Which death option do you prefer? >Once a character dies,

>>3010904
Wizardry had a nice in-between, in that if one of your party members died, you had to *attempt* to raise them. There was a spell you could learn later in the game to raise them, or you had to haul their corpse and equipment up to the surface to the temple to try. If the res worked, you got your character back with no loss of ability. If the res failed, then either the corpse was left and you could try again, or the corpse turned to dust (random chance) and the character was gone forever.

As a lover of hardcore games, I'm in the camp that says "you should lose them forever" because you play more thoughtfully and the characters' lives mean more to you.

I like the idea of a character being gone forever, but I often find myself getting emotionally attached to them. I've been known to load a much older save just to have that character again.

File: image.jpg (28KB, 684x440px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 684x440px

If you die in the game, you die irl

>>3010945
I never felt any closer to the to games where you lose the characters forever because when I did lose them I just restarted the game making them more of annoyance than enduring. Only way to fix that is artificial challenges like continuing on even when the characters died.

Only permanent death that made me closer to characters are ones were the death comes from the story choices you make rather than gameplay ones since it's more based on the character and more your fault.

>>3010968
>artificial challenges
oh dear

Since this is an anonymous board and I can freely admit to faggotry, I must admit that permadeath always feels like such a huge pressure and burden and really ruined the fun of Fire Emblem for me.

I'm a hardcore FE fan and NEVER allow my units to die. I like finishing the game with all of them intact. Again, that makes me restart a few times, but I don't find it to be an annoying chore, it's just the way I like to play it though I can understand that it can pull some people away from playing it. I'm not complaining about changes to evolve games, I'm talking about changing the main aspects of it and turning it into something different. Much like Castlevanias and Metroidvanias.
Making perma-death optional in games that heavily rely on that feels like heresy. It's like making rings optional in Sonic. It kinda blows. Even if you can choose to play classic mode. I know it's to expand audience, but that usually lowers the quality in these kind of games.

File: audible fuck.png (73KB, 300x365px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 300x365px

>>3010968
>>3010996
No.
NO.
N O.

We are NOT doing this.

>>3010968
I guess that's up to the game developers to insert harder encounters/random shit in the deeper parts of dungeons, far between save points, so when you do lose a character you'd be less likely to restart, i.e. just after an incredibly hard boss fight or sth.

Sega's Gain Ground gives you the choice between rescuing new characters or the previous one that fell.

I think there's 20 playable characters, which is a lot for an arcade title.

Most people will just reset the game if their characters die, it's a useless mechanism, may as well give the player a game over whenever someone die.

>>3012763
but then you risk the player stop holding attachment to characters they know are just going to die arbitrarily.

>>3010945
Wizardry and Dark Heart of Uukrul did this correcty

I don't know anything about FE

>>3012952
You can revive a unit or two in a few FE games, but it costs a lot of money or there's only one use for the staff that does so.

File: 1453690514608.jpg (13KB, 366x329px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 366x329px

>importan/favorite or strong units dies
>restart battle

>>3010904
First option