Why Did Casual Mode Happen In Fire Emblem? 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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... 🤷

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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. ;)

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

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 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~!"

It's me. I'm the second guy.

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.

That's a poll I think Nintendo should do for their next Dream Magazine issue on Fire Emblem.

God I am BEGGING Nintendo to implement a trophy system. I was playing Persona 4 Golden on the Switch and I’ve beaten it several times before on the Vita. It was so upsetting and disappointing when I realized I was gunning for the same trophy achievements but wasn’t actually being awarded them

It not going anywhere

@@mikethepokemaster2012 if I play on Hard I probably turn on casual😅

Fates was the last game ever to force quit after losing a unit