Support NeoGAF

[entremet]

Regarding PSN, my guess is that due to the ultra poor PSP software sales, SE USA probably wants to sell its physical shipment of these games. PSN sales might cannibalize the UMD sales, at least that what I think SE USA believes.

Either way it is a dumb and anti consumer stance.

 

[bernardobri]

I thought Final Fantasy Tactics had some stupidly cheap battles.

Fire Emblem series are full of those...

 

[Quixzlizx]

It's really not entirely stupid. 1 save = no backup, no backup = stupid.

Edit: Pretty sure you ninja-edited while I was typing this up.

Listen, either it's a good design decision to lock people into these sorts of fights, in which case having multiple save slots is "cheating," or it's a bad design decision, and it's unfortunate that people without multiple slots end up screwed.

You can't argue that people should have been using multiple save slots, and also argue that it was a good idea to set up that battle like that.

 

[Jinko]

:lol if you're using one save point you're setting yourself up to be screwed

Spoiler

in any game... and yes, I know it's forced in some.

Seriously, if you use 1 slot and this happens and you cry because you have to restart, it's your own fault. Sure, there is an argument to be made if it's bad game design to have a battle like this unexpectedly, but I prefer battles like this in these types of games. If you don't, then you have plenty of options on what to do when a point like this comes. Sorry if you don't like them (your choice of options at that point), but you can't please everybody.

Most games either promt you (black screen style) to save before a paticular event is about to occur or is clear that paticular event is about to occur so that you can save yourself.

For a long time now games have autosave or checkpoints for this very reason, so players don't get caught with their pants down.

 

[Yaweee]

It's really not entirely stupid. 1 save = no backup, no backup = stupid.

But it also raises questions like

1) How often should you be saving to the backup?
2) How much time and tedium does all of that additional save take, X the number of saves you make throughout the game?
3) How much time do you lose when you have to go back to the unstuck save file?
4) How much time does it take to fight through the minimum areas to even get to the hard encounter?

And that, back when it came out, each save slot essentially cost ~$2 due to how small the memory cards were.

I think it is much better design to never have post-savable points-of-no-return, period. Nothing but problems, and often toward no meaningful end other than getting people stuck or "increasing tension!"

I often hear "I had to go back hours!", even from people that had backup saves, because they weren't making them frequent enough.

 

[Minsc]

Listen, either it's a good design decision to lock people into these sorts of fights, in which case having multiple save slots is "cheating," or it's a bad design decision, and it's unfortunate that people without multiple slots end up screwed.

You can't argue that people should have been using multiple save slots, and also argue that it was a good idea to set up that battle like that.

Maybe you missed my edit, but you can certainly blame both the design and the person. It's bad design, and a stupid user who only makes a single save that locks them to restarting.

 

[Dresden]

Edit: Pretty sure you ninja-edited while I was typing this up.

Listen, either it's a good design decision to lock people into these sorts of fights, in which case having multiple save slots is "cheating," or it's a bad design decision, and it's unfortunate that people without multiple slots end up screwed.

You can't argue that people should have been using multiple save slots, and also argue that it was a good idea to set up that battle like that.

He already said it was a bad design decision. But having backup files should always be the obvious thing to do. I think I had two open slots on my memory card, which I alternated every battle.

I just don't find it cripplingly bad, and the battle itself was the best in the game.

 

[Minsc]

But it also raises questions like

1) How often should you be saving to the backup?
2) How much time and tedium does all of that additional save take, X the number of saves you make throughout the game?
3) How much time do you lose when you have to go back to the unstuck save file?
4) How much time does it take to fight through the minimum areas to even get to the hard encounter?

And that, back when it came out, each save slot essentially cost ~$2 due to how small the memory cards were.

I think it is much better design to never have post-savable points-of-no-return, period. Nothing but problems, and often toward no meaningful end other than getting people stuck or "increasing tension!"

1) Everytime you save you should cycle to a different slot (or at least every major area)
2) None, you were going to save the game anyway, no extra time or tedium to hit down one or two extra times.
3) Less than restarting the entire game
4) See 3.

There's no benefit to not cycling saves. The pricing argument amuses me, I never remembered having to manage memory cards like that, and weren't PSX cards notorious for going corrupt anyway? I remember they had those 2:1 readers that doubled your memory or not, I definitely lost a few memory cards / saves from corruption alone.

 

[TommyT]

Sure you can. You can have an extra save point so you aren't locked into the fight after a cut scene. This has nothing to do with difficulty level... since you can just circumvent it by having multiple save slots, so your point basically boils down to

1. This isn't just a bad design decision, but it's a good one
2. I circumvent this good design decision because "I prefer battles like this in these types of games" with multiple save slots, even though it's good. Obviously you don't think it's a good idea to lock someone in to a certain decision, if you're using multiple saves.

