Which is in my a better game. The DC of course also got Time Stalkers.Quote:
Originally Posted by stika
Which is in my a better game. The DC of course also got Time Stalkers.Quote:
Originally Posted by stika
TA, I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're not just saying that because Dark Saviour has a really cool 3D engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
How, just how, is Dark Saviour better than Alundra? It loses in every other possible area (story, music, gameplay). Heck, even in 'graphics' Alundra has a better art style.
I wouldn't really lump in Time Stalkers with the Dark Savior, Alundra or Landstalker. The Turn-based combat completely changes the flow imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
You mean the GBA games right? Because the game gear gaidens were Hiroshi Kajiyama (looked this up, I did not know this off the top of my head :P).Quote:
Originally Posted by The M
I meant the Game Gear gaideins, although I'm surprised now that you mentioned it's a different artist since the art style for the first games and Landstalker with the gaidens look pretty similar. Although thinking again, now I realized the SF II and the gaidens somehow lacked the square/pointed character faces the former games had and went with more basic anime-ish format, however it was so imperceptible for me that didn't notice before. Good to know. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria
Heh, growing up I always thought SF2 had the same artist because he drew big hands and ears with identical shoes as the characters in SF1. Now I realize he was just mimicking Tamaki's style; the faces are much rounder and "cute" though :P
Recently I found a good condition complete copy of Landstalker for a great price locally. I was so happy to find it because this game feels like such a classic. Plus I'm a massive fan of the first two Shining games artwork.
The only time I played this game was on an emulator, and I only made it up to the finishing that castle. Then got stuck. For some reason I missed where the trigger to reach the next area? (To pursue someone) And no, I don't want anyone to tell me either. It's probably something very simple and didn't require backtracking the entire game over and over as I did (lol). But yeah. I'm looking forward for another playthrough of this game. Especially in light of this review.
Anyway, so many posts to reply too because I was too hungover for forums on X-Mas day...
This, but she did explain it very well in the review as really not being an issue + like she said in a reply here, it's something everybody always mentions for some reason for this game? ie. I really don't get why gamers like Kamahl get so bogged down about? (No offense to Kamahl) To me it really is as Daria described in the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebbe
I'm not sure if I remember any issues with the diagonal? But curious as to what Sega Gamepad D-Pad you're using? 6 or 3 button?
I would honestly reply the same because so far to me it seems much better then the other Genesis so called Zelda clones;Quote:
Originally Posted by Obviously
- Beyond Oasis - which seemed like I beat in one sitting, it was that addictive. Just seem weaker in replay? Best part of this game for me is the addictive (even though very easy) fun gameplay and unbelievable graphics. Always wanted to try it's Saturn sequel, but it's graphics don't look near as appealing to me as the bolder coloured Genesis game.
- Crusader of Centy - made it as far as the ice dungeon, and I forget why I stopped there?
That and Zelda doesn't have any more replay value to me after all these years from when I beat the game twice back in the day. Every time I pick it up I see what a boring cakewalk it is and that I remember everything, and that's it. How can anyone keep going when those two issues come up in a pretty long game without falling asleep?
I really don't like the art style of Shining Force 2 VS the magic and imagination it had in Shining in the Darkness and Shining Force 1. To me, personally, there's no contest. Glad Camelot found a proper artist in time for Shining the Holy Ark and Shining Force 3 Sc1,2&3 (my 4 fave games of all time).Quote:
Originally Posted by The M
I will say this. When the Shining Force/Landstalker artist returned to remake the GBA Shining Force art, I absolutely hated his art. What a disaster and downgrade from the original Shining Force art/graphics. Was shocked when I discovered it was the same artist.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by retrospiel
I still remember the classic EGM ad placement for this game. So memorable it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderblaze16
I thought 800 number were free?Quote:
Originally Posted by needler420
All games pre-2000 look best on a CRT to me. But especially Genesis games.Quote:
Originally Posted by magicalsoundshower
Agreed. Wish there was more of them. The best copy/are influenced by the best. ... Speaking of the best, why isn't anyone copying the Shining games? They are da best!Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria
There's FEDA on the SNES. It's pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief
Tried the SNES one for a few battles and had to stop because the battles sucked so much. Talked about it on the Shining Force forums, and the general reply was that the gameplay was too shallow/weak/easy/mindless or something. So I won't be returning to this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Well the original Shining Force had absolutely mindless AI. Doesn't get any shallower than that. If you're expecting Shining Force 2 I don't think there's anything like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief
Nice review. I hadn't seen any footage on this game before (never really interested me for some reason), and I immediately recognized the sound effects from the Shining series. Interesting history behind the game, and I actually want to give it a play through now. Good job, Daria :)
Good artist copy. Great artist steal.
