Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 23, 2014, 01:38:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
RPGFan Community Quiz!
Persona 3 FES Quiz is now OVER!
Winner was user: Monsoon!
334699 Posts in 13707 Topics by 2200 Members
Latest Member: Rgeneb1
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  RPGFan Message Boards
|-+  Media
| |-+  Single-Player RPGs
| | |-+  Traditional Strategy & Action
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Traditional Strategy & Action  (Read 7867 times)
Tomara
Posts: 2122


Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2008, 02:27:38 PM »

In Fire Emblem, when a character dies he can't be used for the rest of the game. There is no phoenix down or whatever to revive them. Because of this people prefer to reset the game whenever a character dies on the battlefield. In most Fire Emblem games that happens quite often.

Shadow Dragon is a bit different in that regard. Death is still permanent, but you get so many worthless characters that it doesn't if some pawn dies to protect the queen. The game actually encourages players to focus on a group of strong units, instead of keeping every character alive till the end of the game. You'll still want to reset when one of your good characters dies, but that won't happen that often. Also, this installment is the only Fire Emblem with save points on the map. You can save your game before a daring/important decision and reload that save if the outcome isn't what you hoped for.

BTW some fans reviewed the Japanese version, but it will be atleast a few more days before the first reviews of the European version appear. Nintendo values street dates and doesn't send out review copies of important games until after they're officialy out. Right now, the only way for reviewers to play the game is to actually go to one of Nintendo's branch-offices and play it there.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2008, 02:33:12 PM by Tomara » Logged
Zool
Posts: 91


Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2008, 06:28:30 PM »

Thank you for the information, I'll look out for the review.
Logged
Alisha
Posts: 2737


Member
*

Z0eila@hotmail.com Z0eila
View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2008, 11:28:11 AM »

Here is a tough question, outside of the Shining Force series, are there any Srpgs/Trpgs that have the adventure portion? I'm talking about walking around towns, visiting different areas etc.
The only ones I know of are la pucelle and Rhapsody that kind of do it and Disgaea and Soul nomad, do a really dummed down version. What I'm looking for is full town exploration sections.
Any ideas? I think Arc the lad might qualify but I don't know.


because most srpg's take place in a wartime setting it wouldnt make sense to have a town to walk around in. personally the lack of a town doesn't bug me in games like SRW,front mission 4 and the GC fire emblems because there is plenty of banter between the characters between missions and in the case of fire emblem por and front mission 4 you can talk to characters in between missions.
Logged


“Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from.”
Dincrest
Spectrum
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 11883


Stumpy McGunder- thumps

Member
*


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2008, 02:45:34 PM »

Here is a tough question, outside of the Shining Force series, are there any Srpgs/Trpgs that have the adventure portion? I'm talking about walking around towns, visiting different areas etc.
The only ones I know of are la pucelle and Rhapsody that kind of do it and Disgaea and Soul nomad, do a really dummed down version. What I'm looking for is full town exploration sections.
Any ideas? I think Arc the lad might qualify but I don't know.

Bahamut Lagoon, however that game was never released outside of Japan.
Logged

Next bike-a-thon: Diabetes Tour-de-Cure 2015
uwsguy
Posts: 22

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2008, 01:37:16 AM »

Here is a tough question, outside of the Shining Force series, are there any Srpgs/Trpgs that have the adventure portion? I'm talking about walking around towns, visiting different areas etc.
The only ones I know of are la pucelle and Rhapsody that kind of do it and Disgaea and Soul nomad, do a really dummed down version. What I'm looking for is full town exploration sections.
Any ideas? I think Arc the lad might qualify but I don't know.


because most srpg's take place in a wartime setting it wouldnt make sense to have a town to walk around in. personally the lack of a town doesn't bug me in games like SRW,front mission 4 and the GC fire emblems because there is plenty of banter between the characters between missions and in the case of fire emblem por and front mission 4 you can talk to characters in between missions.

I think it is just that Shining Force was my first SRPG and so that shaped my expectations and desires from then on. I do think that in some games though, town sections would help to add a little bit of variety and immersion. As mentioned it would be weird in Front mission and SRW but I'd love to be able to walk around the many towns in the disgaea universe (never feel like i'm going anywhere in this game, just the next map), wander around town and stumble across secret recruitable characters in FFTA etc.
Don't think it will ever happen though :P
C'est la vie
Logged
MeshGearFox
Posts: 8617


HERE ON RUM ISLAND WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN RUM!

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2008, 02:05:44 AM »

Quote
Here is a tough question, outside of the Shining Force series, are there any Srpgs/Trpgs that have the adventure portion?

Arc the Lad 2 is mostly a traditional adventurey-rpg with SRPG battles.

FFT doesn't have towns you can explore but it's fairly open in what you can do between story battles.

Front Mission 1 also offers considerably more freedom than FM3 does (And I'm very much aware that the internet is awesome and FM3 adds in all sorts of new skills and features. I just like FM1 a whole hell of a lot more even if there's no concept of balance in regards to taking one mech part over another since there's a rigidly linear progression of stats). I mean, still linear and no explorable towns, but you could go back and forth and find a few hidden characters.

Still, yeah. Arc 2 is the closest by far unless you want to go into the PC strategy RPG category in which case you have Jagged alliance 2, which has fully explorable towns and things. Can't think of anything else on the PC front, though, unless you want to start including any PC game with a tactical battle system, which doesn't really work since most of them don't have very strategically-oriented gameplay in that sense.

Quote
Some qualify the Arc games as SRPGs, but since the battlesystem is so dumbed down, some people prefer not to.

