Terrible analogy. Not even the same context.
Aren't both strategy games?
To you maybe, but no one is forcing you to restart. No one is forcing anyone to restart. It's a choice.
A choice that defeats the purpose of the game.
Comparing two different things again. What are you on about? Fire Emblem isn't about getting attached to units at all, but losing a unit can be critical in situations.
If I wanted to do I could restart in Nuzlocke if a Pokemon I liked died, but it defeats the purpose. Doesn't it? You see where I'm getting at?
Plus in Fire Emblem, restarting allows the player to adapt to the situations and get used to enemy placements, their classes, map designs and pretty much everything pertaining to the series and using it to your advantage. Teaching by trial and error, basically. Eventually you'll get to the point where you can afford losing a unit. Good Fire Emblem players sacrifice units, actually.
I'm not comparing two different things. Don't twist my words. The feeling of attachment in a Nuzlocke is just an excuse, something for the lulz. The real point of the ruleset is to make the game harder, by using self-imposed rules much similar to, you guessed, FE. It actually is more unfair because the RNG may give you bad Pokémon as the first encounter in each route, so you're stuck with an unbalanced team that won't allow you to beat the game unless you grind a lot, whereas in FE the only really bad thing that can happen are poor level ups. Of course, a Pokémon battle against the AI is pathetically easy compared to a FE map, but you're still learning the opponent by restarting.
Also, how is restarting in Pokémon (or any game, for that matter) not "teaching by trial and error" compared to FE? It's the same thing. AI is scripted. If you restart enough times, you'll learn the AI routines and prepare accordingly. That's true for absolutely any game, but it's a horrible mechanic. And with permadeath and last saves, FE ends up intensifiying it, which is a problem. In the vast majority of games, you only restart if you lose. In FE people restart if one of their characters is shot down, it isn't even the loss of the battle.
Huh? Where? Where did I admit that?
You advocate Classic mode and say restarting is okay, even to the point of justifying it. You may have given me the wrong impression.
Uh, nope. That's not Fire Emblem.
This is how the series is designed. This is how the fans of the series and the players like it. The games are supposed to be unforgivable, and it's not supposed to be for everyone. Or do you think competitive fighting games are stupid because all the moves are made with stick motions instead of just easier button pushing?
It's an annoyance to most in the first playthrough of a game, perhaps, but the series has the merit of being replayable. Subsequent playthroughs are all about long term strategy, and all this allows Fire Emblem to have this kind of unique replay value.
Well I guess it's a good thing that they realized that not everyone is a masochist and included Casual mode, although they gave it this unfortunate name to allow the "hardcore" players to make fun of the "casuals", it seems.
You can easily avoid that if you're used to way the game is designed. There's a counter for crits and misses, so you know what you're getting into. If you lost the gamble, it's your fault, not the game's. RNG is only a ***** when levelling up.
Roll of the dice is a ***** in every RPG. Can't see how it's my fault when the enemy has only a 5% crit chance and he crits, irrespective of the game.
Fire Emblem always had a steep learning curve, but the series is highly rewarding if you stick with it because of that. All the features in the game, and "Classic" mode, is what allowed the series to have that merit. In an essence, the games are timeless because of it. Awakening is not, and will be looked back on rather negatively by strategy enthusiasts. (Already starting to kick in, actually...)
Why, because FE:A is "easier"? Easier doesn't mean worse if the mechanics are enjoyable. I'm enjoying FE:A so far.
FE:A was very well received and sold well enough to avoid a planned cancellation of the series. It could be shunned by strategy enthusiasts, but those, as with any hardcore gaming demographic, are a very small percentage of the public. Casual mode might have helped in that regard, and even the devs admit it was a good choice to include it, despite initially opposing to it.
Both of my current playthroughs (one on Normal, one on Hard) are in Classic mode. I'm using the Normal one to learn the game, I'm quite enjoying it and I'll resume the Hard one once I beat the Normal one, however I might switch to Casual in the Hard one because, though I may not be getting the FE experience, I'm still getting an experience that I enjoy. I think Seattle nailed it, the Casual mode may be easier but it adds more depth to the game when coupled with a higher difficulty setting, unless of course you play on Normal/Casual which is just too easy. I understand some people like the thrill of being on the verge of losing their units forever but that's something I never liked in videogames, which is why I don't do Nuzlocke runs or other crap like that.