Your argument seems to be rather stupid.

What exactly are you thinking is "my argument". Your argument that you can please everyone is the only thing that is stupid. Now if you're saying that in this scenario, if there were a save point in this area it would have made it better, that isn't the necessarily the case. It doesn't solve the issue with someone idiotically using 1 save slot for the entire game.

My argument is, if you're an idiot and something idiotic happens because of it, don't blame the designers. If something idiotic happens because that's the game design, blame them. To me, this isn't a game design flaw, it is the game user being an idiot.

Sadly, we cannot idiot proof everything.

Most games either promt you (black screen style) to save before a paticular event is about to occur or is clear that paticular event is about to occur so that you can save yourself.

For a long time now games have autosave or checkpoints for this very reason, so players don't get caught with their pants down.

And that could very well be a better way to do things. It still doesn't necessarily solve the problem. If the user is in charge of their saves they can have this happen. One could argue the very reason they did not do this was to interrupt the flow of the game (FFT). Either way, people are going to nitpick so there is no ideal solution for everyone. Some do work better than others.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

1) Everytime you save you should cycle to a different slot (or at least every major area)
.

Let me put it this way: FFtactics got me into the habit of multiple save slots. It was never something I did before because I've never had a save corrupt on me, and I've never had a game screw me over with a point of no return before. Besides, memory blocks were a bit of a commodity back in the PS1 days. So yes I learned my lesson but that doesn't excuse the bad game design on multiplefronts:

1. Dont' create a point of no return without warning the player. Especially in the days when consoles didn't have big hard drives and auto saving features.
2. In a squad-based game, don't force the player to solo a fight which is impossible if he didn't pick the right class.
3. Don't combine 1. and 2.

 

[TommyT]

Edit: Pretty sure you ninja-edited while I was typing this up.

Listen, either it's a good design decision to lock people into these sorts of fights, in which case having multiple save slots is "cheating," or it's a bad design decision, and it's unfortunate that people without multiple slots end up screwed.

You can't argue that people should have been using multiple save slots, and also argue that it was a good idea to set up that battle like that.

:lol... so you either want a game to be unforgivable or you want them to baby you?

 

[Quixzlizx]

What exactly are you thinking is "my argument". Your argument that you can please everyone is the only thing that is stupid. Now if you're saying that in this scenario, if there were a save point in this area it would have made it better, that isn't the necessarily the case. It doesn't solve the issue with someone idiotically using 1 save slot for the entire game.

My argument is, if you're an idiot and something idiotic happens because of it, don't blame the designers. If something idiotic happens because that's the game design, blame them. To me, this isn't a game design flaw, it is the game user being an idiot.

Sadly, we cannot idiot proof everything.

There is no reason not to have an extra save point there so someone can exit and prepare for the fight. It is a bad game design decision because you're saying the user should've had multiple save slots to get around the possibility. If it's required for the user to have multiple save slots to keep from getting locked in and not advancing, it is a bad design decision. The very fact that multiple save slots are required makes it a bad design decision. At least the other posters here acknowledge that the battle should not have been set up like that. I don't know how else to explain it where if you're required to circumvent the game's design by always maintaining multiple slots, it can't be a good design decision. It seems pretty damn obvious to me.

Edit:

:lol... so you either want a game to be unforgivable or you want them to baby you?

I was taking the poor logic to its poor conclusion. If you think it's a good design decision to lock someone into a fight, then making multiple save slots is cheating that "good" design decision.

 

[TommyT]

There is no reason not to have an extra save point there so someone can exit and prepare for the fight. It is a bad game design decision because you're saying the user should've had multiple save slots to get around the possibility. If it's required for the user to have multiple save slots to keep from getting locked in and not advancing, it is a bad design decision. The very fact that multiple save slots are required makes it a bad design decision. At least the other posters here acknowledge that the battle should not have been set up like that. I don't know how else to explain it where if you're required to circumvent the game's design by always maintaining multiple slots, it can't be a good design decision. It seems pretty damn obvious to me.

It's not required though. You can go through using one save slot, no one has ever said it was a requirement. I'd be one of the first to agree with you that the setup could have been better for that battle. When I said I liked this type of battle, I was referring to the difficulty of it (either you're prepared/levelled/character set up at this point in the game to beat him or you're not), not the sequence of events that immediately preceded it.

 

[Az987]

I just got the March issue of Official Playstation Magazine. Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together scored a 9/10.

