Final Smash Presentation Discussion

[PrinceOfKoopas]

My bad lol I just never saw him coming

Don't do it again.

 

[DarkGold777]

Woaaah, I was not expecting that much backlash on what I thought was a pretty reasonable post. I don't like Corrin, nor the series he comes from and I think he was a really bad choice, so I'm not buying him. I figured more people would feel the same but I guess people will play anything lol

My bad lol I just never saw him coming

The thing is, you said Corrin was the worst possible choice overall and you hope Nintendo realizes it was a bad move like those were facts or unanimous, opinions without acknowledging them as your trivial opinions. When you state a negative opinion like it's the truth, it tends to tick off folks.

"Corrin was a bad choice for Smash because..."

"I think Corrin was a bad choice for Smash because..."

Doesn't the bottom remark sound less harsh on opposing yet trivial opinions than the top one? Unfortunately, your post was more like the top remark, and thus cue backlash.

Speaking of backlash...

I don't like Corrin, nor the series he comes from and I think he was a really bad choice, so I'm not buying him. I figured more people would feel the same but I guess people will play anything lol

That is a blatantly elitist remark you just made. "People will play anything lol" because folks defended Fire Emblem and don't mind Corrin? I understand if you don't really like the series or the character, that's your opinion, but to make such a remark is an unreasonable, big spit in the face to all FE fans (including myself), all because the games do not interest you. And that's not a trivial opinion about the remark.

Didn't expect backlash? Expect it now.

 

[ShinyGirafarig]

I buy characters even if I don't care to use them for my guests who may potentially want to play as them. I don't buy Mii costumes though.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

Didn't expect backlash? Expect it now.

Lol, oof, I'm not even that blunt sometimes. And apparently I'm notoriously known to be an *** (couldn't possibly care less if I tried). You're right though in your statements. I've just decided to refrain from replying to emotionally driven arguments.

 

[Pivi]

"Corrin was a bad choice for Smash because..."

"I think Corrin was a bad choice for Smash because..."

Doesn't the bottom remark sound less harsh on opposing yet trivial opinions than the top one? Unfortunately, your post was more like the top remark, and thus cue backlash.

Well, I apologize that my tone was misread, I think Corrin is a bad choice, I think he's the worst pick because there were droves of better ones in my opinion, and that is why I will not buy him. You can do whatever you want with your cash lol

That is a blatantly elitist remark you just made. "People will play anything lol" because folks defended Fire Emblem and don't mind Corrin? I understand if you don't really like the series or the character, that's your opinion, but to make such a remark is an unreasonable, big spit in the face to all FE fans (including myself), all because the games do not interest you. And that's not a trivial opinion about the remark.

Ehhhhhhhhh there's a big difference between saying Corrin's a bad pick and saying FE fans are idiots with too much money, which is what you're making it seem like i said

But, I'll concede, sorry if you took offense.[/QUOTE]

 

[DarkGold777]

@Pivi You said "people will play anything". It easily looks like you're talking about FE games, with how you stated you didn't like the series he came from in the same paragraph, and when talking characters, people usually say "play with/as (blank)" instead of just "play (blank)". Plus, if you talked about only Corrin specifically, that's still elitist-sounding against folks who indeed like Corrin (again, I'm one of them, as I mentioned before, I believe). I'm not making it look like what it already does.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

No what you said is "people will play anything". Which roughly translates to "even idiots enjoy games, even if they're terrible". You can see how that can be interpreted as being an "elitist" statement right? You come off as if your opinion on the game is law and anyone who enjoys it is inferior to you.

That is likely not what you are meaning to portray, but that's definitely what it came off as.

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

About the hardcore fans point, I can see both sides of that issue somewhat. I think some hardcore fans feel that by appealing to more causal audiences that there is a risk of the franchise becoming more and more casual or easy over time in order to stay profitable and keep the new players coming back. Now those fears could be unfounded, IS has somewhat tried to address this with the 3 versions of the game. I'm just not sure how I feel about the harder route being linked to specific games.

In a way this reminds me of the whole Casual/Hardcore debate that occasionally still goes on when discussing the original Wii. I know people who still feel that the Wii was profitable but ultimately failed because Nintendo didn't seem to retain all of the new players the system attracted. Though I blame part of that to mobile game market explosion that made phones the equivalent of a handheld for a lot of people. I suppose the true test will be if FE went back to more punishing or difficult games would those who came in on Awakening or Fates stay.

My stance: Everything, and I mean everything requires fresh blood to sustain itself. Otherwise, your audience is going to leave one by one until therer's no one left, or your audience will grow old and die. If your product cannot be profitable appealing only to the hardcore, then you have to decide on one of two things: Either you stick with your guns and let the product become a niche and then die (usually taking your company out with it--look at companies like Oldsmobile or Image Epoch for examples), or you decide that this hardcore audience is not worth your time and appeal to a newer, hopefully larger market (which is how businersses like Pepsi-Cola and Blizzard have lasted so long).

Change is necessary for anything intended to make money over a long period of time. It's been mentioned here in this very thread: If you're in business, you adapt or die. Personally, I don't see anything to fear with the Fire Emblem series undergoing a change in its difficulty if it means staying alive as an IP, but then again, I've never played a Fire Emblem game. All I see is a fear of change.

 

[BlackZero]

You keep saying that only anti FE fans are saying these things and that is clearly not the case. Unsurprisingly like fans of anything, people are simply going to have different opinions on these things.

