Solution to permadeath is not rewind/reset

i heard he took a quote from one of his testers and used it as a line in his postgame.
we should find this guy and fire missiles at his house

3 Likes

Every SaintRubenio has a SaintRubenio detector hidden in their beard. It’s one of our many super powers.

He’s just jealous of Bone’s friend shape, because he’s only villain shaped.

7 Likes

Have you ever seen that scene in a movie where the hero is extremely outnumbered, but then the bad guys all bugger off once the main villain is killed or the hero gets strong enough or some chosen one magic prophecy happens? It’s pretty cool.

All the hundreds of enemies too far away from your doods to hit them, and all the hundreds of enemies unable to hit your doods because there are hundreds of doods in the way, are just set dressing, dood. And when they run away it creates emotions.

You already know the answer to this gotcha.

Stories of nobles overthrowing evil are better when they bother to say “Life sucks for the commoner under the evil empire and would be better if the hero took over”.

Engage isn’t a story or setting or video game, it’s a Product™ under hypercapitalism before it is anything else.

I wouldn’t bring up Twilight, a poorly written romance story, as an example of why romance stories shouldn’t bother to flesh out their characters. That’s what you’re doing when you bring up Engage as an example of why we shouldn’t bother to flesh out non-noble characters or talk about non-noble life.

Well, that part was more of a general reply to everyone in this thread. I already knew he made the game. I just wanted to bring it up because I felt it was an interesting way to deal with mandatory character death, even if it ultimately fades into vanilla-ness. But French Vanilla is still tasty, right?

Since you are incapable of taking context of the very post you quote, let me spell it out for you.

I’m not bringing Engage as the means to say “You shouldn’t flesh out class conflicts in your game”. I’m bringing Engage as the means to say “There is a setting and an atmosphere for everything, including class conflict. You can’t drop that raw.”

It’s not a “Twilight is bad, this is why shouldn’t have romance.”, its a “I don’t think you should make all of Inazuma Eleven about how Mark Evans gets a partner”.

Additionally, this “I brought Engage up”

is a ‘hey, I’m trying to make sure you get that I meant this right here to why you can’t always do what you want to do’. You didn’t get it, so I underlined it again. You still didn’t get it, so get off. It’s not a “gotcha.”

→ they are too far away
→ not a threat
→ only occupy map space

Emotions aren’t created by simply following templates, by writing in an artificially formulaic manner, dude.

You are excusing awful design behind “but the plot would be cool with this way”.

2 Likes

There certainly was no reason to “fix” what wasn’t broken.

Me when I don’t like a thing so I write it off as inherently bad and cynical.

If you read or watched interviews you’d know that the writers did want to make something good they just failed this is fine it happens sometimes.

If Engage was really like what you describe it wouldn’t have had the game design it did it’d be aping awakening/fates or three houses design not experimenting with new concepts and world, it would copy paste Three houses gameplay but with missing features and have uninspired map design [like recent pokemon games] and call it a day, Engage has many maps that are thoughtfully designed and unique, such as the escape map after losing the emblems, or the desert map, or the map where you need to pick up the emblems, or the final map all of these maps have unique objectives or introduce a new mechanic to the game or series.

And as for the story it tried, it didn’t succeed but it tried, I can tell what they where going for and the ideas present aren’t bad it just needed like 3 more drafts [at least].

3 Likes

I think Fire Emblem should bring back the Staff that revives dead units that doesn’t have a consistent name™️
(AKA, Valkyrie, Aum, Bifrost)

Just have a unit reach S rank in Staves, and you can then just use the staff to revive others. Simple! Though, I think Revival Springs from Echoes are also a good implementation.

In short, i just think that having a limited resource that can revive dead units is good for the permadeath aspect of Fire Emblem.

10 Likes

As long as it’s actually available for most of the game :yum:. Making it purchaseable in stores would be a bit much, but like having it on an early unit with 5-10 uses would help immensely.

Just something to fall back on in case you screw up. I can’t stand the stress that comes with late-chapter play where you’re nervous about a unit falling in battle.

4 Likes

Honestly, I love Jason’s morale idea. Battle Brothers has an extremely similar system which works extremely well, although it is helped by the existence of opportunity attacks and the fact that the game basically requires stealing enemy gear to survive higher difficulties. The idea of a massive enemy army, most of which you don’t have to fight, sounds a lot like Radiant Dawn 3-E, which is one of the most epic Fire Emblem chapters ever, in my opinion. It definitely has a ton of unique possibilities.

Eh, the problem ia “morale” as a mechanic doesn’t work when/if you hit the “we’re losing/are depressed” point of a story.

Like if the story has your protagonist and main supporting cast all downtrodden and running away from a major defeat, but your morale is still maxed out so once the battle starts everyone is all upbeat and hopeful then instantly back to depressed after the map ends.

Now to be back on topic. I don’t think there is a good fix for permadeath due largely to the fact that some people just don’t like their characters dying on any level.

My personal ideal would be akin to a medic tent, basically any character defeated in battle is only unusable for like 2-3 maps then comes back now having missed those maps and all the associated EXP and Support points.

