Support NeoGAF

[Palculator]

So I guess where we disagree is that I indeed believe NOA refusing to localize this minigame will make NCL reconsider -to some degree- the direction of the series, along with the feedback from Japanese players.

NoA also censored Awakening (and has been censoring games for decades now) which didn't bother the Japanese side too much, it would appear given the direction the series went afterwards.

 

[Venfayth]

Part of the problem is that I think it's possible for celebration to come across in bad taste to those who are already upset by the loss of something they wanted to try. I would describe it in a sour way.

Not really that big of a deal, but I think the misconception has clearly diluted discussion a bit.

 

[Kaiterra]

Part of the problem is that I think it's possible for celebration to come across in bad taste to those who are already upset by the loss of something they wanted to try. I would describe it in a sour way.

Not really that big of a deal, but I think it has clearly diluted discussion a bit.

I get what you're saying and that's why I liked Steve pointing out that it is more about the product and not a personal thing.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Who knows, the rep confirmed it to Kotaku in a very unusual way. Should wait on review copies for confirmation of this disappointing removal.

 

[RM8]

NoA also censored Awakening (and has been censoring games for decades now) which didn't bother the Japanese side too much, it would appear given the direction the series went afterwards.

They're not censoring the content of this minigame, though - they're axing it entirely. It could be seen as a big waste of resources since it won't even make it to other regions, and Japan didn't like it anyway.

Part of the problem is that I think it's possible for celebration to come across in bad taste to those who are already upset by the loss of something they wanted to try. I would describe it in a sour way.

Not really that big of a deal, but I think the misconception has clearly diluted discussion a bit.

I mean, yeah, I can see that. But after seeing how Fates doubled down on fanservice, I really needed a bit of celebration, you know?

 

[Fandangox]

Nohr has more fanservicey character designs, though :/ I find Hoshido way, way more appealing, but that's the "Awakening" game, lol.

heh ultimately don't care that much as long as the gameplay is good, which is why I am getting Conquest. I wish some of the designs were better, but if Conquest is the one without the map, more varied map design, and overall higher difficulty, I am gonna go for that one.

 

[MHWilliams]

I think the difference is this was already a thing that was made, was known to the people in this thread ages before release because GAFers are the type of people who stay up late to watch Japanese trailers, and obviously given the length of this thread some people liked the prospect of having that feature once the game was released this side of the globe. I agree it's not selfish to prefer current Assassin's Creed not to have a multiplayer mode when it didn't for ages now, but the response of "No, make this go away!" to an existing feature that is easily avoided by those that don't like it does seem a tad selfish to me. Especially when said feature had people looking forward to it here.

Applied to the Assassin's Creed example: Imagine it had a multiplayer mode that some people liked and you weren't forced to engage with at all. Being very adamant about seeing that gone would seem kind of selfish, no? At least a lot more so than just preferring the game in its current state.

I mean, the example is what happened. Some people did like the multiplayer mode in previous Assassin's Creed titles. And yet, Syndicate dropped multiplayer completely. No co-op, no competitive. Let's see the responses.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1045099

• Was never a fan of any of the multiplayer in the AC games. Glad they are focusing on single player.
• A AAA publisher finally cutting back on the scope of project?
• I'm actually pretty happy with this.
• Best news I've heard about this series. The gameplay looked really stripped back to basics which imo is fantastic.
• Sounds good to me. I was never big on the MP in AC games, and didn't care for the co-op in Unity either. Better to focus on single player.
• Awesome. Now announce that there'll be no shitty companion app and i'll be there day 1

• I don't mind not having it, but the mp versus stuff is actually a fun add-on to the main experience. Guess they decided to buckle down for a smoother experience.

Those are people expressing their preferences, preferences which run counter to some others who really enjoyed co-op or competitive multiplayer in Assassin's Creed. I don't find that selfish in an irrational way.

Also, depending on your point of view, you may not see the appreciable difference to Nintendo and Intelligent Systems deciding to cut the feature in development and deciding to cut the feature during localization. It's the same sense of loss we feel when we hear about a feature that's no longer in the final game. Either way, the game has changed before it's reached me, due to the decision of a stakeholder involved in the making of the product.

