that is a really sad statement :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
Printable View
that is a really sad statement :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
It's like if you said "Fire Emblem and Shining Force are the exact same game" and I said "Dude... are you nuts? They are nothing alike".Quote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
Not rocket science.
Not really, I only played enough of the game to figure out the mechanics, so I can't make a proper judgement. If we go by their grandparents I'd definitely choose SF3 since i'm not a big fan of Tactics Ogre :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
Since I've not played Tactics Ogre nor Fire Emblem your comparisons are meaningless to me. I've been looking for clarification of what makes the mechanics different. StarMist mentioned the elevation effects, which I was aware of and I don't really feel that changed my approach or execution of strategy, besides requiring adjustment for attack range and weapon effectiveness. The interface and command execution and attacks and spells and item and weapon management all play exactly the same by my experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
It's like you saying "Sonic and Mario are the exact same game, you jump on enemies heads, there's platforming, you run fast, pick yellow things and get powerups" and I'm like "Dude... are you nuts? They're nothing alike!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
Two games in the same genre are always "similar", but saying they're exactly the same will get you the response above.
The elevation makes a big difference, just like permanent death in fire emblem makes a big difference, and the troops in langrisser make a big difference.
- Shining Force is all about discovering new allies, the simple combat mechanics, awesome battle animations and town exploration.
- Tactics Ogre is all about managing the terrain and positioning (including the direction of the attack) and troop management (you have heroes but members of the team include recruited troops too).
SJW basically takes out the troop management of Tactics Ogre and replaces it with the allies of SF. SF3 and SJW also both add the more interesting mission objectives.
But look at what is missing in SJW from the "SF school":
1. Simplified Combat (It has the Tactics Ogre style)
2. Town Exploration
3. Battle Animations
It's a HUGE difference, it's the stuff that separates SF from the other Strategy RPGs of it's time.
Zz, you asked whether we were agreed Saiyuki is the better game and from what I've attempted to play of Shining Force III inclined me to aye, it just isn't like the old games due to the awful graphics and camera angle even if which can be rotated is not exempt from criticism, viewpoint must never be a liability in a strategy game. I also found the music subpar and the character names atrocious albeit those nearest the protagonist can be changed. Yet Saiyuki lacks several evident merits Kamahl just underscored; moreover you stated it can be played exactly as if Shining Force, a notably simple exercise in strategy gaming, which for a dry, serious tactics game is damning--and even without playing it I can call it serious because that's what the inclusion of elevation and its effects qualifies it as, just as one-hit kills in a sidescrolling platformer do--either that or it's an aimless failure, just as such a platformer would be that somehow lacked challenge in level and boss design. Moving characters up and down field steps is tedious in itself, it needs some reward which would logically be challenge; those steps also make the battlefield ugly. Therefore a game using them that can be coasted through is a failure. It sounds as if SoR III and Saiyuki are a draw.
I traded my PS in for a My Little Pony EasyBake(tm) Oven. It was really a step-up in technology and fun.
I don't blame you, as the PS is junk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kogen
Btw ZZ, you really should play some games from the Fire Emblem series. I haven't played them all, but the second on the SNES and the second on the GBA (the first to be translated to english) are both great. Your characters getting perma killed really adds a lot of tension to the game. Training and buying equipment are also extremely important since there isn't any turning back, you just do mission after mission. If you do like a lot of newbies do and abuse the "trap" character (a character that's either already promoted or higher lvl) you're screwed. They make the early missions a breeze but later on your team will be fatally under-powered.
Tactics Ogre is the most "serious" of them all, a game for a true tactician, I haven't played it nearly as much as I should.
EDIT: Tactics Ogre also features perma death but it's different. Character's can be revived during a battle, it's only if you leave them dead that they are permanently killed.
The true sign of a thread's being well seasoned is when Kogen at last bestows his wit upon it.
Something I've long wanted of traditional RPGs. Nothing like trying to 1LC and RPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
There's always Diablo 2 in hardcore mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
Yea Fire Emblem is a pretty good series, but kind of a drag as It's literally battles after battles(I played everyone except Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn so far, thank god for fan translations).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Hoshigami is even more serious then Tactics Ogre, It's basically the wizardry of the Tactic/RPG genre, the slightest flaw in your tactics, and bam, you have one or more perma dead char(you can actually have most your army killed in just a couple of turns if you're not careful.
Tactics Ogre: Knight of Lodis is a better game overall then the first Tactics Ogre, but sadly they made it super easy to revive dead members(and it would've been nice if the 100 floor cave was in it as well).
Now that is a helpful post in getting me to recognize why I don't see these games the same as you guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
I don't agree about "simplified combat" as I've been trying to express that combat seems quite the same as in SFIII. With the exception that Saiyuki requires more thought on account of elevation differences, which would seem to me to be more complex combat.
The lack of town exploration is a draw in my opinion of the two games.
The lack of battle animations is a plus for Saiyuki. Those animations get tiresome in SFIII.
I'd certainly forgotten about the troop management aspect of Shining Force, and while it is neat to have all those characters, I could care less. It is kind of like adding costumes to characters. The troop management in Dragon Force is a whole 'nother deal though.
To your point about discovering new allies, and StarMists comment about challenge, I must point out that treasure chests and hidden items are a prominent part of Saiyuki's battles. It is typically easy to just fulfil criteria to clear a battle, but to find the secret items is quite a challenge and requires replaying and reworking strategies. Of course SF has treasure chests too.
I still do not appreciate the analogies that have been made.
In my eyes a more apt analogy would be that SJW is to SFIII, as Socket is to Sonic. And following on logic implied in this thread, Mario 3 is nothing like SMB.
I pointed out before that I'm not a SRPG aficionado, so I'm not out to challenge your guys' views here. Ultimately I just need to say that playing SJW after playing SFIII gave me the impression that I was playing another version of the same type of game, and that I enjoyed SJW much more than SFIII.
And thanks for the SRPG suggestions. I've always wanted to play Fire Emblem, and did begin one of the GBA versions, but it didn't hold my attention early on so I devoted my time elsewhere. I do have the Gamecube release still sealed, so maybe one day I'll crack that open. For now I'm more inclined to play SFIII and Saiyuki again to reevaluate my impressions.
You're still holding on to semantics too much, "nothing alike" is the opposite of "exactly the same", the games are obviously similar if they're in the same genre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
Mario 3 is a lot closer to SMB than SJW is to SF3, since Mario 3 just builds on top of SMB, while SJW has elements similar to SF3, but not all, and has other elements from competing series.
Much better analogy:
Mario 2 to SMB.
I haven't played SF 3, but if It's anything close to the other SF games, the char handling system(aka class system if you will) in SF is completely different from SJW as well, which I don't think I've seen anyone bring up yet, atleast not dirrectly anyway, the simplified combat perhaps hints at it alittle though).
I have only extensively played Shining Force III, but I can say this about its gameplay. The elevation and group bonus aspect of the battle tactics is not a "bonus" to some sort of standard grid based SRPG, it is mandatory in Shining Force III if one doesn't want to lose characters and thereby make it much harder to level them up. I suppose if you wanted to blaze through each battle while losing all of your lower level characters, and you don't want to swap out older characters with new ones to level them up, it is possible that elevation and group advantages would not be necessary to the strategy, but I have never played it that way. The game seriously punishes losing characters, especially if you don't get them through their first battle.
Elevation and grouping the force to make up for individual weaknesses, not to mention avoiding one character getting teamed up on, is a crucial aspect of the Strategy in Shining Force III.