode! As someone who mostly plays FE for the stories and characters, it's nice to not spend hours and hours trying to keep everyone alive. For me, difficult and fun don't really go hand in hand.
Without casual mode, I probably would've dropped FE awhile ago.
isnt that what difficulty options are for in the first place tho? Like I appreciate that more people can enjoy the series with casual now but its like I cant hardly imagine many people's brain ever really being put to the test on any of the games easy mode, I guess I can get wanting it to not be handed to them but not severely punished either, but idk thats kinda just what a strategy game is really
@@SSlash I don't play it for the strategy though. If you took the same story and the same characters and put them into say... a full dungeon crawler like certain segments of SoV, or any other genre of game, then I'd just play that instead. Casual mode just allows me to enjoy the parts of the game I want to enjoy without forcing me to spend hours racking my brain for strategies, because I don't find enjoyment in that.
But to each their own! I understand that there are plenty of people who want in-depth and challenging strategy, and I'm glad that classic mode and higher difficulties are still there for those people! It's just a good thing that FE has become more accessible to a wider audience.
Yeah, same. I've played Fire Emblem since 7, and have beaten all of them that came out in the US (other than Echoes, which kinda bored me), so while I CAN play Classic, I definitely appreciate the addition of Casual. It's less stressful, and means I don't have to reset an entire map every time someone dies (which is what I did with all the older FEs - I only did an 'iron man' once, and didn't enjoy it).
@@othergrimm6592same but I didn’t beat engage because of the same reason
@@therealjaystone2344 I can see that. I didn't like Engage much either, definitely one of the worst FEs I've played, but I did manage to beat it, and I will say that I actually enjoyed it more towards the end. Not everyone shares that opinion though, so... 🤷
6:18 Oh hey, it's me!
Neat video about Casual mode! I never thought they were an issue and heavily welcomed it as it would mean more people can join in without feeling stressed out about losing units along with having more expanded strategic options because permadeath is gone, so there's more room to make different decisions that one wouldn't normally make in Classic mode.
Of course, I do feel that Phoenix mode in Fates was just too overkill and they thought the same, too, considering it never came back for Echoes and onwards.
Here's the problem, truth be told. Its not that casual mode exists, its that fire emblem games nowadays are being catered towards not only casual mode, but the freakin' turnwheel system.
Casual mode worked so well because, in part, the games were still built with classic mode in mind, and you still wanted to ideally play with a proper strategy, if only so you werent down a unit for the whole chapter or they wouldnt get too far behind from lack of experience gained that round.
But when the games abandon their perma death roots and completely shaft us perma death/classic fans? Thats when we take issue.
To add onto this; when I say "designed around perma death", I mean they gave you a strong, solid number of units (and not that piddling amount in Three Houses), each of them unique and decently fleshed out once supports kicked in, and for the most part, expendable. If you lost a couple units? No problem, you had more to spare, and the late game would factor in the fact that you may need extra firepower, hence where the pre-promotes come in, like Isadora or Echidna.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958
I'm all for having perma-death be a design focus in future Fire Emblem games, but expecting permadeath be an essential focus in every FE game is where other fans "take issue".
You yourself described units in other games as being "for the most part, expendable".
As for Three Houses' playable units, they're rarely sitting on the bench twiddling their thumbs or only showing up in story scenes and pretending to be important; EVERY playable unit and character can matter, mechanically and narratively, ONLY because the cast is smaller and is expected to survive long enough to matter.
Three Houses isn't for everyone, but its playable characters are consistently great and arguably the best cast in all Fire Emblem.
This character writing is what drew many of us story focused fans into discovering FE to begin with, and it just wouldn't have been nearly as successful at this if a permadeath focus had choked out the writers' incentive to do so much character building.
All that said being, Engage by comparison would've benefited IMMENSLY from balancing itself towards permadeath.
It had a massive cast of characters of middling depth, including late game pre-promotes and a relatively short, straightforward story, it had a near-perfect template for accommodating that mechanic (though that's not to say this excuses it's writing quality).
THAT was a game that could've appealed to permadeath fans, to give you all a much needed break after Three Houses.
Permadeath doesn't belong in every Fire Emblem game, some would be worse for it, but I have to agree it deserves more spotlight that the token treatment it''s had for several games in a row.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958They really aren’t being “catered to casuals” as far as map design goes, though. That’s the part of the argument I’ve never understood.
I can understand why casual mode was a thing. Honestly, I play classic, but I almost never continue a battle if I lose a character. I simply reload a save and go from there.
Why put yourself through all that
@@mikethepokemaster2012 Because that's the beauty of fire emblem
Same. If anything it's more of a buffer in fights where I'm near the end and some unbelievable garbage happens to me.
I load state, though sometimes I forget to save, the other day I had Jill dying to a ballista crit in PoR and had to start over because I forgot to save a state
Truly the FE experience
I always complain to myself when i reset after a character dies, especially if it happens towards the end of the chapter, sometimes i even stop playing for the day. But after i finally beat the chapter without deaths, the positive feeling is stronger. I don't want to go on after a unit died, victory would just feel... empty and undeserved. So, i reload to do better. Playing on casual wouldn't change that, i'd still reset after a death
For people who just want to enjoy the story without losing anyone.