Now I can disagree with those decisions, but functionally, it doesn't change how it happened. I interviewed a few developers about things commercial art and the process of losing things they enjoyed due to other internal forces, including license holders.

Two, "adamant" is just a statement of degree. Saying "I would prefer that feature not be in there" and "I hate that feature, take it out" achieve the same endgame, the former is just preferable to interacting with others in person or online who may disagree with you.

And finally, it's all feedback that the developer/publisher chooses to listen to or not.

But wishing for the removal of an optional mode in a completed product? Yeah, I would call that selfish to an irrational degree.

See, the issue here is "irrational". I've given examples that it's something that happens all the time, whether you know about it or not. A statement about any removal, wishing, hoping, or whatever, isn't irrational. It's a statement of preference. You can add irrationality to that by going over the top - "I'm going to kill X if this doesn't get removed" - but to say stating a preference is irrational is odd.

I mean, yes, obviously anything that makes the game more like the thing you want is good for you, and it's fine for you to want that and be happy that things go that way.

If you're trying to defend yourself from people who say you shouldn't be happy about it, that's not me.

I am arguing, though, in my above post, that the loss of the minigame is worse for people who enjoy it - or, even at the very least just want to TRY it - than removing it is beneficial for people who dislike it.

I can agree with this. I myself was looking forward to the mode, because others who have played the game already said that kind of enjoyed it.

Part of the problem is that I think it's possible for celebration to come across in bad taste to those who are already upset by the loss of something they wanted to try. I would describe it in a sour way.

Not really that big of a deal, but I think the misconception has clearly diluted discussion a bit.

This I agree with less. Much like the example with Assassin's Creed's multiplayer above, they're just people expressing their preferences. Some of the posts in this thread have crossed the line, but the act of simply saying "I'm happy about the omission" is pretty normal.

 

[Snkfanatic]

heh ultimately don't care that much as long as the gameplay is good, which is why I am getting Conquest. I wish some of the designs were better, but if Conquest is the one without the map, more varied map design, and overall higher difficulty, I am gonna go for that one.

Rather curious (seeing as I have only played Awakening) how I will fare playing that version after playing Birthright.

 

[WildEagle18]

My gf is pretty devestated by the news, since tere are barely any games that offers fanservice to both sides, and when one of the game she's been waiting for gets one of the feature taken out. When I show her the amie side of Fates she was the one that suggested to pre-order the limited edition (I was only picking up the Nohr side + third route, cause muh Camilla). While we are still getting our games but she's pretty bum about it now.

It just sucks to the people who wanted the feature, I mean, you can play the game without it, so to people who find the whole rubbing face creepy, its not like its force upon you to finish the game.

 

[YAWN]

Here's an idea. Why don't you just be happy its getting localized at all?

People always state Awakening brought the series back from the brink of death, but if they added this mini game in, it might've tarnished brand on a pretty bad level, pushing itself further away from the common majority of buyers. Yes, Otaku rubbish helped the series, but there's no way everyone who bought Awakening was an Otaku. There's a line, and they crossed it with this minigame. With it, the series would've become niche again, on Otaku bait level. It would've damaged the brand.

You can still marry your "waifu", and watch fanservice cutscenes full of bouncing tits and ass focused shots, and read cheesy support dialogue where characters fall in love with each other due to helping brush each others pegasus. Just like people said to me that I should just not play FE because I don't like the new influence on the series, despite being a longer fan of the series than a majority of people; just go buy the Japanese version if your that desperate to pet your soldiers.

Seriously, some of you are gonna look back and wonder what the fuck you were arguing about. At least, I hope you do. The mini game was silly, stop making a big deal out of it. And dont say it added character development when all characters are 1 dimensional tropes. If the development was that big a deal, Im sure they'll find somewhere else to fit it in, you'll just have to live with Elise making sex noises when you touch her. Im sure you'll survive.

 

[diaspora]

I'm sure it could be an optional component of a game like Bloodbourne too, doesn't mean I want it in there. Similarly, the further the series moves from garbage like this the happier I'll be.