Of course there are going to be different opinions. I am responding to a specific criticism that justifies itself on gameplay mechanics and design, when the people who make that criticism also rant about how much they hate the new FE games. I'm not ignoring other people's perspectives or saying this all comes down to one thing, I'm responding to a specific point: people who make up reasons why Corrin is a bad character when they show rather clearly that they just don't care for the new games. My point is and has always been, if you (the generic "you," not you personally) don't like something that's fine. Just acknowledge that you don't like something. Don't justify your opinion for not liking something based on arbitrary game development standards.

People who criticize Corrin because (s)he is not a well-done character is not the crowd I'm talking to. I'm not really addressing general complaints about another FE character either, even though I really don't understand it for reasons already mentioned. Rather, I'm specifically addressing people who quite clearly don't like the new games and are upset because their dislike for FE:A and Fates is carrying over to FE characters in SSB.

This is a digression and is probably not your intention but that statement reeks of 'True Fan' arguments.

That's my exact thoughts on the original "long time fan" statements: people trying to validate their opinions by attaching longevity to them. I reminded these people (not you specifically) that, unless they've played some of the Japan-only games, their own tenure a as a fan is comparatively short in the context of the entire series. It's a bit like fans mounting a true fan high horse because they've been a "long-time" Pokémon fan since Diamond/Pearl. They aren't technically wrong, but they've also missed a good chunk of the series.

Even if someone only had access to games that were released in their country, why would they still not be counted as a long term fan? What if they don't have access to the systems some of the other games are on, are they not a real fan? What arbitrary number of games in a franchise does someone have to play in order for their opinion on a feature to matter?

I could easily turn this around and say at what point can someone validate their opinion with the long term/true fan argument? The length of time they've been a fan makes no difference, as I believe people should take each game for what it is. So the true fan argument means absolutely nothing to me in terms of game reviews. It just tells me a player is imposing their own idea of what a game should be instead of seeing that game for what it is. It's one thing to say "if you like X, you'll like Y." It's something else to say "X isn't Y, therefore it sucks." I WILL make a point to humbly remind someone they've missed out on half the series if they throw True Fan statements into the discussion if they've only played the NA releases. What can I say? It's one of my guilty pleasures.

On a personal note, I don't see it as "true fans" and "other fans." It's a continuum, from people who like a few of the games going all the way to cos-players, re-enactors, and super obsessive fans who live and breathe the series. It takes all sorts. For me, all I care about in a "valid opinion" is that someone took an honest look at the game and based their opinion on what it is. This will differ from person to person, which is fine. I'm not impressed by people saying "I played Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi so I know what I'm talking about!"

I will repsond to your earlier comment later, don't view this are me arguing with you or trying to change your mind though. I like discussing these types of things with people and can get long winded in my replys. If all else fails we can settle it in Smash! 1v1 me, 3 stocks, no items on final destination. :)

I enjoy these discussion too. It's good to expose yourself to different points of view. I'd rather have a friendly debate with someone than live in an echo chamber where all I hear are thoughts I agree with. As I always say, "all thoughts are worth hearing; whether they're worth listening to is up to you."

About the hardcore fans point, I can see both sides of that issue somewhat. I think some hardcore fans feel that by appealing to more causal audiences that there is a risk of the franchise becoming more and more casual or easy over time in order to stay profitable and keep the new players coming back. Now those fears could be unfounded, IS has somewhat tried to address this with the 3 versions of the game. I'm just not sure how I feel about the harder route being linked to specific games.

In a way this reminds me of the whole Casual/Hardcore debate that occasionally still goes on when discussing the original Wii. I know people who still feel that the Wii was profitable but ultimately failed because Nintendo didn't seem to retain all of the new players the system attracted. Though I blame part of that to mobile game market explosion that made phones the equivalent of a handheld for a lot of people. I suppose the true test will be if FE went back to more punishing or difficult games would those who came in on Awakening or Fates stay.

I hate to make a "back in my day," statement, but I think the whole hardcore gamer thing stemmed from an older generation of gamers who bought games without the benefit of LPs and You-Tube reviews. The only way to find out that Battletoads was a cold mistress was to spend $50 on it. If you got a game, you learned to play it no matter how brutal it was without any video walkthroughs or GameFAQs guides. My half-joke/half-serious theory is that, older gamers got so accustomed to brute-forcing their way through downright unfair games that many don't honestly see why people don't like games with steep learning curves. It's almost like gaming Stockholm Syndrome.

Nowadays, there's a ton of resources to help people weed out excessively difficult games, so it's harder for devs to sell games that are very punishing outside of a niche market. They have to shift their focus to a new generation of gamers that aren't willing to put up with "Nintendo hard" games like my generation was.

Change is necessary for anything intended to make money over a long period of time. It's been mentioned here in this very thread: If you're in business, you adapt or die. Personally, I don't see anything to fear with the Fire Emblem series undergoing a change in its difficulty if it means staying alive as an IP, but then again, I've never played a Fire Emblem game. All I see is a fear of change.

I honestly think that's a big part of it. Inolder FE games, you had to rely on strategy. In Awakening, you can level grind until your units are strong enough to beat the map head on. Tedious? Oh yes, but entirely do-able. Classic FE also killed off non-essential units for good, meaning that you either had to do a "perfect" play-through, or lose potentially valuable characters for the rest of the game. Casual mode got rid of that, which rustled some veteran jimmies. Lastly, Robin is super OP. It's not unheard of for Lords/player inserts to be OP, but imagine playing Pokémon Yellow with Mewtwo as a starter and you get the idea.