Seriously, what has happened for Tamaki to do that kind of art for the GBA remake must be a mystery, it's completely different from the Darkness/Force and yeah, it's extremely ugly. If it wasn't for the extra content in it, would definitely pick the Genesis/MD one anytime (also don't like much the blurry colors and models for it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief
Sure, but it didn't feel mindless and easy the first few times you play through Shining Force VS why am I playing something that requires no thought at all of FEDA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Plus don't tell me you're another Shining Force powerlevers. I never play the Shining Force games like that, and my first time through Shining Force was without power leveling, so I was challenged.
But yes, I always wished SF1 had a difficulty select like all it's Camelot sequels.
But even still with it's weak AI, SF1 has crazy high replay value. Especially in comparison to turn based RPGS, which have none until you forget it's story and/or enough time has passed. And it's not like weak AI made all other retro games and not challenging. Since all retro games had weak AI.
I absolutely cannot stand to play through the GBA port no matter how big of a fan of the original Shining Force games I am. The guys who did this remake completely missed out the point of SF and instead included other SRPG BS in it. ie. Like when you move you're character, you have to first select your character, move a curser to where you want your character to move, then confirm that's where you want the curser to be, then watch your character move to that place.... WHAT IDIOT THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE BETTER THEN HAVING CONTROL OF YOUR CHARACTER INSTANTLY WHEN IT'S CLEARLY HIS AND ONLY HIS TURN AND THEN ONLY HAVING TO PRESS A BUTTON ONCE AND ONLY TO WHERE YOU WANT HIM TO STOP! Seriously, inefficiency and high stupidy of such levels upset me to no end. So pardon my outburst. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by The M
I made it as far as the Circus tent battle and that was all I could stand of playing that bastardized version of Shining Force. This game does not exist to me.
Heh, add me to the list of people that was totally floored that the same guy illustrated both games. I've played through the GBA version once (during a week of no power from a Hurricane - probably Katrina). Kept me entertained all things considered but it's a terrible remake. They ruined the magic, and the cards were pointless. I DID like the expanded dialogue they gave every character though.Quote:
Originally Posted by The M
Just Breed on the NES (well translated Famicom) is the best Shining Force knock-off I've ever played. Although I'm not entirely certain which came first.
Shining Force GBA is one of the most hideous games I've ever had the displeasure of playing. I'd rather look at El Viento.
@Thief
I play the Shining Force games for the fun of it, I never power level. Heck I even 'forget' how bad the AI is and play like I don't know it. Which is why I can still love the first SF and also enjoy FEDA. Can't really see why you don't.
I still have tolerance for the GBA version because of the extra content like the expanded story/dialogue like Daria mentioned and for introducing Zuika (I like to play with him), but for the rest it lags behind the original game, like the blurry colors, models and the ugly art. The card system is in fact interesting, but it's not something really necessary given that other characters can become stronger and more practical than Mawlock, especially when you have to do those pesky conditions to get all the cards (or at least the good ones). It's very few things, but they are the only ones that made me revisit it, otherwise I would only stick to the original and ignore the GBA.
Well, honestly. Shining Force series did practically ruin SRPGs for me in a nutshell (and RPGs too, because so much more simple gameplay in turn based RPGs VS Strategy tb RPGs). Shining Force got it so right, that I get irritated very easily when I try to branch out and play other SRPGs. And I lose interest fast too in regular turn based RPGs if a battle system is too slow (ie. I actually stopped playing DQ8 because I got so sick and tired of waiting for this crazy long spell animations of one enemy, while exploring overworld, doing some crazy dance wasting so much time just to make my character then do the crazy dance wasting just as much time again. The the next enemy does that too, and another part memeber. And I kept triggering these enemies... *Power Off*). So yeah. Super fast turn based RPG battles a la Phantasy Star 4 also big time spoiled me. Life is too short to waste on the same cutscenes that take forever over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
So many SRPGs & RPGS are also way too convoluted and overly complex for no reason sometimes. ie. Why does FF series have what seems like hundreds of spells to scroll through? And as if I'm going to test them all on all enemies. Why can't they be more simple and better balanced in turn? Like Chess where each piece has only a set of moves yet is still so deep and balanced. So I can just focus on the battle instead on getting lost in the menus. Or like Shining Force where each caster doesn't have more then 4 spells. So I get really pissed too when companies overcomplicate things too much and of course are nowhere near as skilled to balance a game at that complexity. Nor to they have the testers and testing time. Nor do they have a clue about pacing.