 

[RM8]

I'll play Hoshido first because I vastly prefer the characters and overall aesthetic, then Nohr to appreciate the better map designs and more classic FE gameplay.

 

[Javier]

They're not censoring the content of this minigame, though - they're axing it entirely.

We don't know this, actually. It's possible the face-rubbing is gone, but it's possible they're replacing it with something similar that still uses the 2D models made for this mini game. There are bits of evidence that seem to point in that direction.

 

[RM8]

We don't know this, actually. It's possible the face-rubbing is gone, but it's possible they're replacing it with something similar that still uses the 2D models made for this mini game. There are bits of evidence that seem to point in that direction.

I mean, if the touching and suggestive lines are gone... They're kind of axing it entirely, no one is complaining about a mode that lets you see the 2D models

 

[cosmicblizzard]

See, the issue here is "irrational". I've given examples that it's something that happens all the time, whether you know about it or not. A statement about any removal, wishing, hoping, or whatever, isn't irrational. It's a statement of preference. You can add irrationality to that by going over the top - "I'm going to kill X if this doesn't get removed" - but to say stating a preference is irrational is odd.

I am not an authority on what should or shouldn't be irrational since I'm just one guy, but to me when you logically break down the reasons for something, I see it as irrational.

Let's use your AC bullet points as an example.

• Was never a fan of any of the multiplayer in the AC games. Glad they are focusing on single player.
• A AAA publisher finally cutting back on the scope of project?
• I'm actually pretty happy with this.
• Best news I've heard about this series. The gameplay looked really stripped back to basics which imo is fantastic.
• Sounds good to me. I was never big on the MP in AC games, and didn't care for the co-op in Unity either. Better to focus on single player.
• Awesome. Now announce that there'll be no shitty companion app and i'll be there day 1

• I don't mind not having it, but the mp versus stuff is actually a fun add-on to the main experience. Guess they decided to buckle down for a smoother experience.

All the bolded make sense to me because it's implying the multiplayer hindered the single player experience in the development phase, what with less of a unified vision for the gameplay and resources used on things that can be better used elsewhere for refinement.

But again, we're talking about something where the development phase is already over with.

A better example would be if the game came out in one region, had the multiplayer, which was then removed when it came out in another region. There was no extra development time to make the single player experience better. The game is finished with no additions at all and one less mode to have fun with for the small percentage that would.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Damn it looks like the thread came to a bit of an understanding, I am actually pretty impressed.

 

[diaspora]

I am not an authority on what should or shouldn't be irrational since I'm just one guy, but to me when you logically break down the reasons for something, I see it as irrational.

Let's use your AC bullet points as an example.



All the bolded make sense to me because it's implying the multiplayer hindered the single player experience in the development phase, what with less of a unified vision for the gameplay and resources used on things that can be better used elsewhere for refinement.

But again, we're talking about something where the development phase is already over with.

A better example would be if the game came out in one region, had the multiplayer, which was then removed when it came out in another region. There was no extra development time to make the single player experience better. The game is finished with no additions at all and one less mode to have fun with for the small percentage that would.

It's unlikely any development resources or writing will be put forward towards such nonsense in the future- mercifully.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I mean, if the touching and suggestive lines are gone... They're kind of axing it entirely, no one is complaining about a mode that lets you see the 2D models

The touching may be gone, but the suggestive lines might not be.

 

[WildEagle18]

I'll play Hoshido first because I vastly prefer the characters and overall aesthetic, then Nohr to appreciate the better map designs and more classic FE gameplay.

Im jumping straight to Nohr for the challenge. Replaying Awakening 6 times soured me on the clear the map thing lol.

Also Im stoke about having to decide who to use since exp are limited unlike Hosihido/Awakening where you can turn everyone into killing machine due to grinding. Also different victory conditions being back has me pump.

 

[RM8]

The touching may be gone, but the suggestive lines might not be.