Yeah that's usually what I get out of it, that's why you see that in most game when you choose a difficulty, for those who want to enjoy the story and for those who want a challenge, unfortunately you have those who could care less for the story and just go right into Hell from the first playthrough
@groudon2006 That's me, but i do enjoy the story as well. Being able to fully understand my options at the early stage will make my progress much more fulfilling
Exactly, its what i usually do.
What if you watched the video first?
The thing is, in half of the games that have it the story is not worth enjoying in the first place.
Wich is my main problem with "story difficulty". Most games are just not worth playing on plot alone.
I mean, it certainly helped bring in a larger audience, myself included. The whole permadeath mechanic was the main turnoff for most people.
I think it certainly helps every FE game have more replayability. Wanna just enjoy the story? Casual mode. Wanna play newer FE in the original style? Classic mode. Wanna have dark souls FE? Hardcore mode. I find myself playing the new games more because I play each game all the way through at least 3-4 times before it starts to get stale.
I hate this mode only because it gave birth to a ton of idiots who misunderstood what it entails
Common clownery:
1) *It's a mode for people who just want to enjoy the story.*
Wrong. Just play easiest mode. Also it never mattered if chars die anyway, it's not like you suddenly can't enjoy the story. Also do kids who lack critical thinking seriously think Casual Lunatic/Maddening is "enjoying the story"?
2) *It's the same as soft resetting when a char dies!*
Fucking wrong. It turns every char besides the mc and the given chapter's "dont let X die" into a meatshield which changes the game completely. Also softresetters reset at every death, sometimes even forcing themselves to suck it up and accept deaths when deaths happen at the end of a very long chapter. It isn't the same as just choosing this retarded mode.
I'm glad for casual mode because it allowed my friends to start the game , I am not going to use it anytime soon but I do appreciate it for those who were too scared to try Fire Emblem because of the Perma Death so it's nice that we have more fans because of it.
Being someone who started on the GBA, the idea of casual mode turned me off initially. But then u fight the same enemy multiple times thru the story and it got me thinking "if they can retreat after defeat, then why shouldn't i"
If reviving units was more common players might be more likely to continue playing without a character for a few chapters instead of restarting. That could actually make more people engage with the (semi)permadeath mechanic.
revival items being present would fix that have just a few items and it be a cost of a rare item. have a true ending chapter earned by not using revival items on classic mode. it still encourages the true fire emblem expierence
It never mattered if chars die anyway
@@powerfulberry237Erm, how does it not? You’d lose out on all the experience and time you spent on them
A few chapters makes that character severly underleveled
I personally really like casual mode, due to being a very character driven person I want to learn about the various casts without having to redo maps every time I screw up or get unlucky. Although in 3H and Engage I'm more inclined to do classic thanks to the rewind mechanic. I just don't want to be criticized or treated like my opinions don't matter because I didn't play the game in the hardest way possible
I personally feel Casual mode is the best addition they could've done to the series. Phoenix on the other hand I never played and it just sounds outright stupid to me, especially in a game like Fates with no weapon durability.
It makes the game just much more accessible. Fire Emblem is a series with a fair bit of RNG tied into it through hit chance, crits, skill activations and a few other things I'm sure I'm not thinking of right now. It's not exactly fun to lose a character because you had a bad dice roll, and at the same time when those rolls DO happen and they cost you a character, a lot of the time people just reset back to a previous save.
Classic is definitely worth playing, it's fun and rewarding, but at the same time it makes 0 sense to play if you're just going to reload saves. It's pretty much the no perma-death modes with extra steps.
Classic still makes sense to play even if you reset the chapter. In Casual mode you can play a map completely differently doing strategies that sacrifice characters to win making the game way to easy. In classic you can’t do that even if you intend to reset a lose of character.
I actually played on Phoenix because this was my first Fire Emblem game and I wanted to do th easiest setting until I got the hang of it 😅
@@rurijo3169 That's fair, especially if you're unsure of how the game works. For me I played Awakening (a lot) before Fates, so I just stuck to casual.
@@cmt5140 This here is why I always liked the idea of the turnwheel over classic mode.
POR and Radiant Dawn are probably my favorite entries. Every time I think about replaying I remember how much time I spent trying to beat Elincia's Gambit with everyone alive and how once I lost someone to* the last enemy of the last enemy phase and had to restart.
I did a playthrough of Birthright on Phoenix mode just to try it out. Very strange
Although it got stranger when I decide to see what would happen if ALL my units died in a single turn. Turns out nothing happens. They are all just revived my next turn.
I wish they implemented the revive staff in more games
Maybe as an unlockable during classic mode runs.
This is what three houses did to it's fan base, bunch of fake Fire emblem fans. Should give Mario a jetpack because I can't reach places like everyone else
@@DuMaMayDewLay The revive staff has been in the game from literally the first entry...
@@DuMaMayDewLayHello Mr. Projection
@@DuMaMayDewLay ...They already did that in Sunshine.
Casual for me is basically my testing mode. I always start games on normal causal when a new game comes out, to see what characters I like, who are good units and how good the story is. Then I do normal classic, then hard casual to compare when liberties I have compared to normal, then hard classic once I get the hang of it. In my opinion casual is not a bad thing, it helped people who are newer fans into the series and gave them a way to test whether are not they are comfortable to do classic. Sort of like a pool has shallow end for newer and shorter swimmers, and a deep end for more advanced or taller swimmers.
