Tae posted:

http://www.strawpoll.me/13196712

Rangpur posted:

At this point you ought to just throw together the most ridiculous-looking Corrin(e) the character-creator will let you generate. Whatever the other merits of the game, there's no dignity to the story worth preserving.

Stephen9001 posted:

I'm not quite sure what to make of that...

Stephen9001 posted:

I just noticed something, in Birthright, Camillia was next in line of succession, but abdicated on the basis she didn't really want to do it and thought Leo would be better at it (which means succession is eldest child), whilst in Conquest, Hinoka notes that Takumi would have been next in line, this means that Nhor is oldest child inherits, regardless of gender, whilst Hoshido is oldest son, unless there are no sons.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that...

Gravity Cant Apple posted:

There are plenty of different types of succession laws out there.

U-DO Burger posted:

Both Corrin and Corrine didn't seem to think their choices were wrong, so they don't really deserve redemption imo

Aesclepia posted:

CptWedgie, you seem really mad about the definition of 'cheating' in FireEmblem, which could be semantic or opinion, depending on where you stand. Maybe you should take a break?

RevolverDivider posted:

oh man, Bowser is such cheating in Mario. I can't jump on him!

FoolyCharged posted:

...the computer rather openly isnt playing the same game as you...

Tae posted:

http://www.strawpoll.me/13196712

CptWedgie posted:

I feel that the definition of "cheating" I'm using (anything a player cannot accomplish during normal play) is completely, 100% objective. The guys who keep using double standards are the ones who're being subjective.

Basically: There is no "semantic or opinion" when I am objectively right. The easiest way to get me to shut up about this is to admit that, yes, the computer cheats; whether that cheating is forgivable is a completely different question and is, indeed, a matter of opinion, unlike the question of "is this thing cheating?" (the answer to which is a resounding "yes").

RevolverDivider posted:

Nah your concept of cheating is really stupid and arbitrary and you're weirdly insufferable about it.

AriadneThread posted:

you are a caricature

cokerpilot posted:

Um are all the latest posts images not loading for anyone else?

okay scratch that none of the images form Tea appear to be loading at all.

CptWedgie posted:

There is nothing stupid or arbitrary about "if I can't do it but the computer can, it's cheating."

Bruceski posted:

By your definition of cheating, what games with an AI opponent *don't* cheat? Chess and Advance Wars? And I'm not sure about the latter, Days of Ruin definitely breaks it with having reinforcements spawn in cinematically rather than always built.

CptWedgie posted:

You are in denial. So much so, in fact, that you may not even realize that you are.

CptWedgie posted:

Not saying it doesn't need to give itself an advantage to compete with the average human player, just that that doesn't make said advantage not cheating.


Except enemy units in Fire Emblem generally follow the same rules as the player; the main advantages this series gives itself to challenge the player are numbers (there are pretty much ALWAYS more enemies than deployment slots, especially if you include reinforcements) and, to varying degrees, higher stats than you're expected to have by the point you get there (to force you to use your units wisely).

When enemies blatantly ignore the player's rules AS THE EXCEPTION (like Iago's "use staves infinitely" which is, from what I've seen, exclusive to him), those units are cheating because, generally speaking, enemies follow the SAME RULES AS THE PLAYER. To use the poker comparison again, most hands (generic enemies) give the machine six cards and one SPECIFIC hand (Iago) additionally switches the machine, and ONLY the machine, to draw poker (his immunity to the "limited usage of staves" rule). Or, to turn your Starcraft comparison back on you, one player starts with pre-constructed buildings in addition to their hatchery (or racial equivalent), additional starting currency, a better starting location, and/or scripted unit spawning (the various races being loosely comparable to Fire Emblem's class system, with each race being equivalent to a Fire Emblem team that primarily relies on one class... or maybe weapon triangle corner; pick the analogy you feel more appropriate).

"I make the rules" is the ultimate cheat, because anyone who tells you otherwise is in violation of any rule you make up to give yourself an unfair advantage (for example, the only thing stopping the guy who makes the rules from declaring that anyone who plays against him automatically loses is the fact that nobody would play with him if he did so). Let us not forget: Wars have been started over this sort of thing. IN REAL LIFE. (Probably not anything petty like the rules of a game, but a country's laws are similar enough to apply to this conversation.) Or, to keep it to pure gaming, if the player who invented the game and thus makes the rules unilaterally declares that he gets twice as many points for the same actions as any other player, you're probably not gonna play with him anymore even if he only scores half as often, because he's giving himself an unfair advantage and thus cheating.

