By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DonFerrari on 20 December 2018
Edit Thread
omarct said:
0D0 said:
There's only one game I'm an elitist: Fire Emblem.

For me, permanent death is part of the game, shouldn't be optional. Fire Emblem is meant to be played having in mind that you have to do everything possible to save your characters or sometimes you'll have to sadly sacrifice one. When you can use and re-use all the characters knowing that they'll never die, it's just a completely different experience.

But anyway, why not be optional? Because I'm a FE elitist, I admit. I can't stand what Nintendo has done to the franchise. I just can't.

You are being a hypocrite here. How is that any different than death and difficulty being a part of the souls experience?

Seems like you haven't read much on his posts. He is totally admitting he is being elitist on Fire Emblem and accepting that it contradicts what he think about Souls.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."