Hey, who knows, but I find that unlikely to happen since the lines are what made this mode potentially "family unfriendly" in the eyes of NOA, and there's the angle of localizing so many lines being too expensive. I think before all of this, most of us expected NOA to keep the mode but severely tone down the lines.

Im jumping straight to Nohr for the challenge. Replaying Awakening 6 times soured me on the clear the map thing lol.

Also Im stoke about having to decide who to use since exp are limited unlike Hosihido/Awakening where you can turn everyone into killing machine due to grinding. Also different victory conditions being back has me pump.

Yup, hyped for Nohr too!

 

[Palculator]

I mean, the example is what happened. Some people did like the multiplayer mode in previous Assassin's Creed titles. And yet, Syndicate dropped multiplayer completely. No co-op, no competitive. Let's see the responses.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1045099

• Was never a fan of any of the multiplayer in the AC games. Glad they are focusing on single player.
• A AAA publisher finally cutting back on the scope of project?
• I'm actually pretty happy with this.
• Best news I've heard about this series. The gameplay looked really stripped back to basics which imo is fantastic.
• Sounds good to me. I was never big on the MP in AC games, and didn't care for the co-op in Unity either. Better to focus on single player.
• Awesome. Now announce that there'll be no shitty companion app and i'll be there day 1

• I don't mind not having it, but the mp versus stuff is actually a fun add-on to the main experience. Guess they decided to buckle down for a smoother experience.

Those are people expressing their preferences, preferences which run counter to some others who really enjoyed co-op or competitive multiplayer in Assassin's Creed. I don't find that selfish in an irrational way.

Also, depending on your point of view, you may not see the appreciable difference to Nintendo and Intelligent Systems deciding to cut the feature in development and deciding to cut the feature during localization. It's the same sense of loss we feel when we hear about a feature that's no longer in the final game. Either way, the game has changed before it's reached me, due to the decision of a stakeholder involved in the making of the product.

Now I can disagree with those decisions, but functionally, it doesn't change how it happened. I interviewed a few developers about things commercial art and the process of losing things they enjoyed due to other internal forces, including license holders.

Two, "adamant" is just a statement of degree. Saying "I would prefer that feature not be in there" and "I hate that feature, take it out" achieve the same endgame, the former is just preferable to interacting with others in person or online who may disagree with you.

And finally, it's all feedback that the developer/publisher chooses to listen to or not.

Yes, I know AC used to have mutliplayer and I guess some people enjoyed it. But Syndicate never had a finished multiplayer mode in a published release that people looked forward to. If it had and it was then taken out for whatever reason (obviously, there's no localisation step like this for the AC series) I would indeed find the people taking glee in that selfish. The concern that effort put into that mode could be better spent elsewhere is obviously completely valid, but cutting that mode doesn't adress that at all because effort was already "misplaced" into this mode. It only makes it worse for people who might have enjoyed it and does little for the people who wouldn't have played it.

 

[Tyeforce]

I mean, if the touching and suggestive lines are gone... They're kind of axing it entirely, no one is complaining about a mode that lets you see the 2D models

There's more to dialog to be had from this mode than just "suggestive lines" (although, yes, those suggestive lines do exist as well). And yes, I absolutely adore the characters models in this mode (there's so much detail to the animations and everything) and that's another big reason why the removal of this feature is very disappointing. I'd happily settle for a toned down mode that doesn't feature touching and changes any lines that may be too suggestive (even though I still don't believe that any of that is really inappropriate and I would prefer it kept the same if possible) if the alternative is not having it at all.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Imagine the many threads we've had in the previous generation about people who dislike additional optional DLC or extra multiplayer modes for single-player titles.

Examples:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1107479
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=359699

They don't want those extra modes and content to not be a thing because they're offended by them. They just don't like them, would prefer the devs have spent their time elsewhere, and are glad they're gone. That's not offense, triggering, or whatever.

I assume this is what the poster is trying to get at.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. You're talking about an in development products vs. finished products. As an example, if Square were to re-release Tomb Raider 2013 but cut the multiplayer mode from it, that wouldn't make the game any better. Nothing would change about the single player if there were any resources taken away during the initial development. The same is true here. This minigame is complete as is the rest of the game. Removing it isn't going to make the game any better.