As someone realtively new to the FE Series, I think casual mode is a great concept, it’s a great way to learn and understand the gameplay concepts of Fire Emblem without having the consequences of losing a unit for new players
Casual is a great addition to get people into the game! I started as a casual user when I first picked up awakening, but then have never looked back from classic mode.
I’ll never understand the people that get angry that casual mode exists in fire emblem, they are called options for a reason, and people should have the option to play the game in the mode they’d like
Probably every single game franchise of these more elaborate game genres have a portion of grumpy veterans who rage and bash new ideas, even good ones, if they change the feel that the older games had. We will always find the same thing if we look at communities of many different long running franchises. It's a ridiculous bunch, all of them.
Is it really an option when the game is clearly designed around one mode though? No one would have issues if the modern games played the same, but playthroughs have gotten excessively longer due to team building, story etc being put over combat, and casual mode explicity enables that length. Letting a unit die is much harder to justify now.
Sometimes I like the challenge of classic mode, and other times I want a somewhat more relaxed experience. Having both options doesn’t take anything away from the game.
I'd say it was a good addition to the series, even if I'd never touch it, but the games should be designed for classic mode
I think having casual mode as a option is fine. I don’t see a downside to having it.
I like that they added casual mode and made it optional. For people who are new to the series and don’t want to lose anyone they try casual once they feel confident then they can try how veterans had to do it lol
There was one question I would have asked Iwata. Why couldnt he let Nintendo bring New Mystery of the Emblem to the west back then?
bad sales of shadow dragon ds
@@xenodusk5750still… people would have bought it. I would have. This is like with Capcom not bringing us AAI2 due to poor sales of AAI1
@@DestinyZX1sales for fe were so bad, they were literally going to end the franchise if awakening didn't sell well. Localization cost money and distribution cost money. Nintendo also has a track record of being fairly conservative when it comes to decision making.
@@gameboyn64 and i feel their decision making is questionable
Real reason. Stray crits leading to angry reviews
2:37 nice smack to the bell
Agree retaining Kaga's vision of perma-death and tracking resets would be a great addon. Say an icon your game status or challenging optional chapters for extra lore you wouldnt get otherwise on casual.
i do casual because even if i still try to not get anyone killed, if someone does get killed and i don't feel like restarting i'll just move on
8:31 As a Casual-mode player who uses rewinds, I am ENTIRELY in support of giving extra rewards/incentives to Classic-mode players or players who don't use rewinds. I'd never even thought of it before, but now I absolutely want it to happen.
As someone who joined with Three Houses if I didn't have casual mode I wouldn't have enjoyed the game as much as I did even with divine pulse. Plus I mainly play games for their story. However I get people wanting to have more of a challenge and glad they give the choice.
I don't think "acknowledging players who don't use rewind" needs to be a niche thing. Fire Emblem has for a while had themes of time manipulation, it would be fun to have a game that goes all in on that and responds to your use of the rewind function in-game, not just via achievements. It'd be a perfect opportunity to throw in a callback to Awakening/Fates offspring optimisation gameplay too, which is great fun, and could be taken in a more dynamic direction in a game with time travel at its thematic core (and not necessarily have to involve 'child units' if you for example go back in time to change what a unit was trained in growing up).
As a kid I had all the time in the world to replay the maps in which I lost a unit by enemy crit in FE7.. but the rewind feature FE3H does come in handy being an adult with less time on their hands.. great video btw. I'm glad they opened up to the idea bc it helped bring in so many new fans to the series.
For rewind topic.
It s a good thing they added Rewind function. As you know in FE gameplay. The moment RNG fucks ypu up. You will lose your unit. And for those who wants deathless run they have to restart the entire chapter, which can be hassle. So rewind feature is truly a QoL nintendo brought in to save the player time from restart the samr chapter so many damn times over fricking RNG and Ambush.
Personally I think casual mode is wonderful but I really like the idea of the “being killed 5 times is ok” since it seems like an interesting middle ground between permadeath and casual mode.
I remember when casual first became a thing, I thought it would be cool to have a semi-casual mode, where units are effectively given a stock of extra lives, which is basically what that system would have been. Put something on the stats screen like "Injuries 0/5", and have it say that an injury happens when HP hits 0, and if they do reach 5 injuries, permadeath kicks in.
i dont have a problem with casual mode or milas turnwheel mechanics at all. ive been playing since the gba era, and especially with POR i would rest whole chapters just to save one character, so havin gthe option to keep permadeath or not is great.
I've been playing Fire Emblem games since Path of Radiance, and I always play on Casual Mode when it's available. I play videogames to enjoy the characters and story, and I personally would rather not feel compelled to reload my save any time I make a blunder and lose someone.
I like the fact that they added a casual mode for people who want it. I never use it, but I’m glad it’s there for other people who want it.
A rewind mechanic that corrupts your lord in the final map sounds like a really cool idea
It'd be really interesting to see a fire emblem game that offered things as a reward for picking classic or actively avoiding rewind.
Thinking back to echoes, there's a moment in Alm's route where he's offered the mila turnwheel. Maybe in the next game, when the lord is offered the rewind gimmick, you get a scene similar to the one you get when choosing to side with edelgard where the game actively warns you about there being story consequences after explaining the mechanics use. Foregoing that gimmick could reward the player with an alternate ending, if you really want to be harsh with it, or more realistically something like extra paralogues to recruit new units or a more efficient way to get weapons.