 

[Quixzlizx]

It's not required though. You can go through using one save slot, no one has ever said it was a requirement. I'd be one of the first to agree with you that the setup could have been better for that battle. When I said I liked this type of battle, I was referring to the difficulty of it (either you're prepared/levelled/character set up at this point in the game to beat him or you're not), not the sequence of events that immediately preceded it.

I wasn't complaining about the difficulty of the fight. I was saying it was a stupid idea on the developer's part to set it up so you'd basically have to start the game over from the beginning if you didn't have the right setup for a fight you didn't know was coming in your first playthrough (I'm assuming that developers don't automatically assume that every person playing their games will have 2+ rotating save slots going).

I'm paranoid when playing RPGs, so I didn't have this problem, but one of my friends was pretty much screwed and stopped playing rather than starting over, and I thought it was a shame since it was such an avoidable problem, on both ends.

 

[Pinko Marx]

Can't believe people are defending that horrible battle. Backup saves shouldn't be a requirement. Nowadays I always use backups, but when FFT originally came out, I didn't have that kinda foresight. Also, up until that point in the game, I made it through most battles with pretty much no trouble, that fight was a HUGE jump in difficulty with no sort of warning or anything. Its a huge shitstain on an otherwise perfect product.

 

[TommyT]

Was going to edit this in above:

There could have been a very good reason for them to do it. Maybe it didn't fit the flow of the game to be able to go off for a few days to battle harden your guys right after you've stormed this area to go inside.

Congrats, you won the battle to go inside here. You wanna take 30 days to go level up some then come back? Sure it sounds corny but doesn't make it any more of a design flaw.

I wasn't complaining about the difficulty of the fight. I was saying it was a stupid idea on the developer's part to set it up so you'd basically have to start the game over from the beginning if you didn't have the right setup for a fight you didn't know was coming in your first playthrough (I'm assuming that developers don't automatically assume that every person playing their games will have 2+ rotating save slots going).

I'm paranoid when playing RPGs, so I didn't have this problem, but one of my friends was pretty much screwed and stopped playing rather than starting over, and I thought it was a shame since it was such an avoidable problem, on both ends.

Quick aside: I just thought of this but... what if the player didn't save prior to this. Just as there could have been a save point, it's never forcing them to save right? Basically boiling down to the user locking themselves into this situation. Just as multiple save slots is (to you) a "cheat" so would be allowing them to back out of this series of events (to me).

As I said before, you can't idiot proof. Sure, it COULD have been designed better, just like the user COULD have been smarter to begin with. The game creates this situation, but also creates a way (or ways) to avoid it.

edit to come - LUNCH!

Can't believe people are defending that horrible battle. Backup saves shouldn't be a requirement. Nowadays I always use backups, but when FFT originally came out, I didn't have that kinda foresight. Also, up until that point in the game, I made it through most battles with pretty much no trouble, that fight was a HUGE jump in difficulty with no sort of warning or anything. Its a huge shitstain on an otherwise perfect product.

I think this is where the disconnect comes in. Are you complaining about the battle itself, or the series of events that immediately led up to it (ie: not being able to back out and go level up, etc.)

 

[duckroll]

This is turning into a really off-topic discussion. Lol.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Was going to edit this in above:






Quick aside: I just thought of this but... what if the player didn't save prior to this. Just as there could have been a save point, it's never forcing them to save right? Basically boiling down to the user locking themselves into this situation. Just as multiple save slots is (to you) a "cheat" so would be allowing them to back out of this series of events (to me).

Because saving shouldn't be a gameplay mechanic. The player, who may need to... you know, actually stop playing, shouldn't have to be thinking to himself "if I save here, is it possible that I'll have to start the game all over from the beginning?" In a PC game, you can just set it to autosave every 10 minutes and not have to worry about it at all.

And I never said that multiple save slots was a cheat, I said it should be considered a cheat by someone who thinks that it's a good idea to lock a player into a fight, since it's circumventing the developer's intentions.

 

[Yaweee]

DieHard GameFAN reviews (has a ton of spoilers, especially a big one in the Balance section) He really bitches about the vast majority of the changes, it seems, especially the balance. Is the AI really as dumb as he makes it out to be, or is he just being nostalgic about the original's? Hopefully it isn't set to "Strongest" like TKoL's AI.
http://diehardgamefan.com/2011/02/0...ng-together-ogre-battle-episode-vii-sony-psp/

The Scores
Story: Unparalleled
Graphics: Mediocre
Sound: Enjoyable
Control and Gameplay: Mediocre
Replayability: Good
Balance: Bad
Originality: Mediocre
Addictiveness: Enjoyable
Appeal Factor: Poor
Miscellaneous: Mediocre
FINAL SCORE: ABOVE AVERAGE GAME!