Going back to TR for a moment, when the multiplayer for 2013 was announced there was negative feedback for it. Once it was released fans gave it a shot and decided that it really wasn't that good and resources for the series could be better spent on the single player. Crystal Dynamics agreed which resulted in RotR being single player only. On the other hand, you have something like Uncharted 2. The reaction to it having multiplayer was met with a similar response to when TR2013 was announced to have it. But when it came out fans actually loved the multiplayer. It's since become a staple of ND games. In both cases fans at least gave it a shot even though the general feeling before both was the same, which is that they didn't want it to be there in the first place. One group of fans kept that feeling while the other changed their minds.

 

[MHWilliams]

I am not an authority on what should or shouldn't be irrational since I'm just one guy, but to me when you logically break down the reasons for something, I see it as irrational.

All the bolded make sense to me because it's implying the multiplayer hindered the single player experience in the development phase, what with less of a unified vision for the gameplay and resources used on things that can be better used elsewhere for refinement.

I've gotten the feeling in this thread and elsewhere that the feeling is similar for this feature. People believe that effort could've been repurposed towards the strategy side of the equation. Either way, it's all speculation (Ubisoft in the above examples has a dedicated multiplayer team that would've just moved to another title, so those resources wouldn't have moved regardless.)

But again, we're talking about something where the development phase is already over with.

A better example would be if the game came out in one region, had the multiplayer, which was then removed when it came out in another region. There was no extra development time to make the single player experience better. The game is finished with no additions at all and one less mode to have fun with for the small percentage that would.

Again, difference in perception. I count localization as a pretty important part of the development phase, given the number of changes that can happen and are required to pull it off. These days, assuming localization changes are made without the input and effort of the developer seems wrong. Take the Fatal Frame changes, which included completely different costumes. In Fire Emblem's case, it's not like NoA could just cut out an entire chunk of a game without Intelligent Systems' help and input. Coding rarely works like that. They probably had to sit down and go back and forth over script changes, audience preferences in the West, and any cut or new content that would need to go into the Western release.

It's certainly not easy.

 

[Kirie]

My gf is pretty devestated by the news, since tere are barely any games that offers fanservice to both sides, and when one of the game she's been waiting for gets one of the feature taken out. When I show her the amie side of Fates she was the one that suggested to pre-order the limited edition (I was only picking up the Nohr side + third route, cause muh Camilla). While we are still getting our games but she's pretty bum about it now.

It just sucks to the people who wanted the feature, I mean, you can play the game without it, so to people who find the whole rubbing face creepy, its not like its force upon you to finish the game.

Aw About 6-7 of my girlfriends and I are all pretty disappointed with it being taken out too. A lot of us are otome gamers so I think skinship in games bothers us way less than most people. Our group loves romance in games, so it just sucks especially since there isn't much aimed at us overall. One is especially disappointed because she was very excited for being able to use it with the s/s options too. I mean, most of us of course love the strategy first and foremost, but still

I have it better than them though since I have the Japanese version, but it still disappointing regardless.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Reading stuff like "Fire Emblem shouldn't be this" and "I don't like the way the series is going" gets old.

Yeah, how dare people like/dislike things!
....

I honestly feel like this is a lazy post. The process of creating a game is always going to some combination of the following:

1.) A central person or persons in charge who serves as the main visionary(ies).

2.) A committee of corporate higher-ups with the ability to override and suggest goals and changes.

3.) People on the development team whose ideas may or may not work their way up to the director.

4.) Anyone from groups 1 - 3 looking at community feedback in an attempt to understand what will and won't make the product more commercially successful.

Mind you, I get that it can be egocentric for any one person who is not actually working on the game to pretend that their desires have to be placated above all else. It would be delusional of me to declare that petting has no place in Fire Emblem because I -- Steve Youngblood -- think it doesn't fit. I'm not an authority. There are far bigger Fire Emblem fans than me on the forum that are probably more deserving to have their voice heard than me.