Basically, the game added several safety nets for players who got stuck. In earlier games, you pretty much had to reset every time you screwed up. That's fine for tactical errors on a single map, but long-term screw ups like overusing Jeigan characters (Xp sponges that don't amount to anything long-term) early on could royally screw you half-way through the game with no way to recover. A person wouldn't know to avoid using them unless they a) fell in that trap or b) read a guide or someone warned them. I can imagine a few copies of Radiant Dawn got returned because newbies overused Nailah or Tauroneo and crippled themselves in later maps. That may have actually inspired some of the safety nets in Awakening. Anyway, the devs took a few measures to ensure that people didn't get screwed like that, yet left the option for classic FE play for people who wanted it.

It reminds me of the shift from "Classicvania" to "Metroidvania." In the original Castlevania games, you just had to persevere and learn each area. In the new games, you can grind level until enemies are easy to kill, learn powerful magic/special attacks, and collect stronger weapons and armor. Thing is, even with these features that make the games easier than the original, games like Circle of the Moon and Aria of Sorrow are still fun to play and you don't have to use any of those extras if you want a "true Castlevania experience."

It's the principle of the thing: FE is no longer a "hardcore only" series. I think that's what bother's people more than anything. The game's hardcore elements are still there, the devs only installed a kiddie pool. Players don't have to swim in the kiddie pool, but the fact that it's there bothers them. It's a shame, because the FE veterans could try to mentor the newcomers so that they don't have to rely on safety nets (and I think many do) but the loud minority is what most people hear.

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

Ah, so that's how the more recent Fire Emblem games work? If they're an optional difficulty, then there is no need to take it. I did notice a similar uproar over Mega Man 10 getting an Easy Mode (and marketing for that game showed it off too). Considering Mega Man 9 did not have one (an instead had the more difficult Protoman Mode), I suspect Capcom received a lot of complaints about Mega Man 9 being too hard. The Mega Man fans would've still bought Mega Man 10, AND they get to keep the audience who would've otherwise been turned away by the Mega Man Classic series's brutal difficulty (well, before the Charge Shot and the Slide).

The denouncement of dumbing down games is something that's happened through all of video gaming though. The first computer games were played on computers the size of buildings, and the players had to manually program the game in each time they played it using vague instructions. Then, the first computer gaming magazine came out, and they complained that you don't need programming knowledge anymore to play them--you could just follow the instructions they gave in the magazine, which were clear and simple. Then, computers became smaller and could be put in a home, and the building-sized computer gamers complained that you didn't have to travel to a university or a laboratory to play them. Then, computers got screens, and the gamers who used the initial home computers complained that people who didn't care to stare at blinking indicator lights could now play. And then Pong came around, and every group prior to that was now denouncing the end of digital gaming as they knew it. And they were right, but hardly anyone today would say that it changed for the worse. The rise of home systems got the arcade gamers complaining that people would become too lazy to travel to arcades. The NES coming about was seen by then-longtime gamers as a step back in technology and playability. The PlayStation's marketing as the video game system for cool people got groans from people who wanted video gaming to remain something for a select group of special people. The Wii hitting the game console business like a train caused existing video gamers to lament that everyone would be making games for the expanded audience and they'd be neglected. Mobile gaming has hit the business equally hard, and you can still find plenty of video and computer gamers who don't consider mobile gaming as video or computer games (even though they are).

I have been gaming all my life, and I have followed a bunch of waves and taking it as I go. Inconvenience for the sake of nostalgia just isn't worth it, and there's no point in taking pride that you needed any of those skills to play a video game. As far as I'm concerned, the addition of easier options in a Fire Emblem game is the same kind of change as having a screen to stare at instead of a row or two of red LEDs: It makes the games more accessible, and I will always support that.

By the way, I did hear about the difficulty of Battletoads during its own time: It was through word of mouth at school, in game magazines, and in those cheat code books you used to find everywhere.

 

[BlackZero]

I have been gaming all my life, and I have followed a bunch of waves and taking it as I go. Inconvenience for the sake of nostalgia just isn't worth it, and there's no point in taking pride that you needed any of those skills to play a video game. As far as I'm concerned, the addition of easier options in a Fire Emblem game is the same kind of change as having a screen to stare at instead of a row or two of red LEDs: It makes the games more accessible, and I will always support that.

I would tend to agree. Games should be fun. If they're too hard, they aren't fun. If this was like developing professional skills (carpentry, computer programming, etc), I could understand telling people to tough it out. Most "career gamers" don't seem to care whether a game is hard or not though. They are more worried about whether it makes for entertaining videos. We aren't talking about building trade skills or learning an instrument you can play professionally. We're talking about a hobby, and elitism in a hobby is pointless.

Edit: Just saw this.

I used to word significant to emphasize importance of the overall franchise globally and to Nintendo as a company. Plus all those other franchises are "classic" franchises or at least 1st party ones. FE should be considered more niche even considering its age.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Intelligent Systems is a "2nd party developer," which is a fancy way of saying "not Nintendo itself, but might as well be." They develop exclusively for Nintendo, so they are not 1st party only on paper. They also worked on such classics as Metroid, Super Metroid, the Paper Mario series, and Wario Ware games. FE is as much 1st party as any of those. GameFreak of Pokémon fame is another 2nd party developer, but the Pokémon series is treated like Nintendo IP. That's because though they are somewhat independent from Nintendo, they are still owned by it.