More newbies = more sales = more sequels
So what could be wrong about a newbie-friendly mechanics that's completely optional - when it helps us get more FE games?
I’m glad they implemented it. I would never have gotten into fire emblem if it wasn’t there I don’t like Perma death.
I think casual mode was a good feature to get new players into the series even if I personally never use it. The one big problem I have with it is the fact that it essentially makes it so there is no consequences for misplay. Because your characters can never really die (except the lord in most games which leads to a game over) there is no REAL punishment for bad play except not being able to use them for the rest of the map. I feel like it heavily diminishes the strategy aspect of the games and lets you play like all your units are FE11 replacement units. If I were to change anything it would be to penalize the unit that died (maybe they have to sit out the next chapter or something to recover) but still keep them alive.
Except that doesn't matter when even on Classic you can just reset, which is how I personally play.
@@TheKabuto90 i never understood that argument. resetting on classic is not the same thing as playing casual. if you play classic and you lose someone, you still have to redo the entire chapter if you choose to reset. casual has no such limitation unless the lord died
sit out the next chapter (instory to recover) and they lose any level up or items for them the chapter would reasonably do it. it would still be a punishment that can not be used freely with out cost but it would not be so long term of a punishment
The games are designed around Casual mode now, most units are an investment and losing them is just gonna force a reset on the highest difficulties. Classic exists as the secondary option for people looking for a challenge, but is no longer the primary concern of IS
Genuinely, I feel casual mode is no longer needed now that rewind is standard. With casual mode, you never learn how to play properly, but with rewind you have to learn how to make it through and figure out what the correct plays are. Rewind feels like a teaching tool whereas casual feels like permission to not learn anything...
I do feel like for recent entries, the "Classic" mode is more and more just a hind sight.
As in, the ludonarrative experience feels worse off when you play on Classic.
For example in Engage, if half my roster died on Chapter 11 I would be really happy since it make sense story wise. But in practice, Ch11 is surprisingly easy and it's just a minor test of your ability to not make mistakes. Meanwhile, you have Marth and friends be like "let's strengthen our bonds with me killing 6 of your friends!"
Same for Three Houses, the most infamous Hunting by Daybreak, is thematically just "let's go kill some bandits", but the difficulty is "hope you had a backup save otherwise your run is no more".
I would actually be okay with a x losses till you die mechanic. Dark Doety does something similar, where you do not die but permanently lose stats when your unit drops to 0.
My personal idea for the rewind mechanic is to let you use unused rewind charges for some sort of buff between missions, to reward players for not using them. Maybe you manipulate time to have your blacksmith instantly complete his forging of a rare weapon, or quickly grow stat boosting food, that sorta thing.
Much as I'm not an opponent of Casual Mode, I honestly never have played with it on; part of this is just that most of my playtime in relevant titles is in Three Houses, where you have the much more interesting turn-rewind mechanic introduced in Echoes. While Casual Mode works as a straight-up easier difficulty mode, turn-rewinds present the player with the option to trade in uses of their "safety cushion" in exchange for taking tactical risks and gambles on RNG. It also softens the danger level while still requiring the player to find tactics that do not require sacrifice plays, and still *does* come with a limit to how many times you can roll back a mistake or a high-risk move that didn't pan out.
So ironically, I feel that Intelligent Systems landed on a better *answer* to the "problem" of Fire Emblem's unforgiving permadeath difficulty mechanic after they'd already gone several games with the easy, straightforward answer. Not that I have a problem with both answers existing in the same game. So long as they continue to design the games with permadeath in mind, it's fine. Although, I do understand that some of the recent games have been troublesome for people who want to do "Ironman" runs-where you accept your losses and never reset. In my opinion, the maps should still be designed under the assumption that a player will attempt to preserve all units without using any rewinds, because the actual *design* of the games is the place where any and all problems will arise. Turn-rewinds and the option to switch off permadeath should only ever be considered optional by the developers when tuning the challenge level.
I'd love to see rewinds as a game long mechanic, you get 10 to start, and they don't reset each map. Then you can find some around as treasure on some maps, and to cap it off having enough of them at key story moments changes how things progress.
Like, if they did this in 3H then for the Scene where your dad dies if you have enough resets you can save him, but you have to have maximum attainable divine pulse uses or something.
My personal idea was to keep refilling the resource, but give it some use if you have charges left over after a battle. Like winding time forward on forging a new weapon or expanding your base, that sort of thing.
I find your idea of using it to save characters in story segments both brilliant and evil. It certainly is a much more impactful use than my idea, but it could lead to ragequits for fans of those characters when they suddenly realize they lost their chance to save them hours ago, and they never knew it.
One trick would be to start in medias res with that character's death, have some dialogue about rewinding time but the characters not knowing if they have enough power to do so. Then they try to overload the rewind power, causing it to glitch and time to rewind to the actual start of the story, when they get the rewind power. At this point, you can foreshadow that the rewind power they get is somehow weakened, because they misused it in the future.
That way, the player at least gets a warning that they should conserve the power, with a nice opportunity for story telling. The downside is, players may feel scared to use the power, removing the QoL improvement that rewinding was supposed to provide. Especially if they don't know how many charges they'll need, how many they'll collect, and how many chapters there are until the plot point happens.