5 Likes

Honestly, I would prevent the key characters from dying but instead, having injuries that would impact the gameplay. This way, no reset are needed while the ressource aren’t all lost because of it ; just an impact on the character like the portrait, stats or even inventory slots…

Each playthrough would be different this way. I could definitely see some things changing depending on a few parameters as well…

And for some that could die after being injured, I would have an unique replacement for them who can only be injured afterwards to prevent some hard situations (or maybe allowing generics afterwards like Shadow Dragon? Though I don’t like it too much imo)

They would inherit some elements from the previous character (thought of Tactics Ogre’s system)

And in harder difficulties, I would change the system to be more restrictive and less forgiveable.

Always have the ideas but never the way of implementing them!

That would honestly create a lot more work then is realised.

Like, just from a logistical standpoint implementing such a system would either, a: be stripped down to minimize potential bricking of things, or b: be so rough that certain injuries could render a play through impossible due to the severity of the penalties of the injury.

I mean, think about it like this. An archer loses an eye, what is this injury penalty? Is it -4 skill (semi pointless) or -50% to all hit chance (unit becomes unusable)?

A unit loses a leg, is it -speed or -move?
A mage/healer gets their vocal chords scorched, are they hit with a permanent silence or are they just unable to build supports.

That’s how easily an injury system can completely break something.

I think that it’s definitely possible to make it worthwhile without having a negative impact on anything.

Like every system, it just need to have a purpose to justify its existence.

Lately, I’ve played Wildermyth that was a wonderful indie game that had a system like that and retirement as well.

It’s different but I feel like we can have some great experience as long as it’s integrated correctly.

That’s the operative word though “correctly”.

Also with fire emblems focus on characters causes permanent injuries and retirement to be at odds with the narrative.

Which would mean that certain characters are “immune” to injuries or can’t be retired no matter how many injuries they collect.

This type of system could also just turn into a Darkest Dungeon scenario where too many negative effects stacking cripples a character who you can’t afford to replace due to how heavily they’ve been invested in.

On a slight side tangent, it wouldn’t be wise to bring comparisons to indie titles due to the fact that indie titles are usually free to try out experimental ideas more freely due to the lower scale of risk involved.

It’s not really fair to judge a corporation for not using ideas that sprout from the indie scene just because the indie games have some interesting ideas that the game was balanced around and written with in mind.

Final Note: please be aware this is not me trying to go “stop picking on the major corporate entity” and more me saying “please understand that the level of risk, work, and story development that such a system would entail may not be financially acceptable for a large corporation to accept lightly” . and also sorry for the wall of text here.

How can you tell that I’m judging a corporation? It’s not the case at all, I was just including one of my thought if I needed to find a solution to it like the subject has asked us.

There are many ways to include a system even if there are some limits, I don’t feel like it’s an issue. It’s not even the fact of being a corporation or not, it’s just a matter of having the vision that can implements it in the best way possible and if it is worthwhile to do so.

Of course that Indie are going to experience more to stand up from the rest but corporation can do that as well, Zelda Tears of the Kingdoms or Fire Emblem Three Houses are both recent examples of such things.

I think an injury system doesn’t mean there won’t be any balance neither the death replacement.

In the end, it’s up to the team to do what’s needed. You just need to find the ressource.

It requires a lot of changes but let’s be honest, that’s the case in most games nowadays.

Though you can have your vision, I don’t share yours and it’s okay :slight_smile:

Well, “judge” was the only word that fit what I was trying to say there.

It was more ment to refer to the risk averse nature of game development of today since a large company does need to try to ensure some kind of return on investment whereas many in the indie scene just want to make their game to the best of their abilities profitability be damned.

Likely fire emblem wouldn’t use an injury system simply because they already did the whole phoenix mode thing, at least casual still made you lose the unit for the rest of the map.

Personally I’m just not fond of Fire Emblem explicitly having this system since it can massively overcomplicate designing a single character due to how many variations would have to exist to represent the injury system variants and theif combinations.

The risk is greater for huge companies than Indies in some ways but I feel like keeping in touch with the fans reduces it greatly, imo.

When I was speaking of the injury system, I was also thinking about the capture/fatigue mechanic that has returned once in Fates in minor forms.

Maybe they’re going to try it once or not but if I had the skill to make a game (which I may try once) I would definitely keep in mind the injury system to add some kind of drama but not going too far in it as well.

Anyway, I’m quite curious to see the next entry for Fire Emblem and see what they’re going to include next.

As for Casual/Phoenix that evolves by including the Turnwheel, it’s indeed a system to remedy the harshness of the classic system so maybe they could improve the difficulty for veterans as well?

Instead of doing a ironman run ; by adding it into some optional mechanism or by having a base data like Shadow Dragon add to have multiple playthroughs :slight_smile:

Well, there is a game that can give you an idea of why i know implementing injuries into Fire Emblem could very easily go wrong.

Mordheim: City of the Damned, ironically a tactics based game just not on a grid. And using warhammer as a backdrop (not space marines, thats a different game) where ironmanning is quite literally the only way to play.

Injuries are a penalty system in that game and can only be gotten if a unit is incapacitated in a stage, and what it is is only revealed after a map.

These penalties range from a missing eye (-25% to hit), to missing a leg (-15meters of movement), to losing an arm (can’t use a shield bit gains dodge to compensate, to just flat out spontaneously dying.

It’s brutal, sometimes unfair and you will have to live with a unit getting wounded from time to time.

permadeath rules, chief

no solution needed

4 Likes