As for being a "classic," that's a bit arbitrary and I'm not sure how you'd exclude it. The first FE game dates back to the Famicom, so it's old enough to be considered "classic." It has more games than the Metroid, Star Fox, Kid Icarus, and Pikmin games, if we're talking number of games. In terms of popularity, it was a Japan-exclusive for most of the series.I can't say first hand, but Wikipedia suggests the first five were very popular there. It became a hit abroad since FE Awakening. I'm not sure what other metrics one would use to establish a game as a classic.

 

[Draayder]

I am 110% fine with easier/harder modes in Fire Emblem games, they've been done that way successfully plenty of times. In my opinion Awakening fell flat on the difficulty settings since the normal was pretty easy (not necessarily a bad thing) but the hard modes were more 'hope you get lucky' rather than something you needed to actually strategize to get through, or you could spend hours upon hours mindlessly grinding characters with the infinite battles which was SUPER BORING. Removing battle saves from harder modes was an awful decision that just served to make it a bigger time waste if you messed up which just gives an appearance of difficulty because less people are willing to do that.

Like I've beaten FE: Radiant Dawn on the hardest difficulty and I don't want to bother with Awakening's Lunatic+, it's just such a time sink without the feeling of 'yes I figured out a brilliant strategy' and more 'oh thank god that guy missed and I got a crit and beat it on the 8th attempt'.

 

[Flareth]

Wait... so we went from bitching about Sakurai to bitching about Corrin to bitching about Fire Emblem in general? Wouldn't this be better suited to its own thread?

 

[BlackZero]

In my opinion Awakening fell flat on the difficulty settings since the normal was pretty easy

If you played the US version, that was either a mistake in translation or the localization team trolling American gamers. "Normal" and "Hard" are actually "Easy" and "Normal" modes respectively in the Japanese version. Idk why they changed that, because that's exactly what those modes are.

 

[Kayura05]

My stance: Everything, and I mean everything requires fresh blood to sustain itself. Otherwise, your audience is going to leave one by one until therer's no one left, or your audience will grow old and die. If your product cannot be profitable appealing only to the hardcore, then you have to decide on one of two things: Either you stick with your guns and let the product become a niche and then die (usually taking your company out with it--look at companies like Oldsmobile or Image Epoch for examples), or you decide that this hardcore audience is not worth your time and appeal to a newer, hopefully larger market (which is how businersses like Pepsi-Cola and Blizzard have lasted so long).

Change is necessary for anything intended to make money over a long period of time. It's been mentioned here in this very thread: If you're in business, you adapt or die. Personally, I don't see anything to fear with the Fire Emblem series undergoing a change in its difficulty if it means staying alive as an IP, but then again, I've never played a Fire Emblem game. All I see is a fear of change.

Naturally, this is still a business first and foremost and with that comes making things profitable. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't, there are a lot of examples of both. I have seen companies try to appeal to new audiences for a product while chasing away long term and loyal customers. They ultimately weren't able to attract a large enough new base and fell flat on their face. Though that normally came from not understanding why people liked their product in the first place. Personally I feel Japanese companies are far better at understanding fanbases ( I don't think that's the right word really) and how to cater to multiple audiences simultaneously. I will disagree that hardcore players are not worth paying heed too, you should give them consideration just not to the extent that you alienate new comers.

Awakening can be faulted for several things (over selling the romantic portions of the game) but I don't fault it for being a gateway into the franchise.

Of course there are going to be different opinions. I am responding to a specific criticism that justifies itself on gameplay mechanics and design, when the people who make that criticism also rant about how much they hate the new FE games. I'm not ignoring other people's perspectives or saying this all comes down to one thing, I'm responding to a specific point: people who make up reasons why Corrin is a bad character when they show rather clearly that they just don't care for the new games. My point is and has always been, if you (the generic "you," not you personally) don't like something that's fine. Just acknowledge that you don't like something. Don't justify your opinion for not liking something based on arbitrary game development standards.

People who criticize Corrin because (s)he is not a well-done character is not the crowd I'm talking to. I'm not really addressing general complaints about another FE character either, even though I really don't understand it for reasons already mentioned. Rather, I'm specifically addressing people who quite clearly don't like the new games and are upset because their dislike for FE:A and Fates is carrying over to FE characters in SSB.

Then it seems like you and I are arguing against both extremes of the situation. Also I know you weren't referring to me personally, I am basically saying that there is a middle ground to this issue. With that said, I am not a fan of ranting about something you don't like non stop without good cause but people are free to dislike both Corrin and FE as a whole. It would all depend on the types of reasons they are giving for not liking the character. If you are saying they are giving unfounded reasons to try and hide their dislike then fair enough. Even though their criticisms can be valid if not for the wrong reasons. By personal experience I do know people who like Awakening and plan on getting Fates yet still disagree on the number of characters in the franchise. As shown earlier even Sakurai himself feels the number is too high.

That's my exact thoughts on the original "long time fan" statements: people trying to validate their opinions by attaching longevity to them. I reminded these people (not you specifically) that, unless they've played some of the Japan-only games, their own tenure a as a fan is comparatively short in the context of the entire series. It's a bit like fans mounting a true fan high horse because they've been a "long-time" Pokémon fan since Diamond/Pearl. They aren't technically wrong, but they've also missed a good chunk of the series.