So maybe something as big and mid story as Jerald's death is not the best idea, especially considering it would mean extra development work on the split story line. But perhaps reserving a golden ending for players that haven't been using the rewind willy nilly would be good. As long as the non golden ending doesn't feel like an unsatisfying game over, it can be a nice motivator for a second playthrough.
If you’ve ever played Neo TWEWY, it does something sorta interesting with the whole “rewinding time has consequences” idea. Could do something like that, except in that game rewinding time is required but here it’d lead to a different story outcome
I think the series actually benefits more from Classic mode as an option as it lets you play how you want, but also when there are more than just the permadeath aspect to to the game. Echoes SoV may not be the most beloved FE game but was all konds of dialogue for if certain character had died and ot added a lot to Classic mode, even if most of the new dialogue was sad and depressing (for instance Matilda spends the rest of the game in a fit of dispair if Clive dies) and I don't know of the other games have done something like that since, outside of a few lines or two.
I really enjoy casual. I try not to have any units die regardless, but if I just played a map for an hour and a half and a unit dies and I’m out of charges to rewind, that’s where causal comes in helping me. I don’t have the time anymore to redo maps and all of that stuff
I like and use casual mode when it's available i just like to play fire emblem to see an epic story good music and a little brain teaser with grow in the power of your units i just like to do that with out an hours worth of resetting.
The RNG. As someone who played the old FE games. It doesn't matter how good you are. How well prepared you are. One bad dice roll will ruin your entire playthrough.
i always wanted a reward for completing the game whitout rewinds, like a super op weapon or class for a next run, or something
I wish they'd start to have built-in Randomisers that way.
"You've proven mastery of the game by beating Lunatic Classic Mode? Now, go have fun, who knows, maybe you'll get 2 dancers this time~!"
Yeah I’m not touching a fire emblem game that doesn’t have a casual mode. That’s just too stressful for me and I want to actually have fun with the game I’m supposed to be having fun playing. Plus, I lose units all the time, so there’s no way I would ever make it past like the first 5 chapters.
I love casual mode, not because I personally use it, I like me some classic permadeath, but because it got one of my friends to play it and fall in love with the series! It may be a less fulfilling experience for me, but for others it's a way to enjoy the games, and for opening the series up to more players, I love its inclusion.
I haven’t watched the whole video through, but I just wanted to say that I mainly play Casual because every time I play Classic I always end up resetting multiple times to have a deathless run (and often overleveling my units and taking the fun out of it). I guess I’m just a perfectionist and want a full roster, even if I don’t use everyone. It’s a bit illogical but that’s just what my brain makes me do.
I've played both older FE's with forced permadeath and more recent entries with a 'Casual' option, and I can honestly see why they chose to finally add it. Basically, there are two kinds of FE-players - the ones who play it straight, accepting losses as they go, enjoying the tension of potentially losing beloved characters to an unlucky crit. Same kind of audience who adore Ironman-mode in things like XCOM. The second kind... *don't.* If they lose a unit, they'll restart the chapter or reload a save to avoid it - or use savestates if playing on emulator. Maybe they're perfectionists who just can't stand the idea of accepting such a setback, maybe they just love all the units too much to be willing to lose any of them, or maybe they just *don't like permadeath.* They aren't playing Fire Emblem *for* that tension, they're playing it *in spite* of it. Casual Mode just lets them do what they were always *going* to do, with less frustration and time wasted.
The addition of rewind-mechanics *does* muddle things a bit, though. I used to prefer Casual, for a more easygoing experience, but since rewind was added, I've actually come to enjoy Classic more in combination - rewinding gives you some leeway, letting you sidestep the prospect of losing units to just getting screwed over by the RNG, or from a momentary lapse in concentration. But at the same time, it isn't an infinite resource, letting you feel the tension slowly rack up as you use rewind-charges to extricate yourself from troublesome situations, potentially wasting some of them by not going far enough back, or initially failing to alter the timeline sufficiently...
It's me. I'm the second guy.
I think a "Unit has to die a certain number of times before they're actually dead" mode could be interesting. It could be in-between Classic and Casual, and so it isn't something crazy a unit could only have to hit 0 HP twice before staying dead. The first time it happens they just comeback in the next map like Casual, but then the 2nd time it happens they stay dead like in Classic, call it 2nd Chance or something
I think the mode is fine. As long as it is separate from classic, then it is perfect. If nintendo ever implements an "achievement" system like microsoft or sony have, then I think "no resets, classic, hard mode" should be one of the things to shoot for. That way it is optional, but a reward for doing it(or you could go unlocks route like re4 remake did with the cat ears)
The first FE game I ever played was Sacred Stones when I was like 10 or so (got it free with my 3DS because of the ambassador program) I remember when Awakening came out, I first played it on casual mode since it, unlike Sacred Stones, had the option. I found it to be very fun (albeit easier) fire emblem experience compared to what I was used to with Sacred Stones. While that was the only time I’ve ever played casual mode in a FE game, I do think it’s an extremely valuable aspect to the series now. So many people have given this amazing series a chance because of it. I just hope that they eventually replay the game on classic or even give the older games a chance!
if only the damn company would even LET people go back to the older games, you cant buy new gameboys or cubes or wii's to play like half the series let alone the SNES or whatever fe4 and older were on, but the first 3 have remakes at least so... I guess we're getting somewhere? They really should just have a huge bundled port of all the GBA games if nothing else by now, its kinda sad to see stuff relegated to being locked behind a higher tier subscription service
"We want Engage to appeal to a 'younger audience' so they can get into the series."
