Support NeoGAF

[Lost Cloud]

Out of curiosity, I did some basic comparison testing on my old 3DSXL of the speed of the first enemy turn in 4 different missions using a stopwatch. I used the same "Default" party, same weapons, took the same actions, moved the characters the same way and made sure that the enemies did the same thing in each test.

Mission 1-1: Original speed = 40.8 s / 2x Speed = 24.3 s - 1 overwatch attack in both tests.

Mission 5-1: Original speed = 55.5 s / 2x Speed = 30.7 s - 1 overwatch attack in both tests.

Mission 7-1: Original speed = 27.5 s / 2x Speed = 16.6 s - No overwatch attacks.

Mission 10-1: Original speed = 1:37.9 m / 2x Speed = 51.7 s - 4 overwatch attacks in each test.

Quite an improvement! It's not exactly twice as fast, but it sure is close. Mission 10-1 was slowed down quite significantly because of all of the overwatch attacks, but that's kinda how things have to be in that mission if you don't want to be blown up Anyway, I don't see how anyone could find the enemy turn speed an annoyance now, especially if you have a New 3DS for 3x speed.

 

[ClayKavalier]

Fire Emblem's method wouldn't work because it shows you the entire map and all of the units you will be fighting sans reinforcements and the rare fog of war map. Not really comparable. I'm not saying it couldn't be done better, but this is a game where you are infiltrating unfamiliar territory as a strike team. Map previews and a pre-posted enemy list don't jive with that.

Granted I haven't played the game, so maybe I'm missing something, but the locations are on Earth, right? Couldn't they do something like "We had a scout fly over the area, here's a rough idea of what it looks like"? Or if you're infiltrating like Buckingham Palace or something like that wouldn't it make sense that the team has maps of the area?

Regardless, making poor design decisions for the sake of adhering to your games ridiculous premise doesn't jive with me as a player. I'm not going to bothered that a mechanic that's really important in a strategy game doesn't quite fit in with the storyline.

 

[TheMoon]

Granted I haven't played the game, so maybe I'm missing something, but the locations are on Earth, right? Couldn't they do something like "We had a scout fly over the area, here's a rough idea of what it looks like"? Or if you're infiltrating like Buckingham Palace or something like that wouldn't it make sense that the team has maps of the area?

Regardless, making poor design decisions for the sake of adhering to your games ridiculous premise doesn't jive with me as a player. I'm not going to bothered that a mechanic that's really important in a strategy game doesn't quite fit in with the storyline.

They could do whatever they want. But they don't want to. One of they key design fundamentals for this game was to specifically NOT have a map. It's the whole point. This game is a fusion of third person shooter and your typical turn-based strategy game. You are supposed to inhabit the character like you do in a third person action game, seeing the world from their perspective, not from an overview map like a tactician. I know this is probably a bit on the silly end but I feel asking for a map view in this game is like asking "why can't Mario just fly all the time?" It has absolutely nothing to do with the story. You not understanding and/or agreeing with this design does not make it a poor design decision. It is a core reason for why this game exists and what they wanted to do. It was about removing a layer of abstraction and putting you, the player, right in the middle of the game.

 

[L95]

Yeah, a map view doesn't really work for the way the game is set up, and there are quite a few places where the 'scout flew over' wouldn't make sense anyway.

Spoiler

IDK if anyone actually cares about the story, The main reason being that the STEAM crew are the only ones going directly after the aliens, after the first part of the game, due to most of the world army getting destroyed. Quite a few maps also take place underground.

 

[SturokBGD]

Re-reviewing this game would do nothing. It was never going to be a hit either way. This is one for the fans.

 

[Gartooth]

Re-reviewing this game would do nothing. It was never going to be a hit either way. This is one for the fans.

Yeah it definitely wouldn't change people's opinion on the game, it simply makes wait times less tedious and time consuming. If you don't like the art, level design, or gameplay then this patch isn't going to change your mind.

I think this game is pretty great, but it is very love it or hate it on whether or not you overlook the shortcomings similar to the likes of Kid Icarus or W101.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Awesome. Ended up buying it in the shop after warching a video of the update. The long enemy turns were my only gripe with the demo.

 

[ClayKavalier]

They could do whatever they want. But they don't want to. One of they key design fundamentals for this game was to specifically NOT have a map. It's the whole point. This game is a fusion of third person shooter and your typical turn-based strategy game. You are supposed to inhabit the character like you do in a third person action game, seeing the world from their perspective, not from an overview map like a tactician. I know this is probably a bit on the silly end but I feel asking for a map view in this game is like asking "why can't Mario just fly all the time?" It has absolutely nothing to do with the story. You not understanding and/or agreeing with this design does not make it a poor design decision. It is a core reason for why this game exists and what they wanted to do. It was about removing a layer of abstraction and putting you, the player, right in the middle of the game.

I didn't ask for a map during the gameplay, just a rough approximation of the field so I can strategically choose my squad without going in, checking it out and resetting the game.

I agree with your post from what I played of the demo, it shouldn't have a mini-map or a Valkyria Chronicles style tactical view. That's fine. That's not what I was asking for.

Re-reviewing this game would do nothing. It was never going to be a hit either way. This is one for the fans.

It's hard to create fans of a new IP when a majority of reviews dump on it for problems that are no longer an issue.

 

[L95]

I didn't ask for a map during the gameplay, just a rough approximation of the field so I can strategically choose my squad without going in, checking it out and resetting the game.

The game should let you have a preview of where what unit goes to what starting position(and a view of what those units can see), I do agree with that.

 

[Kenai]

I didn't ask for a map during the gameplay, just a rough approximation of the field so I can strategically choose my squad without going in, checking it out and resetting the game.


It's hard to create fans of a new IP when a majority of reviews dump on it for problems that are no longer an issue.

It's near impossible to get an idea of everything or even a general idea that's going to be in a map based on what you can see in the starting area. That's why they have the recommended button. Starting position management I am all for though, it's kind of annoying that we can't at least do that. maybe some kind of general hazard list even? i dunno.

And while I don't really care about non-player reviews in general let alone re-reviews if the majority of them are dumping on the game for enemy wait times then yea they should at least clarity that those are no longer a concern, otherwise it's misinformation.

The game should let you have a preview of where what unit goes to what starting position(and a view of what those units can see), I do agree with that.

Yea that would be really nice and still make a lot of sense.

 

[ClayKavalier]

Polygon actually did go back and update their score due to this update, a pretty dramatic increase from 3.5 to 6.

The reviewer also states in the update that while he doesn't feel the game is great by any means, he actually enjoyed himself playing it after the update whereas before he basically felt it was total shit.

 

[TheMoon]

Polygon actually did go back and update their score due to this update, a pretty dramatic increase from 3.5 to 6.

The reviewer also states in the update that while he doesn't feel the game is great by any means, he actually enjoyed himself playing it after the update whereas before he basically felt it was total shit.

That's great. Though it's also weird how it basically makes it clear it was a patience issue and not a really a game-issue. 3.5 to 6 is pretty dramatic indeed. lol

 

[Easy_D]

There goes one of my only reasons that I might not want to check this game out. I'ma download the demo and give it a whirl, love the comic style.

 

[Regiruler]

Polygon actually did go back and update their score due to this update, a pretty dramatic increase from 3.5 to 6.

The reviewer also states in the update that while he doesn't feel the game is great by any means, he actually enjoyed himself playing it after the update whereas before he basically felt it was total shit.

While I think it deserves higher, props to polygon to going back and adjusting the score.