So we basically agree but are taking umbrage with both extremes. What I am saying is that being familiar with only so many games in a long running series doesn't discount a persons criticism of a newer entry. At that point fans of all levels are experiencing a new product together so everyone should get to have a say without someone going "If you don't like X or Y (the Pokemon games as well, heh) then your not a real fan!" I have seen people go both routes and accuse others of having "Nostalgia Goggles" or having just jumped on the bandwagon as reasons why certain critiques don't matter. Going with your example lets say the D/P fan says they don't care for OR/AS games, should their relative history with the franchise matter? Someone else who has played since the R/B games could argue that if they had played the original R/S they would understand that certain mechanics or game segments existed in the original entries. I argue that just because mechanics were implemented previously in a series does not shield them from criticism. A newer fan having that opinion is not a cause for dismissal. The same could be said for Kingdom Hearts/Tales/and FF fans. There are so many different types of opinions in those fans that writing another person off for playing too much or not enough is strange to me.

I could easily turn this around and say at what point can someone validate their opinion with the long term/true fan argument? The length of time they've been a fan makes no difference, as I believe people should take each game for what it is. So the true fan argument means absolutely nothing to me in terms of game reviews. It just tells me a player is imposing their own idea of what a game should be instead of seeing that game for what it is. It's one thing to say "if you like X, you'll like Y." It's something else to say "X isn't Y, therefore it sucks." I WILL make a point to humbly remind someone they've missed out on half the series if they throw True Fan statements into the discussion if they've only played the NA releases. What can I say? It's one of my guilty pleasures.

I mostly agree save for most of the people I see making the True Fan arguments are people who relentlessly inform everyone of how many games they've played in a franchise. You can still be a long term fan of something even if the releases you have access to are limited. You can't really help if only half a series is released commercially in your country. For a series like FE I believe there are enough games for that statement to apply if you are speaking of NA players, I don't like 'True Fan' arguments so I can't speak much to that attitude. The only alternative would be for them to go out and emulate/buy all the Japanese releases to satisfy someones idea of being a long term fan. It would be a silly thing to do especially if their opinion didn't change afterward. :) I mean think about someone saying you had to play EVERY Pokemon game released to be considered a 'True Fan".

On a personal note, I don't see it as "true fans" and "other fans." It's a continuum, from people who like a few of the games going all the way to cos-players, re-enactors, and super obsessive fans who live and breathe the series. It takes all sorts. For me, all I care about in a "valid opinion" is that someone took an honest look at the game and based their opinion on what it is. This will differ from person to person, which is fine. I'm not impressed by people saying "I played Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi so I know what I'm talking about!"

If we agree so much how did we start debating? The only thing that would impress me in a statement like that is that they more than likely care enough about the franchise to criticize it. I prefer a fan like that to anyone who buys anything released and likes everything without taking the time to see if a game if worth their adulation.

I hate to make a "back in my day," statement, but I think the whole hardcore gamer thing stemmed from an older generation of gamers who bought games without the benefit of LPs and You-Tube reviews. The only way to find out that Battletoads was a cold mistress was to spend $50 on it. If you got a game, you learned to play it no matter how brutal it was without any video walkthroughs or GameFAQs guides. My half-joke/half-serious theory is that, older gamers got so accustomed to brute-forcing their way through downright unfair games that many don't honestly see why people don't like games with steep learning curves. It's almost like gaming Stockholm Syndrome.

Nowadays, there's a ton of resources to help people weed out excessively difficult games, so it's harder for devs to sell games that are very punishing outside of a niche market. They have to shift their focus to a new generation of gamers that aren't willing to put up with "Nintendo hard" games like my generation was.

That's why you rented, traded, went to garage sales or got hand me downs. How else were we supposed to get games? Jokes aside I know exactly what you mean but I never seemed to develop that mindset as much as some friends of mine did because...I don't know. I know games from that era were unforgiveable at times but I did love the challenge they presented and still do for some games. But I love me some lighthearted stuff as well. I was never too perturbed by steep learning curves and repetition but knew not everyone would like it. Sometimes I do question not wanting ANY difficulty in games, as in if there is not any effort involved and no story to benefit from either, then from what are you deriving enjoyment?

Now if a game proved too difficult I just went back to it later and tried again. Or read game guides in the store because what kid could afford those things for every game? As long a game can reasonably entertain me I won't fuss, but in a established franchise a noticeable shift in difficulty can be concerning. Like I mentioned before Fates seems intent to address what IS feels is a concern by releasing multiple versions of the game with varying levels of play.

I honestly think that's a big part of it. Inolder FE games, you had to rely on strategy. In Awakening, you can level grind until your units are strong enough to beat the map head on. Tedious? Oh yes, but entirely do-able. Classic FE also killed off non-essential units for good, meaning that you either had to do a "perfect" play-through, or lose potentially valuable characters for the rest of the game. Casual mode got rid of that, which rustled some veteran jimmies. Lastly, Robin is super OP. It's not unheard of for Lords/player inserts to be OP, but imagine playing Pokémon Yellow with Mewtwo as a starter and you get the idea.

Basically, the game added several safety nets for players who got stuck. In earlier games, you pretty much had to reset every time you screwed up. That's fine for tactical errors on a single map, but long-term screw ups like overusing Jeigan characters (Xp sponges that don't amount to anything long-term) early on could royally screw you half-way through the game with no way to recover. A person wouldn't know to avoid using them unless they a) fell in that trap or b) read a guide or someone warned them. I can imagine a few copies of Radiant Dawn got returned because newbies overused Nailah or Tauroneo and crippled themselves in later maps. That may have actually inspired some of the safety nets in Awakening. Anyway, the devs took a few measures to ensure that people didn't get screwed like that, yet left the option for classic FE play for people who wanted it.