One funny story about crap pacing was me playing the first Fire Emblem for Gamecube. Anyway, only my leader can talk to the villagers on the battle field. Yet if I do only the talking with him, he get's no chance to fight and level up. So the game want's me to fight with everybody equally. Then save the last enemy for my leader to talk to every villager? As if and how did this serious issue slip by an entire development cycle? Everybody on that dev team should be fired! *Power Off*
PS - sorry for derailing and rant. :D
That's weird. I must be the only one that mostly hates it because of the gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by The M
Am I the only person compelled to level up every character equally? >.>
You mean using Egress to repeat the same fight over and over again? Yeah I don't do that. In SF2 there are random battles that can be used to do it, so it's fine there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria
Oh yeah. Every character must level up once a battle before I'll continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
But I've played it so many times I don't even care if I beat it anymore. And solo runs are kind of fun too. I've run through with Khris (who's a total tank BTW) hacked in as the only available character.
I just used a tightly knit group and dumped the rest at HQ. They probably starved to death or something there, dunno.
No, lots of people are. But in SF it's never forced and the game still ends up just right on first playthrough. Like the game was balanced without power leveling. So it's always your option if you want the game easier (or harder via difficulty setting or personal made handicaps). Unlike say;Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria
- FFT where you randomly get to do the same battles whenever you traverse the map. Why I used state saves to avoid all mindless random battles. But then hit a brick wall once (probably because it was my first SRPG), so had to catch up on some levels, then like around the middle of the game or something it became a total joke even with skipping all random battles... what a turd SRPG. Seriously. Stop praising this trash, kids/squaresoft zombies). Or;
- Arc the Lad 2 where if you don't repeat battles, you won't stand a chance. Litterally, because you won't even be able to land a hit or something stupid like that (same with AtL1 if you don't do optional 55 floor or something dungeon? But I didn't, so was forced to mindlessly grind just so I could land hit. But instead of grinding to stand a chance for the final battle, by then I decided to just YouTube the ending. Enough is enough. And I can't believe I put up with such nonsense till I reached that far... oh yeah, thought AtL2 was going to be awesome sauce and fixed. lol.).
- seemed to me like Tactics Ogre SNES is like that too if you want to stand any chance (can't confirm. Gave up on it. But heard it's fixed or something on the PSP? Which I bought, so that guy on SFC who said so better be right), only you level up in TO SNES by fighting your team against your team? Like playing chess against yourself? Yeah. No thanks. So it better be fixed for PSP.
... so yeah, why are these games so popular again with such glaring issues? Wish they weren't so we'd get some good SRPGs.
Yes, Oddeyesama said I should check that game out too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria
Well... yeah. Why would I want to level up everybody in one playthrough unless you want more challenge or just love leveling grinding? I save the rest and other team combinations for replay and replay incentive. ie. for my next SF series replay, I'm making sure to keep every Archer on board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Yeah, in Tactics Ogre SNES you kinda need to do the stupid training to be at a decent level. You can set the CPU to control half your team, so you can make some really interesting fights if you have enough characters. It's also possible to completely cheese the game with the training, but like SF 1 it's best to just pretend you can't do it.
It's the worst thing about the game, by far. It makes sense story-wise, but I don't care for things that make sense story-wise that screw up the gameplay. The game is incredibly deep, I guess the developers just gave up trying to balance it.
---
You know what would be cool? A Strategy RPG without any levelling and very few dice-rolls. A bit like a turn-based, strategy equivalent of Zelda.
It would play just like SF, but your characters would never level up. You'd find new characters through the story with new abilities, you'd be able to promote old ones, change their equipment, teach them new magic, etc... but not level them up. And the items would never drop randomly either. Each challenge would be tailored to what resources you, as the player, would have available at the time.
The levelling is just in the way really. No more need for random battles, egress shenanigans or "training modes". Those are all pointless filler. Turn based strategy RPGs, if you ignore the levelling up, are basically really cool puzzle games with multiple solutions.
The real time Ogre Battle games are pretty much "casual" player friendly at the beginning while not demanding grinding later on even with more troops and stronger enemies. One just needs to manage the number of groups he/she believes can handle (although as long as it respects to a minimum possible the gradual rising of said numbers of enemies) and send to wipe most if not all of enemies in a story chapter and it's pretty much okay.
EDIT: About levels not being directly in the way of character' status, while not a retro example, Valkyria Chronicles barely give much importance in levels other than unlocking character' skills in battle and ensuring orders, since most of the damage and resistance were up to upgrading weapons, uniforms, etc.