But nevertheless, I'm a consumer of this product. They don't care about me as one consumer. But where my opinion falls in line with the various demographics that they can identify? They most definitely care. Ultimately, it's their call. You're right. Some speculation right now seems to indicate that even internally in Japan, this wasn't a runaway success of an idea. The dev teams were split on how far to take it. Reaction was mixed at best. Maybe they would have cut this type of feature from the next game anyway without needing my hot take on the issue.

But I think it's important to understand where the divide is. To me, what this mini-game represents is a further slide into making Fire Emblem more and more about relationships and romance because presumably they took from Awakenings success that people wanted this. As a consumer? All I can do is voice "no. I do not want this." That's not me having delusions of grandeur stating "I know what Fire Emblem is supposed to be and this isn't it." That's me saying "as a potential consumer of your next game, further moves to satiate the desires of people seeking relationship stuff in this series are going to alienate me."

And maybe they go down that path anyway. That's fine. I'm not important. People can want things I don't. It might lead to a more successful and arguably better product. But as long as we're having this discussion, people are going to voice their views.

Thank you.

The funny thing is, that's how a lot of gamergate supporters talk about games. "Keep your gay stuff out of my games."
"Keep your women out of my games."

Oh please. For real?

I am arguing, though, in my above post, that the loss of the minigame is worse for people who enjoy it - or, even at the very least just want to TRY it - than removing it is beneficial for people who dislike it.

I fail to see why I should care, sorry. Guess that makes me "irrational" and "selfish" or whatever word cosmicblizzard (who was, funnily enough, complaining about personal attacks earlier) wants to use.

But yeah. If a few people crave and demand a doll-petting mini-game in Bloodborne 2, and some dev at From makes it for the lulz and then later From axes it because "c'mon son this has no place in Bloodborne", me, and other fans, will be happy and relieved. Those few who really wanted that doll-petting game? Too bad for them.

But again, we're talking about something where the development phase is already over with.

It will indicate that this MP feature is not really welcome, and will be left out of the development of future games in the franchise, so that resources can be focused on better things.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. You're talking about an in development products vs. finished products. As an example, if Square were to re-release Tomb Raider 2013 but cut the multiplayer mode from it, that wouldn't make the game any better. Nothing would change about the single player if there were any resources taken away during the initial development. The same is true here. This minigame is complete as is the rest of the game. Removing it isn't going to make the game any better.

I disagree completely.

 

[WildEagle18]

Aw About 6-7 of my girlfriends and I are all pretty disappointed with it being taken out too. A lot of us are otome gamers so I think skinship in games bothers us way less than most people. Our group loves romance in games, so it just sucks especially since there isn't much aimed at us overall. One is especially disappointed because she was very excited for being able to use it with the s/s options too. I mean, most of us of course love the strategy first and foremost, but still

I have it better than them though since I have the Japanese version, but it still disappointing regardless.

Yep my gf loves otome games. I got her Norn9 and Code Realize and she enjoyed them, she enjoyed Awakening since of the marriage too. Yeah she started liking srpg ever since Awakening but FE was her favorite because alot of srpg she's been playing are mostly fanservice for guys (like Stella Glow).

 

[MHWilliams]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. You're talking about an in development products vs. finished products. As an example, if Square were to re-release Tomb Raider 2013 but cut the multiplayer mode from it, that wouldn't make the game any better. Nothing would change about the single player if there were any resources taken away during the initial development. The same is true here. This minigame is complete as is the rest of the game. Removing it isn't going to make the game any better.

Going back to TR for a moment, when the multiplayer for 2013 was announced there was negative feedback for it. Once it was released fans gave it a shot and decided that it really wasn't that good and resources for the series could be better spent on the single player. Crystal Dynamics agreed which resulted in RotR being single player only. On the other hand, you have something like Uncharted 2. The reaction to it having multiplayer was met with a similar response to when TR2013 was announced to have it. But when it came out fans actually loved the multiplayer. It's since become a staple of ND games. In both cases fans at least gave it a shot even though the general feeling before both was the same, which is that they didn't want it to be there in the first place. One group of fans kept that feeling while the other changed their minds.