Awakening wasn't even the first FE game to lower the difficulty level either.

I wanna laugh because before I knew how to play properly I would do just that and allow certain units to soak all the Exp. up and realize too late what a horrible mistake I had made. It forced me to think more critically about what I was going to do with each unit and play out risk/reward scenarios. Say what you will about how hard the older games were to the unsuspecting but they encouraged thinking your way out of a situation and rewarded skill based play. I feel they introduced you to basic gameplay well enough and things got more difficult the longer you played. Rarely (though it did happen) did you come to a level and become completely overwhelmed.

It's the principle of the thing: FE is no longer a "hardcore only" series. I think that's what bother's people more than anything. The game's hardcore elements are still there, the devs only installed a kiddie pool. Players don't have to swim in the kiddie pool, but the fact that it's there bothers them. It's a shame, because the FE veterans could try to mentor the newcomers so that they don't have to rely on safety nets (and I think many do) but the loud minority is what most people hear.

I have no complaints with that, I just don't like the visual novel look the game is adapting. Yes it is optional for the most part but I have more that enough reason to continue to refer to it as 'Waifu Emblem' and reserve the right to do so. :)

 

[Of Moose & Men]

So should we call it "Wiferim" now? So any game with a marriage system is a waifu simulator? Is that how this works now?
Or are you running out of straws to grasp?

 

[BlackZero]

Even though their criticisms can be valid if not for the wrong reasons. By personal experience I do know people who like Awakening and plan on getting Fates yet still disagree on the number of characters in the franchise. As shown earlier even Sakurai himself feels the number is too high.

In my opinion, a good character trumps representation or some franchise proportion. People can complain about too many FE characters, but I don't think the number should matter if the character is well made and fun to play. If the character was poorly made, that's one thing. It seems that the devs actually tried to make Corrin a genuinely original character though. For me, that carries more weight than having too many characters.

What I am saying is that being familiar with only so many games in a long running series doesn't discount a persons criticism of a newer entry. At that point fans of all levels are experiencing a new product together so everyone should get to have a say without someone going "If you don't like X or Y (the Pokemon games as well, heh) then your not a real fan!"

Precisely. It's a form of self-validation and elitism. It's one thing if people are drawing comparisons to show how the series has grown, or how a game mechanic evolved throughout the series. It's something else to say "I played the original therefore my opinion matters more," or "real fans don't like this game."

There are so many different types of opinions in those fans that writing another person off for playing too much or not enough is strange to me.

Final Fantasy and Sonic fandoms are leviathans of true fandom and obnoxious fans in general. Sonic in particular is a case of fans ruining the series. FF is more a case of fans ruining the series for newcomers.

. The only alternative would be for them to go out and emulate/buy all the Japanese releases to satisfy someones idea of being a long term fan. It would be a silly thing to do especially if their opinion didn't change afterward. :)

There are actually people who do this. Granted, it's very very niche, but there were actually North American FE fans before it crossed the Pacific. In fact, there was a You Tuber with Channel Awesome who did a series on how to play imported Japanese games if you don't know Japanese. I can't say how good he was (I personally don't care for any of Channel Awesome), but the interest was there. I don't think that factors into them being real fans, but it would show a dedication one would have to admire.

If we agree so much how did we start debating?

I think we were both talking about two different things and somehow thought we were talking about the same thing. That, or you saw me in a three-way with Strongarm and PrinceofKoopas and wanted to make a four-way.;)

Now if a game proved too difficult I just went back to it later and tried again. Or read game guides in the store because what kid could afford those things for every game?

My brother and I made our own. We actually drew our own Super Metroid map. That is something I miss about gaming today: making your own guidebooks. Yeah it was a pain in the ***, but it was fun. It was like keeping a logbook of your journey. I wish I kept our Super Metroid binder.:(

I have no complaints with that, I just don't like the visual novel look the game is adapting. Yes it is optional for the most part but I have more that enough reason to continue to refer to it as 'Waifu Emblem' and reserve the right to do so.

I'll agree to disagree on this, but I still think it is overblown. If it was just a matter of shipping people, that'd be one thing. There is an actual gameplay mechanic at work though, hence my comparison to Pokémon. The presentation is different (dating vs breeding), but it's the same gimmick: creating more powerful teammates and giving characters abilities they wouldn't be able to get otherwise (like giving male characters Galeforce). Are there a lot of shippers who squee over their ideal matches and claim some girls as their waifu? Sure, but that is on the fans not the game itself. "Waifu" claimers are in every fandom and send nails down the chalkboard of my soul.

Most people I know don't really care about the romance aspect: they pair people up to give the children certain skills and stat growths. They may like certain characters more than others, but based their pairings off of state boosts and skill first and foremost. That's what the dating mechanic is there for. In my opinion, people who say it's a dating sim are too caught up in the presentation that they don't see it for the stat/skill transfer that it really is. Literally, its whole function in the game is to create characters that are downright broken.

So should we call it "Wiferim" now? So any game with a marriage system is a waifu simulator? Is that how this works now?
Or are you running out of straws to grasp?