Wild Arms XF, on the PSP, doesn't require much, if anything, in the way of leveling, though you do want to gain class skills as soon as possible. A lot of the tougher battles just require good usage of the proper class. I don't recall Jean D'arc(same handheld) being grindy either.
Shining Force, by 9 months. Ironic in a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria
Sometimes a game made simple in the right way is the best, SF I and II hit the nail right on this. I also agree on some RPGs/SRPGs being so convoluted in gameplay that it gets tiring really fast. As far as I know, none of Sega's RPG/SRPG I played or saw were unecessarily simple or complicated given the premises, it's a pity they aren't as noticeable as Nintendo/Square Enix titles or even things from Atlus and Tri-Ace themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief
So like Chess - The RPG. Actually... surprised that hasn't been made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
@To everyone giving examples of games that don't require grind:
I think you guys are kinda missing my point. The original SF didn't need any grind. The GBA fire emblems don't need any grind. Most of the really good SRPGs don't need any grind.
Now, why the heck do these games have levels? By having levels in the game one of three things can happen:
1. You are under-leveled, and will lose a battle not because your strategy is poor but simply because you haven't padded out the game enough with busy work.
2. You are over-leveled, and will easily win a battle not because of your strategy but simply because you've padded out the game with enough busy work.
3. You are at the exact level that battle was designed for (which, in the good games, is whatever level you'd be at from doing the expected battles), and actually have a challenge that requires strategy.
Levels either pad out the game (because you have to grind), or they are entirely optional but give you an automatic "I win" button if you're willing to waste enough time. Is either option good? NO!
Worse, even in the games where you don't have to grind, you do if you want freedom of choice for your team. Like Daria who grinds her ass off to have everyone at the same level. If you don't, your choice of characters is limited to the ones you've invested time on.
An extra archer would be really useful in the next battle? Did you level him? No? Tough shit. Nice strategy though, why not spend the next 2 hours getting him up to par so you can use him...
Levels are an archaic idea. Even in DnD, where you play with dice, paper and pencils, most people I know have moved away from using XP points. They just level you up when you finish a relevant quest. When even freaking DnD is moving away from the stupidity of levelling, and DnD actually has an excuse, I really don't get why games insist on it. It's an absolutely worthless mechanic.
Yup, guess it's a game to go on the list of games I'll never actually make :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria
Let me quote myself on Wild Arms XF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
In other words, no amount of grinding will save you, if you're not using the best skills available(or for the most part, a specific class). To be fair though, it has been a really long time since I played it, but I don't think I'm remembering this game incorrectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightrider
Otherwise you basically want the Advance Wars series.
Nah not really. I adore advance wars, one of my top 5 games on the GBA and one of my favourite games of all time, but:Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightrider
1. Your starting troops on each map are predefined.
2. The game is all about securing resource points, since you can train new units.
3. The units are all nameless fodder drawn from a limited set.
4. There aren't really any RPG elements other than having a story.
I want Shining Force without levels, it's a different concept. You make a team just like in SF from a set of characters you've recruited by talking to people in towns yada yada, each character has unique skills which are more or less relevant in different battles, those characters can be improved through equipment or class changes. The only difference is that levels are irrelevant, they already are in SF either way, except for making you grind if you want to use all characters.
Never played Wild Arms, I probably should. From what you're saying it seems like a good example. Why does that game have levels?
Interesting idea for an homebrew. I put it aside :)
I expect full credit if it ever gets done ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by tryphon
And a review. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Hey great review Daria! Glad to see my beloved Landstalker getting the praise it so richly deserves.
With regards the inevitable comparisons it gets to Zelda, I have been guilty in the past of explaining to people that Landstalker was the Mega Drive's answer to the Zelda games, which is quite a lazy statement I admit seeing as how they are quite different games in terms of both style and gameplay.
Oh and Kamahl, I too love Alundra. Both Landstalker and Alundra are two of the greatest action RPG's ever made I think.
I'd go so far as say Alundra IS the greatest action RPG ever made. I literally cannot find a fault with that game. But yeah Landstalker is pretty great, I'd rather play it then Ocarina of Time or Wind Waker or the original Zelda or Illusion of Gaia, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Drive Bowlsey
Actually I'm gonna second that. Playing Alundra was a very special experience. It's a beautiful game. The soundtrack, story, gameplay...yeah, just perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Such a sad game too, I've never played another game that that was able to get me to care about the inhabitants of its world the way Alundra did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Drive Bowlsey
Wait, Alundra can be considered a Zelda clone, right? Or close enough.
Yes, I'd say that myself too (Landstalker being answer to SNES Zelda). Even if they aren't that similar. Just because it's so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Drive Bowlsey