Dumbed down in what sense? They're not any less complex than the shining force games were. It's fairly easy, but again, so was shining force.

Going out on a limb and saying that most strategy RPGs don't really provide a lot of strategic depth. In regards to like, fFT, there were a lot of cases where you'd get one Awesome Guest Character or some excellently general purpose skill and could get by using nothing but that. Fire Emblem is more difficult but it annoys the hell out of me because character death is permanent (I only played the first US GBA one, though. I thought it was kind of unbalanced).

Biggest problem with SRPGs, I find, is that you tend to, very quickly, get a small core group of characters that are vastly more powerful than everyone else, rendering most of the other characters useless and reducing strategic... depth? variety? This is usually just a result of the levelling system. Characters that get the kills get more XP. More powerful characters get more kills. It's kind of a positive feedback loop in that sense unless you're willing to put up with the tedium of levelling up lagging characters (I'm not willing to do this).

Similar, I should mention that JA2 has the same annoying endless reload syndrome from Fire Emblem by nature of every character being unique. You can also get stuck in a loop where it costs too much to maintain your mercenary forces and the game gets kind of unwinnable. Which is why I like the x-com games more, but no explorable towns there (except in Apocalypse, sort of).
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 02:18:52 AM by MeshGearFox » Logged

o/` I do not feel joy o/`
o/` I do not dream o/`
o/` I only stare at the door and smoke o/`

Tomara
Posts: 2122


Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2008, 02:52:53 AM »

Quote
Dumbed down in what sense? They're not any less complex than the shining force games were. It's fairly easy, but again, so was shining force.

The Arc the Lad games, especially the third and fourth game, had extremely small parties and maps. It's more akin to Popolocrois and Rhapsody than to Shining Force, IMO.

Quote
Going out on a limb and saying that most strategy RPGs don't really provide a lot of strategic depth. In regards to like, fFT, there were a lot of cases where you'd get one Awesome Guest Character or some excellently general purpose skill and could get by using nothing but that. Fire Emblem is more difficult but it annoys the hell out of me because character death is permanent (I only played the first US GBA one, though. I thought it was kind of unbalanced).

Biggest problem with SRPGs, I find, is that you tend to, very quickly, get a small core group of characters that are vastly more powerful than everyone else, rendering most of the other characters useless and reducing strategic... depth? variety? This is usually just a result of the levelling system. Characters that get the kills get more XP. More powerful characters get more kills. It's kind of a positive feedback loop in that sense unless you're willing to put up with the tedium of levelling up lagging characters (I'm not willing to do this).

...You used Marcus, didn't you? :P

Using only the strongest people in Fire Emblem is a bad idea. A good team is something you need to work for, which isn't so bad as long as you have some solid strategies. And, most Fire Emblem games actually encourage you to work with characters that start out weak. They get neat bonuses like extra stat growth (Nino comes right in time for the Afa drops), extra exp gain (Astrid!) or a unique weapon (the only reason to use Eliwood...) Well, except for Radiant Dawn in the later chapters. "Oh, you noticed the Dawn Brigade sucks? Well, here are so awesome characters to make up for it!" Not that that game was easy...
Logged
Hathen
Posts: 1964


FORUM IDIOT

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2008, 03:49:05 AM »

Fire Emblem is only "hard" if you're OCD about having to keep all your characters alive. I can count on one hand how many times I've actually had Game Over in Fire Emblem. Of course, I haven't played that many of them.
Logged
erwos
Posts: 208

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2008, 08:28:21 AM »

Fire Emblem is only "hard" if you're OCD about having to keep all your characters alive. I can count on one hand how many times I've actually had Game Over in Fire Emblem. Of course, I haven't played that many of them.
Unless I'm missing something, a lot of the missions kinda assume you've got most of your guys still alive. I'm still kicking myself for losing Soren in the FE for Gamecube.
Logged
Tomara
Posts: 2122


Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2008, 10:20:35 AM »

Fire Emblem is only "hard" if you're OCD about having to keep all your characters alive. I can count on one hand how many times I've actually had Game Over in Fire Emblem. Of course, I haven't played that many of them.

However, losing good character is a bad idea as well. The games become much harder when you use mediocre units.

Quote
I'm still kicking myself for losing Soren in the FE for Gamecube.

I kicked my brother when he lost Soren (and everytime he mistook him for a girl) and personally pushed the reset button for him, yet he still fails at Fire Emblem.
Logged
MeshGearFox
Posts: 8617


HERE ON RUM ISLAND WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN RUM!

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2008, 11:23:31 AM »

Quote
Fire Emblem is only "hard" if you're OCD about having to keep all your characters alive. I can count on one hand how many times I've actually had Game Over in Fire Emblem. Of course, I haven't played that many of them.

Well, yeah. Finishing a map while only losing one character isn't difficult to do at all, but Nils or Pink Fairy Unicorn Princess Girl always had a tendancy to get exploded by an axebastard.

Quote
The Arc the Lad games, especially the third and fourth game, had extremely small parties and maps. It's more akin to Popolocrois and Rhapsody than to Shining Force, IMO.

The huge maps in Shining Force sort of bugged me because half of the time I was spending millions of turngs moving through mountains or something, only a few tiles at a time, and then after several hours, I finally met the enemy.

This also happened in Fire emblem except it was doubly annoying because of the permanent death, so you spend three hours getting to the enemy, and then someone dies right off the bat and you have to restart.

(I'm aware that this is hyperbole but I really felt like there was a lot of dead time in both of these games).
Logged

o/` I do not feel joy o/`
o/` I do not dream o/`
o/` I only stare at the door and smoke o/`

Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!