I think people are crying wolf with this particular thing, possibly because Steam has a ton of ****ty date sim/visual novel games. Dating/marriage has been a long-time component of the Sims, yet there's a lot more to the game than dating. The Harvest Moon/Rune Factory games (which are far more like dating sims than FE:A) makes a big to do about dating, but marriage has very little impact on the games themselves beyond setting up New Game + data with the child character. I think people get fixated on the dating itself and don't realize that it's more-or-less a secondary gimmick/feature in these games. As I've pointed out in Awakening: most people I know who aren't Waifu hunters don't really care about support convos or character pairings; they want to optimize the stats of children characters. If someone turns it into a dating sim, that's something they're imposing on the game not the game itself.

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

Naturally, this is still a business first and foremost and with that comes making things profitable. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't, there are a lot of examples of both. I have seen companies try to appeal to new audiences for a product while chasing away long term and loyal customers. They ultimately weren't able to attract a large enough new base and fell flat on their face. Though that normally came from not understanding why people liked their product in the first place. Personally I feel Japanese companies are far better at understanding fanbases ( I don't think that's the right word really) and how to cater to multiple audiences simultaneously. I will disagree that hardcore players are not worth paying heed too, you should give them consideration just not to the extent that you alienate new comers.

Appealing to a new audience is always a risk. Sometimes it pays off, and sometimes it doesn't. That's what separates a bad businessperson from a good one (or just a lucky one--the guys at Rovio have been pretty open about how they don't understand why Angry Birds is so popular, for example).

Honda Motors is an example of both (and also a Japanese company). Honda is best known for cars nowadays, but they began selling motorcycles, and they were so popular in Japan that Honda executives wanted to sell to the Americans. The problem was that not only was there already heavy domestic competition in North America with motorcycles (most notably Harley-Davidson and Indian, but a bunch of other smaller companies too), but Honda's motorcycles were designed with the narrow, crowded Japanese streets in mind, not the wide, open American highways. The bikes were very maneuverable and could deal with steep terrain, but they had low top speeds, overheated easily (bad for the American south and Mexico), and had bad mileage. San Francisco was the only North American market that wasn't experiencing problems. By accident, however, word caught on that this sort of motorcycle was good for hobby riding through forest and mountain roads, and they were able to sell them in that way. The Japanese salespeople deployed to the United States took people's complaints to heart, and Honda created motorcycles aimed at Americans and their long, straight roads.

I would say the success rate of Japanese companies in trying new things is about the same as any other country. What's different is the culture. Japanese culture stresses a strong work ethic and a desire to please customers, whereas in North America and Europe, creators are more likely to create or sell whatever they feel like without much concern for its popularity. (I can't really name any specific examples, because the most famous entrepreneurs and inventors are the ones with an eye for people's likes and dislikes. Look up what guys like Pierre Beaumarchais or Nolan Bushnell have done, and you'll see a series of successes because they know exactly what the public of their times wanted.)

In any case, think about things that sell well. Every single thing that people buy that's popular nowadays is popular because they were the first to hit the market in that way. That is, every popular thing is because a company, or at least a person, decided to appeal to a new audience or a wider audience. Ketchup being sour and thick can be owed to H.J. Heinz's decision to add vinegar to improve ketchup's shelf life. Mucinex pills are because Adams Pharmaceuticals figured out how to make a 12-hour slow-release tablet. Apple Computers is known for coming up with a lot of stuff (and indeed, that's their modus operandi: They're CONSTANTLY changing), but they lasted against Microsoft and IBM in the 1980's by creating the first graphical user interface. Nestlé revolutionized the chocolate business by inventing milk chocolate. McDonald's may have been the pioneer for kids meals, but Burger King gave the public the dine-in area for hamburger joints. Where every other Hollywood studio was content with their movies the way they were, Warner Bros. created the "talkie." WMS Electronics came up with a system for renting gambling machines to casinos that cost less than outright buying them. Adidas and Puma were the first shoe companies to cater specifically to athletes with a focus on comfort (they were founded at about the same time). Dr. Kellogg baked corn flakes in his house, brought them over to his clinic, and prescribed them to pretty much every patient he had.

I know games from that era were unforgiveable at times but I did love the challenge they presented and still do for some games. But I love me some lighthearted stuff as well. I was never too perturbed by steep learning curves and repetition but knew not everyone would like it. Sometimes I do question not wanting ANY difficulty in games, as in if there is not any effort involved and no story to benefit from either, then from what are you deriving enjoyment?

To some people, simply playing a game will provide all the satisfaction they want. This is particularly true if you are catering to beginners or even people who have never played a game before. Case in point: Boogie. Popular enough to get a sequel, Boogie pretty much plays itself: It is a rhythm game so forgiving, as long as the WIi Remote is moving when the prompts appear, you'll get credit for doing it right. This annoyed a lot of long-time gamers, but to the expanded Wii audience, this was perfect.

Final Fantasy and Sonic fandoms are leviathans of true fandom and obnoxious fans in general. Sonic in particular is a case of fans ruining the series. FF is more a case of fans ruining the series for newcomers.

Poor, poor Stephen Frost. He thought the Sonic fandom was going to be normal and set up an avenue for Sonic fans to speak directly to him. The complaints and death threats he got in return caused him to have to withdraw from the project for months, and development for Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric crashed after that.

Though in terms of fans not having any clue what they want and being completely unable to come to any form of agreement due to a total refusal to compromise, causing the series to suffer from conflicting ideas, The Legend of Zelda is up there too.