It's odd that you brought up Uncharted, given that it fits that specific scenario. Uncharted Collection lacks the multiplayer features of the second and third games. Which players alternatively expressed sadness or joy over. And you can see my post above for the rest, as an un-localized release in the West doesn't really count as a finished product that the developer has completely left behind.

Yes, I know AC used to have mutliplayer and I guess some people enjoyed it. But Syndicate never had a finished multiplayer mode in a published release that people looked forward to. If it had and it was then taken out for whatever reason (obviously, there's no localisation step like this for the AC series) I would indeed find the people taking glee in that selfish. The concern that effort put into that mode could be better spent elsewhere is obviously completely valid, but cutting that mode doesn't adress that at all because effort was already "misplaced" into this mode. It only makes it worse for people who might have enjoyed it and does little for the people who wouldn't have played it.

The bolded is the key there. Anytime a developer or publisher has to revisit a title - localization, remake, remaster - there's a chance features will be changed or cut.

Aw About 6-7 of my girlfriends and I are all pretty disappointed with it being taken out too. A lot of us are otome gamers so I think skinship in games bothers us way less than most people. Our group loves romance in games, so it just sucks especially since there isn't much aimed at us overall. One is especially disappointed because she was very excited for being able to use it with the s/s options too. I mean, most of us of course love the strategy first and foremost, but still

I have it better than them though since I have the Japanese version, but it still disappointing regardless.

Otome fans are the ones I've seen on my Twitter timeline who are most saddened by the lack of the mini-game.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Again, difference in perception. I count localization as a pretty important part of the development phase, given the number of changes that can happen and are required to pull it off. These days, assuming localization changes are made without the input and effort of the developer seems wrong. Take the Fatal Frame changes, which included completely different costumes. In Fire Emblem's case, it's not like NoA could just cut out an entire chunk of a game without Intelligent Systems' help and input. Coding rarely works like that. They probably had to sit down and go back and forth over script changes, audience preferences in the West, and any cut or new content that would need to go into the Western release.

It's certainly not easy.

In that case, wouldn't it have taken less time had the mode remained and thus there wouldn't need to have been as much contact with IS, thus, the game could be released earlier? Or would translating the dialogue and recording new voices take longer than the time they would have saved having IS cut the mode out?

 

[Venfayth]

edit: nvm, not worth it

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I fail to see why I should care, sorry.

If you don't care, what point is there in making your opinion known in the first place? To rub it in the faces of those that do care?

It will indicate that this MP feature is not really welcome, and will be left out of the development of future games in the franchise, so that resources can be focused on better things.

The resources have already been "wasted". No multiplayer in future games so resources can be focused on better things? Good! But excising optional features from a game that's already finished? Wouldn't THAT waste resources?

 

[Kaiterra]

If you don't care, what point is there in making your opinion known in the first place? To rub it in the faces of those that do care?

To make it clear to Nintendo that their choice is approved of.

 

[diaspora]

To make it clear to Nintendo that their choice is approved of.

And to explain why. I thought it was clear at least...

 

[Kaiterra]

And to explain why. I thought it was clear at least...

Yeah. It's the same reason you'd post feedback regarding any game.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

To make it clear to Nintendo that their choice is approved of.

I don't think Nintendo is reading this thread.

 

[MHWilliams]

In that case, wouldn't it have taken less time had the mode remained and thus there wouldn't need to have been as much contact with IS, thus, the game could be released earlier? Or would translating the dialogue and recording new voices take longer than the time they would have saved having IS cut the mode out?

The latter is my guess. The cost of voice acting was prohibitive to having the mode in and it didn't play well with Japanese audiences, so it's easier to just cut it.

If the game comes out with the 2D models and full voice acting, but not rubbing, I'd be surprised. If the 2D models are still in there in some fashion, I wouldn't be surprised to see just text accompanying them.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I don't think Nintendo is reading this thread.

Ah, so all feedback and opinions about games should sent directly to the developers, and never talked about on forums.

Welp. Time to close NeoGAF!