Okay, so how are the previous titles being provided?
"Next question."
@@AkameGaKillfan777literally persona fans complained about engage not being persona like from three houses
@@therealjaystone2344 Did you mean to make this reply somewhere else?
@@therealjaystone2344Maybe because Three Houses was a great step forward for the series and instead of improving 3 Houses’ flaws, they just threw it all out and regressed back to Fates
It sounds like you want something like Steam achievements which I like. I can see achievements being given for not restarting a map in a playthrough or completing maddening on classic mode.
i play casual mode since awakening and cant say i regret it. i like the games but im not really a master strategist and im not a fan of resetting the game when someone dies. and i definitely wont continue when a character dies so i might as well play on casual. ive had a pretty hard time going through path of radiance back then and i dont feel like repeating that experience
I’ve done both, but i vastly prefer casual since it’s more of a time save. Otherwise I have to reset or turn wheel. That said, it’s not as bad in games with the latter.
The five times before death rule kinda sounds like Hubert armor.
I think the turn wheel mechanic and limiting its uses per map based on difficulty setting is the best accessibility option for both "vets" and new players. It makes sense as a timesaver since if people really don't want to lose a unit they'll reset the map anyways and the turn wheel just saves time from bad luck, unfair enemy ambushes, or just a misplay. In the end it allows people to correct mistakes without needing to restart the whole map and it still requires you to play and position your units strategically since you can't just run a party of unga bunga rambo units and just hope things work out.
While more accessibility is great I think the problem with casual mode is that it pretty much fundamentally changes how the game plays different from other SRPGS. In other SRPGs where permadeath is not a thing, one of the most powerful and busted techniques to use is the ability to sac a unit to bait enemies. Throw a character you don't care about into a mob of enemies that will aggro them and then be in range to get destroyed by your army the next turn. This is a strategy that doesn't work nearly as well when your characters die permanently. Why wouldn't you just sac units at every opportunity to put yourself in a more favourable position? There's no consequence or loss to it the units come back next map anyways.
Very interesting video Ghast, thanks
While I always play classic myself, I do like that casual mode exists in the 3DS era. However, I dislike that the Switch games (Three Houses especially) were seemingly made with only casual/turnwheel in mind. People often say "there's no downside of casual mode existing", but it's really apparent that the Three Houses Classic/Ironman experience really suffered from the fact that casual mode now exists and is a mainstay.
i've been playing fire emblem games since like 2007 and i've played them all multiple times. sorry, i know i'm a filthy casual, but i like casual mode. i'm bad at strategy, i'm generally a dumbass that sucks at planning moves in advance BUT i also want everyone to survive - casual mode makes them a lot less stressful for me
i'm also so casual i can't spell. i'm sorry!! it's midnight and i'm sitting in a dark room
When played Fire Emblem for the first time (Awakening btw) I tried casual mode then classic and never looked back. When I was just getting into the series I didn’t know difficult or not it was going to be before I played it.
I used Casual when I started three houses. I liked the thought of not losing my units permanently, but with Rewind I'm not sure Casual is necessary anymore.
It not going anywhere
@@mikethepokemaster2012 if I play on Hard I probably turn on casual😅
I play casual mode and enjoy the story, the character-driven narrative and my role in the plot. I'm into FE for much more than a challenging combat. Some characters from Three Houses, for example, have so many layers to their personalities, are so well written, and I wish to see their stories from as many perspectives as possible. No way I'd let classic mode ruin that experience. However I think it's good it's there. It makes me feel curious about it, and maybe sometime I'll try it just to experiment a bit, but not as the core of my countless playthroughs.
I've only ever played classic mode in Awakening and I can assure you that I feel tension in casual mode. Even if you don't have to worry about the character being permanently gone, losing a key character in a map can be pretty rough. Both have a role, but given that a lot of people (myself included) tended to reset entire maps when characters died, I'd call casual mode a good move. Plus, characters fall behind if they get killed in Casual mode, so dying is still not ideal
If Frederick dies on any early game map above Normal difficulty, you've probably already lost :/
Not everyone wants to reset because an enemy merc just so happened to proc a crit when it was a 5% chance. Simple as that.
People care way too much about how others enjoy things.
sora8711 is a perfect example of this
@@AkameGaKillfan777 rent free
@@sora8711 Who are you again?
@@AkameGaKillfan777 The guy you brought up *by name* to a random comment.
Rent free.
@@sora8711 Sorry, I forgot you don't live here lol
Unlocking supports would definitely be harder on permadeath.
I remember playing Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn and saw one of the characters die and I was so sad that I couldn't play the game anymore, so I'm grateful they added casual mode
(I’m new in the FE games) I know classic mode is the real way to play it, but I just don’t like or can’t bear to see my units die forever just because a mistake I made, whenever this happened I always restarted because I wanted to see how they develop later. Although maybe I will try a permadeath play through even if I don’t like it. Really good video
I've played casual mode in every game its available in (2 of them being the warrior spinoffs) and I've rarely needed it if im being honest? Granted I usually play on normal but I've rarely lost a unit and even more rarely kept them lost (in games with rewind).