Point is, as I mentioned before, you guys are using a double standard (things that are cheating for the player are fair when done by the computer because it's the computer), while I am judging both sides by the SAME standard (anything that is cheating when done by the player is cheating when done by the computer) and consciously FORGIVING it for cheating IN CERTAIN WAYS so it can keep up. The only possible way for something to be not cheating is for both sides to start perfectly even in starting resources of every kind (in Fire Emblem terms, start with perfectly identical units, such as, hypothetically speaking, a Fire Emblem Awakening map where you have Robin, Chrom, Lissa, and Frederick, each of them with a Second Seal or Master Seal and a high enough level to use it, and your enemies are all perfect copies of them right down to their equipment, with no additional members) AND follow exactly the same rules throughout the game (continuing the example, both sides are either capable of leveling up if they perform well enough or incapable of leveling up at all, both sides follow the same death rules, and so on); if one player is exempt from even one rule (say, one side in my example ALSO gets a baseline Donnel), that player is cheating even if everyone else agrees to it.


While it's true that I don't generally like fighting games (not the competitive type), the most appropriate metaphor to use with them to illustrate my point is comparing the playable version of a character to its boss-only version. Two players picking two different characters is perfectly legit because either player could have selected the character the other is using and both are intended to be relatively even (in the vein of one player using Xander as a Great Knight while another leaves him as a Paladin, with each of them being statistically identical while using the same class); one player picking one character while the other uses a code to use the boss version OF that character (who is far more powerful than the player is meant to have access to due to being a boss, and often has moves which the legitimately-playable version can't use) is NOT (Xander as a Paladin versus a version of him using a hypothetical enemy-exclusive super-class which gives +10 to every stat and cap relative to Paladin and has the entire weapon triangle at A-rank... which happens to ALSO be named Paladin).

AriadneThread posted:

i hadn't read a single word you typed until that post i quoted, my living strawman friend


anyway
i can't imagine how revelations is going to top conquest in bad writing, but i have confidence in this game

U-DO Burger posted:

jesus christ wedgie how are you so bad at posting

AriadneThread posted:

i hadn't read a single word you typed until that post i quoted, my living strawman friend

Endorph posted:

and seriously, every enemy in every video game ever made 'cheats.' they're a computer. they do things the player can't do. goombas in super mario brothers can go backwards the way they came, something mario can't do. who the hell cares.

Cythereal posted:

Japan. More so than any other Fire Emblem I've played or seen played to date, Fates feels like it was made and written from a very Japanese viewpoint, with Hoshido as the very proper faction and Nohr as a bunch of colorful barbarians.

CptWedgie posted:

Literally the only bad things I see about my posts (or at least the ones you're likely complaining about right now, specifically my "games cheat" posts) are that I'm getting obviously angry in them, and perhaps being too confrontational about the subject (the "you're in denial" comment, in particular, probably being the worst offense due to being a personal attack on another person in the discussion; the "double standard" statements, though, are definitely true, and nobody has denied them). I have yet to see a single reason to change my position on this issue, let alone a convincing one; the only thing I have seen is an audience that is actively hostile to the very idea that game devs do anything unfair, in spite of the evidence to the contrary I have presented AND a few of them even giving examples of their own.

And yes, enemy reinforcements are, indeed, a form of cheating, albeit one I forgive if not taken too far ("too far" being infinitely-spawning enemies that the player can't kill before the next wave at the expected level and are required to be killed to complete the map). As for enemy units not gaining experience... well, best explanation for that is that it's not taking advantage of all the rules the player benefits from in order to offer a consistent challenge. (Yes, I know, that's just a fancy way of saying "the game gives the player a handicap.")


And thus you have confirmed that you have no idea what I'm even talking about, and thus have no right to call me a "strawman." After all, strawmen rarely, if ever, present actual, concrete evidence that actually supports their stances; I, on the other hand, have repeatedly listed specific ways that games DO NOT OBEY the same rules that players do, and called them out as the cheating they are.

I would've accepted "self-righteous" without complaint (after all, I am the guy who's been refusing to back down until you admit the game's cheating, and often ranting on the subject- yes, I'm mature enough to admit that I'm ranting); calling me a "caricature" or a "strawman," on the other hand, is pretty inaccurate when I have both an actual, legitimate point and actual evidence.


Finally! ONE of you admits that games cheat! (I could've done without the personal attack from the edit, though... completely uncalled for.)

Since I have finally gotten the concession I have been aiming for from the beginning, I will shut up about this. (I should probably apologize for starting an argument, but you guys were dicks.)

RevolverDivider posted:

for the sake of everyone especially yourself please stop posting in this thread. I have a whole new realm of appreciation for Junpei's posting now.

CptWedgie posted:

Dr. Fetus posted:

Why does it matter if the computer cheats? It's not like this is Mario Kart Wii where it was handled really poorly, and made the experience actively miserable.

U-DO Burger posted:

Your posts are bad because you treat this thread like a super serious debate instead of just a place where nerds can have fun shootin' the breeze about a video game series they like

dude789 posted:

Exactly, I don't even understand how a single player RPG can "cheat" unless it's actively creating an unwinnable situation for the player. It's not like the computer gets any satisfaction from causing a game over. The game presents a puzzle and gives you the tools to solve it. It doesn't matter if the tools it gave you to solve the puzzle aren't the same ones it used to make it.

BlackPersona posted:

Goku, and use the appropriate hairstyle.