 

[BlackZero]

What's different is the culture. Japanese culture stresses a strong work ethic and a desire to please customers, whereas in North America and Europe, creators are more likely to create or sell whatever they feel like without much concern for its popularity.

I don't feel it's a cultural thing so much as an industry model. Western developers have to deal with EA and other publisher gatekeepers who can pretty much force them to follow a specific formula or implement certain features. If the devs don't, the publishers kill the project by refusing to market and distribute the game. Publishers don't lose a thing for pushing devs aside if they don't conform because there are several other devs that will.

Nintendo keeps everything in-house, so its publisher side has an invested interest in accommodating the dev teams more, and there is a higher power there to mediate any gridlock between the two. This gives devs the freedom to innovate with the benefit of having a means of getting their products to the consumers no strings attached. With the Western gaming industry, publishers are the higher power and lets a bunch of people who know very little about game development tell actual devs how to make their games all the while talking these developers into signing their own ideas away to the company so that the content creators don't even have creative control over their own creations.

I don't care for these industry gatekeepers. I'm not sure if you could tell. I get that they serve a valuable role in the game development process, but I think they should stick to publishing and leave creative control to people who know what they're doing. I hope they get phased out as game distribution and funding become less reliant on investors and publishing companies.

Poor, poor Stephen Frost. He thought the Sonic fandom was going to be normal and set up an avenue for Sonic fans to speak directly to him. The complaints and death threats he got in return caused him to have to withdraw from the project for months, and development for Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric crashed after that.

Though in terms of fans not having any clue what they want and being completely unable to come to any form of agreement due to a total refusal to compromise, causing the series to suffer from conflicting ideas, The Legend of Zelda is up there too.

I've always wondered why Sonic fans are like that. I know every fandom has it's radical element, but Sonic and Final Fantasy fans are two very special breeds of nutter (though the latter appears to be settling down a little from what I've seen). We can't blame it on Sonic appealing to kids because I haven't noticed that same frothy rage from Pokémon fans over any of their creative choices (save for Misty leaving the show, perhaps). Perhaps subliminal messaging is a thing after all?

Zelda fans are an odd bunch. They want something new that's also the same. I read somewhere that Miyamoto always hoped to make a sci-fi Zelda game (or possibly move the series into a more futuristic setting), but the butthurt over Spirit Tracks was legendary. I really wish he'd go forward with it. I'd love to see what he could do with it.

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

Regarding Sonic fans, blogger GEL gave a pretty detailed explanation about why he thinks they're so nasty and pessimistic. He believes that this got started way back in 1992, during the height of the classic era, with SEGA of America allowing pretty much anyone to make a Sonic adaptation in whatever way they wanted, as long as it was family-friendly. Because of Sonic's wild success, each of these adaptations got its own set of fans, who each connected their favored adaptation to the video games believing that it was canon. This caused a great deal of disagreement about what Sonic is actually about, and the reason the nastiness drastically increased with Sonic Adventure was because the games and all adaptations were condensed into a single canon different from anything prior, with each attempt from SEGA to find common ground shattering the fanbase further.

It does not explain why Sonic fans tend to be monomanic though (that is, a lot of them tend to hate everything that isn't Sonic). That's something I've been trying to get to the bottom of. Heck, I remember being in some Sonic circles and was astonished to find out that they HATED Sonic being included in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. They didn't want Sonic in a game that celebrates Nintendo history. They saw it as an insult. They never grew out of the 16-bit Console Wars (and some of them proudly admit it). Sonic was the only character I saw this much hatred upon his inclusion into a Smash Bros. game (and only the complaining came mostly from the Sonic fans). The vitriol over Corrin doesn't even come close.

While the exact reasons for Sonic's fanbase's state will likely never get a complete answer, this is the best explanation I've found to date, and this is the explanation I currently believe is correct, or the closest one to the correct answer there is.

To provide insight into the Sonic fanbase, I've also observed the fanbase they hate the most: the bronies. It was initially mind-boggling about why Sonic fans often project a particularly nasty dislike for fans of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic other than that the two franchises occupy opposite sides of the edginess spectrum, but I realized they have much in common and that the fanbases largely dislike fans of the other because they see too much of themselves in them, even if subconsciously. The fans of both franchises tend to be social outcasts looking for like-minded people, like to write dark fics that just keep getting darker with each year, have an incredibly loose idea of what canon is, are obnoxious and demanding to the creators, are both monomanic (as previously mentioned) and pessimistic, and are incredibly fractured from within with each new development in their franchise fracturing them even more. And from the series themselves, both Sonic and My Little Pony have highly interchangeable character design that lend themselves well to fan characters and fan personas, a high amount of background or minor characters that create a lot of seemingly random shipping, and a blue character with a 90's attitude whose main superpower is super-speed (which is actually more significant than it sounds, as fanart of Sonic and Rainbow Dash is what started the conflict in the first place). That being said, the two fandoms are opposites regarding nostalgia (which may be another source of friction, as it means Sonic fans often dislike anything made after 1999 whereas bronies frequently dislike anything made before then).

One last thought: I'm pretty surprised to see people with Sonic-related avatars here being among the most civil and level-headed; in most other forums I've been in, they tend to be loud, immature, impulsive, and just plain unpleasant. I've been uploading YouTube videos since 2007, for one, and almost all of the worst cases of annoying and/or hostile people on my channel get there through my Sonic playthroughs.