So I guess its unesasairy with rewind but its nice to not miss out on a charcter due to bad rng.
Nice video. To me, when i play Fire Emblem, I would like to keep everyone alive regardless of difficulty or mode.
As someone who is relatively new to the series (never finished FE7, my “first” fire emblem), then came back with 3 Houses I really appreciate casual mode. For me, I want to experience the characters fully while also having a slight buffer in learning gameplay mechanics. Once that part is satisfied I can switch to classic and feel even worse when characters I’ve grown attached to fall in battle. For me it makes permadeath a much more costly penalty than it would otherwise be. I imagine if casual didn’t exist I would just do the easiest difficulty to experience the characters and then move up.
Maybe make the characters not die right away but more so “fallen” and you have to use a turn to get the person up before the opponent finishes them and permanently die.
i was thinking something like a safety net. if a unit is defeated in battle, they retreat, but are marked as wounded. if a wounded unit is defeated, then they die for good
@@Underworlder5something like that would be a neat middleground option honestly, with also a minor stat penalty on wounded units.
However an actual Casual mode isn't looking for a middle ground in implementation. But rather a way where the game has no stakes and is easily clearable on any difficulty.
In Shining Force, the unit dies and vanishes from the battlefield, but can be revived normally and easily outside the battle by going to a church and asking. In Front Mission, the unit (robot) is destroyed and the pilot escapes, but when the battle is over there's a money penalty for that loss, expressed as "costs to repair the destroyed robot". In Final Fantasy Tactics, the unit dies and gets in a temporary "fallen" state for 3 "turns" where he still can be revived, and only after that point he vanishes and is lost forever.
I play casual, but still trying to keep all alive. It is more like a safety net if someone dies at the end of a battle, which was no fun or very long. Just to prevent to play that battle again. It just takes the preasure away which makes me play more relaxed.
Best one is that they keep you having the option and not force you to play in one of the mode.
I wonder what percentage of players use Casual mode. If you asked on an FE forum or video like this, you'd likely get a very low number of people who say they do because they're more into the series overall and likely more hardcore with it. I wouldn't be surprised if 25% or more of players who have finished at least one game play Casual.
That's a poll I think Nintendo should do for their next Dream Magazine issue on Fire Emblem.
The thing that interested me was that IS considered permadeath(PD) as part of Fire Emblem’s appeal. As a person coming from a non FE to casual FE fan I considered it of 2 greatest detriments to growth and success, the other was IS Systems themselves. Part of the reason I never looked into FE before casual was because of PD, the other was it’s spotty overseas venture. I always thought FE core was 1. It’s gameplay and 2. It’s story. It’s kinda enlightening that Kaga agreed with that sentiment all the way back to FE5 and shows how far behind IS was with FE roots and why it was kinda mediocre franchise. It also explains why IS had to go back to Kaga to basically reboot the franchise. It to Koei 1 mixed bag and ambitious attempt to do the same thing IS took 7 games to do all it took was FE nearly getting cancelled.
Just wanna say, I've been playing through Conquest Lunatic mode and damn, does this mode make Permadeath shine as an option. I have gotten so many in my army killed along the way, but I'm still trucking on through. If someone important like Azura dies I'll reset, but having that option to just keep trucking on just feels really good for some reason.
I'm looking to create an FE-like myself. And given how devisive Casual/Phoenix/Turn-wheel modes are, I want to implement a new system called the "Infirmary" system in my game.
Basically, what is does is this:
Whenever a Unit's HP would hit 0, they are then sent to the infirmary. They will be out of the battle for the rest of the Chapter, and the next Story Chapter. I genuinely think that this would fix 2 things. This would make it so that you are Punished for making delibrately bad moves, by sealing off any XP your Unit would could gain in those chapters that they are absent in, while simultaneously not being so brutally unfair because of some unforseen elements like reinforcemnts showing up in inconvenient spots for new players, or just general bad luck on an enemy crit-ing your prized units. Maybe to have it more fleshed out, it could be a good time to strengthen supports as well as other things.
That's my hypothetical solution to this problem.
I never played casual before my second playthrough of Engage. But maybe I should have. Was resetting my way through Awakening and Fates a good use of my time? Eh, idk. I do love the rewind systems though. Not having a low chance crit be a reset was a nice change imo.
Edit: No wait I totally did 3H Maddening NG on casual for the gold rays or whatever.
With Casual mode being entirely optional, there's absolutely no negatives to having it in modern games. With the additions of rewinds, the need for a separate Casual/Classic seems redundant to some, but there are people out there who make strategies out of the flexibility of Casual modes and others that want to be able to beat the games without the rewinds. The very first game I played was FE7 and I can't remember the times I restarted the chapters in order to keep everyone alive; but even with the option, I still don't play in Casual mode, because I sometimes think that losing a unit can make for an interesting run (like in Fates where the royals are extremely good).
New Mystery of the Emblem on the Nintendo DS was the first game to have Casual Mode. But that game was only released in Japan. So non-Japanese players associate it being introduced in Awakening.