 

[cosmicblizzard]

The latter is my guess. The cost of voice acting was prohibitive to having the mode in and it didn't play well with Japanese audiences, so it's easier to just cut it.

If the game comes out with the 2D models and full voice acting, but not rubbing, I'd be surprised. If the 2D models are still in there in some fashion, I wouldn't be surprised to see just text accompanying them.

In that case, the removal is purely a cost-cutting/time-saving method and has nothing to do with offending or not offending people or harming the brand.

That kind of changes the entire dynamic of the conversation. Rather than fearing controversy, it just makes Treehouse look lazy.

 

[Venfayth]

For the record, the point I was making about the impact of the removal being weightier for those who wanted the inclusion of the feature was not that wanting it removed was an invalid or less worthy opinion. I would assume the tone of my post was enough to imply that, but let me be explicit about it now.

 

[Kaiterra]

I don't think Nintendo is reading this thread.

Who the hell knows? Your question is both an unfair assumption of bad faith and dismissive of the idea of discussion forums such as this one altogether though.

 

[redcrayon]

Yep my gf loves otome games. I got her Norn9 and Code Realize and she enjoyed them, she enjoyed Awakening since of the marriage too. Yeah she started liking srpg ever since Awakening but FE was her favorite because alot of srpg she's been playing are mostly fanservice for guys (like Stella Glow).

Can I just ask what an Otome game is? Is it a graphic novel with relationship choices, that kinda thing? Genuine question, I'm only into SRPGs for the strategy element but curious.

Is Stella Glow basically Luminous Arc IV? I wasn't a fan of them but SG seems quite good based on the OT.

 

[diaspora]

Can I just ask what an Otome game is? Is it a graphic novel with relationship choices, that kinda thing? Genuine question, I'm only into SRPGs for the strategy element but curious.

animu visual novel where the goal is to hook up the PC with one of the male characters.

 

[Kaiterra]

Can I just ask what an Otome game is? Is it a graphic novel with relationship choices, that kinda thing? Genuine question, I'm only into SRPGs for the strategy element but curious.

Yes, female-targeted visual novels/dating sims to put it simply.

 

[redcrayon]

Ah, cheers everyone.

 

[Onimusha78]

I don't think Nintendo is reading this thread.

Got a feeling they might be

 

[Venfayth]

Well, I don't think it's all anime visual novels. I don't think you'd consider something like Fate to be an otome. My understanding is that it's targeted towards females and focuses on relationships quite heavily.

Got a feeling they might be

If you are reading this Nintendo, please make another 2D Metroid!

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Ah, so all feedback and opinions about games should sent directly to the developers, and never talked about on forums.

Welp. Time to close NeoGAF!

You responded to a post that some people, speaking on a personal level, might be upset over the removal of content with "I don't care". I don't see how that doesn't come off as abrasive or works as helpful feedback for the sake of the current discussion.

 

[nukedeggs]

Can I just ask what an Otome game is? Is it a graphic novel with relationship choices, that kinda thing? Genuine question, I'm only into SRPGs for the strategy element but curious.

An otome game is a visual novel game where the player character (usually female) can choose to date an array of (usually) male characters. So the gameplay is pretty much reading text and picking choices most of the time.

I think bishoujo game is the same thing but aimed towards men. Otome games are aimed towards women.

 

[Kaiterra]

And hey Intelligent Systems, please make a new Advance Wars thx

 

[Kirie]

Yep my gf loves otome games. I got her Norn9 and Code Realize and she enjoyed them, she enjoyed Awakening since of the marriage too. Yeah she started liking srpg ever since Awakening but FE was her favorite because alot of srpg she's been playing are mostly fanservice for guys (like Stella Glow).

Yeah, I can definitely relate to that too. I still hope she can still thoroughly enjoy the game though!

Otome fans are the ones I've seen on my Twitter timeline who are most saddened by the lack of the mini-game.

Definitely! I'm seeing this too (helps I'm involved in the community though). I'm also a moderator over on one of the popular HM/SoS fansites that's comprised of mostly girls and women, and there's been so many of them just really disappointed with the whole thing.