While I get why casual mode exists I feel like it and the turnwheel have hurt the games because the developers have started designing the games around them instead of the classic experience. I’d honestly love it if they took them away for 1 game to try and get all these new fans who never played without them to see what FE can be at its best. Many people say they won’t play the old games without these features because it sounds too challenging. If u actually play FE1 for example though it’s constantly throwing units at u. There is no way anyone should ever get stuck because of a lack of characters. Anyway that’s my old man yells at cloud rant for the day.
The problem is that most of the people who like casual mode don't want to play a game that is just a png with stats. If you look at the criticism for engage, 90% of it was criticizing the story and characters because for many that has become as important if not more important than gameplay.
People who use save states emulating the older games have no right to say Casual mode or rewinding shouldn't exist
i think in between manic could be good, like a unit could live or die after being defeated by percent and maybe influenced how high and low it is.
like a killing blow that does a lot of damage will increase chance of death or a crit kill will be guaranteed but a light power kill will likely not be a perama death, maybe chances of dying increase if unit gets defeated often
If they would introduce that I would connect the chance to the "overkill". E.G. 20HP unit get a critical hit which deals 21 is only -1hp which has a low chance of permadeath, while a unit having 1hp left get a normal hit auf 15 damage ends at -14HP which might end up in permadeath more likely.
But I dont want to have that mechanic at all. ;)
Casual Mode is great for your first bout, and many people (myself included) never played a Fire Emblem when Awakening released so it was very needed. Although admittedly I was always resetting so I could get more EXP on certain units so that’s why I transitioned to Classic lol.
I have a really hot take on casual mode that I lose Reddit karma for if I ever try to mention, but I'm curious what people in these comments think since rewinds were mentioned in the vid as well: Casual mode at a baseline is actually more punishing than using rewind mechanics on Classic.
Rationale here is that at least in Casual mode without rewinds, a dead unit can't get exp for the rest of the map and may struggle to keep up in future maps. Meanwhile, you have to really mess up several times to lose a unit with rewinds, so the end result of a completed map is almost always every character the player cares about having been alive the whole time. Even a little punishment is more than zero.
Absolutely true. This is a good take and I agree. If I had to get rid of one of the functions, I'd get rid of rewind over Casual every time. Casual uses a very different strategy of play and you have to account for things like the exp loss for the character if you're going to do any gambits with them. Rewind, especially when they give you like nine of them, does not, and makes the maps feel less fulfilling in my experience.
I'd get rid of Casual instead, but low % criticals too
And they were right to downvote you, you are completely wrong and have it backwards lmao. To say casual is more punishing then rewinding is laughable, you aren't gonna let your characters die to a random generic unless you really suck ass at the game, but what casual let's you get away with is anything remotely difficult becomes a how many bodies can I throw at this boss until it dies plan. At least with rewinds if you throw a unit at a boss and they kill a unit, you need to live with that or rewind and think of a new plan. Bad position and your flier got shot down? Who cares next chapter. Whereas a rewind will have you change up your turn and strategy to not push the flier out of position.
I like casual cause I want to get all the character interactions, story and I dont want to just play easy mode.
I enjoy normal/hard mode on casual.
Classic isnt always for everybody I like the choice option.
I was most grateful for the idea of casual mode in recent FE games because I’m more into wanting to experience the story than having to constantly worry about losing units, which I’m aware FE has always been focused more on strategy. But I still feel the dire situation of making sure I don’t lose so many in a map in casual mode because I want to be sure I have the units to complete the map before the enemy eventually kills off every one, resulting in a game over (I had that near experience in Fates and 3H Cinder Shadows DLC at least once) 😅
I don’t mind classic mode for what I’ve experienced with Shadow Dragon (DS), it’s still my favorite game, alongside Sacred Stones, but at times like those games I fail to get through without having to reset my game to save my favorite unit lol
the best way to make casual mode work is to add a punishment of losing all gained xp for the unit, for the current chapter + they have to recover during the next chapter sitting out entirely so sacrificing comes at a cost and adding it at the end once the game was entirely designed around perma death so the FE expierence is not affected by broadening the game ofr newer players
Even though I always play on Casual I usually end up resetting/rewinding when a character dies anyway. I can't get away from that feeling that I have to do it deathless, even though that makes it more stressful. Stressful enough that in the case of a game like Engage where I think it's merely decent, I don't end up finishing the game.
I will often play awakening and fates on casual mode so i can afk grind supports but i will still reset if a character dies in a real chapter
What i found by using Casual Mode is if you play a harder game, like Conquest, Casual Mode makes it easier for you to spread your EXP and Levels too thin among your units. They cant keep up with the harder enemies and maps later in the game. My first playthrough of Conquest when I still used Casual Mode, I could not beat the final map and had to resort to Phoenix Mode to just beat the game after trying for a Year and not willing to replay the entire game. I can understand for accessibility reasons, but it can also lead the player astray to an even worse experience.
I will say, my first FE game was Awakening, I initially got the demo off e-shop, then got the full game later, and for me personally, if Casual Mode didn't exist I would not have gotten the full game or any of the future games, because Classic mode is too stressful for me, I don't like the idea of permanently losing characters outside of scripted story events. I'm glad that Classic is still an option for people who like it, but that play style is not for me.
(Then there's Phoenix mode in Fates, which I only used when wanting to do dumb class builds, where having units come back the next turn just saved me some grinding)