On paper, Tactics Ogre looked wonderful. Quest was reformed to make this game. It was a reintroduction to a franchise that has been dormant for a decade. It was meant to be a love letter to long time Ogre fans while bringing new gamers into the fold. Unfortunately the end result proved to be anything but. It kind of managed to do everything a SRPG shouldn’t while at least keeping the wonderful story intact. The good news is that the changes-slash-mistakes made in the remake aren’t enough to keep the core gameplay from shining through. Nor are they enough to overshadow the cast and characters that make up Ogre Battle Episode VII. Still, Square-Enix is asking use to pay $39.99 for a second rate version of the original game which, had it been released as a PSN classic or on the Virtual Console would have cost between $5.99 and 9.99 and better a better overall experience.

He also gets nostalgic about the missing Training feature, which was a horrible fucking blight on the original. Institutionalized and heavily promoted "Throw Stone"x3000, that's what it was.

 

[Shadow780]

Fire Emblem series are full of those...

part of the charmabusive fun, that and playing with RNG leveling.

 

[Quixzlizx]

DieHard GameFAN reviews (has a ton of spoilers, especially a big one in the Balance section) He really bitches about the vast majority of the changes, it seems, especially the balance. Is the AI really as dumb as he makes it out to be, or is he just being nostalgic about the original's?
http://diehardgamefan.com/2011/02/0...ng-together-ogre-battle-episode-vii-sony-psp/

The Scores
Story: Unparalleled
Graphics: Mediocre
Sound: Enjoyable
Control and Gameplay: Mediocre
Replayability: Good
Balance: Bad
Originality: Mediocre
Addictiveness: Enjoyable
Appeal Factor: Poor
Miscellaneous: Mediocre
FINAL SCORE: ABOVE AVERAGE GAME!

It appears that this guy read SRPG 101.

 

[Pinko Marx]

I think this is where the disconnect comes in. Are you complaining about the battle itself, or the series of events that immediately led up to it (ie: not being able to back out and go level up, etc.)

Both, but lets not speak of it anymore, lest we anger Ducky.

 

[duckroll]

Both, but lets not speak of it anymore, lest we anger Ducky.

I'm not angry, I'm just observing!

 

[Peff]

While the visuals are a step up from the original SNES/Saturn/PSX graphics from the mid 1990s, I was a bit disappointed to see it’s about the same quality as those of Knight of Lodis.

...

Other than that, well, it was clear that not everybody would like the, uh, "streamlining" of the game. Some points are fair, some are silly (like complaining that you get to keep your gear when going back to an anchor point).

 

[Yaweee]

This one does strike me as dumb:

Worse is that now each character class can only recruit a single type of character (reptile, beast, human, demon, etc) instead of it being uniform and you need to have that skill purchased and active on the right character class to even begin to recruit. It’s pretty bad.

That is going to make recruiting and playing with a monster team nearly impossible. Can you not recruit them at shops anymore?

 

[Peff]

Oh, I didn't know about that, at least it looks like it's not that many different abilities:

Wizard / Wtich : Persuade - Reptile (level 5)
Needed for Lizardman and Lamia.

Cleric : Persuade - Human (level 5), Contract - Holy Spirits (level 10)
Holy spirits is for Divine Knight. Nothing to do with Fairies.

Rune Fencer / Valkyrie : Persuade - Human (level 5)
Knight : Persuade - Human (level 5)

Beast Tamer : Train - Beast (level 5), Train - Dragon (level 7)
Beast is for monsters you will encounter, Griffon, Octopus, Cylopse etc.
Dragon is for Dragons.

Warlock / Siren : Control - Doll (level 1)
Needed for Golems.

Necromancer : Rule - Undeads (level ?)
Needed for Ghost and Skeletons.

Lich : Contract - Demon (level ?)
Gremlin and Orcs use this skill, and Lich is only job that learn the skill..

Valtan or Shaman : Contract - Spirit (level 5)
Needed for Fairy.

 

[fates]

Diehard's review doesn't seem too objective, reeks of nostalgia and frustration that it's not a carbon copy of the SFC/PSX version.

 

[Basileus777]

This one does strike me as dumb:



That is going to make recruiting and playing with a monster team nearly impossible.

The question I have is whether or not monster classes are actually useful in this version. They were almost entirely useless in the original.

 

[Carlisle]

Permadeath:

Whereas the original version of the game simply had each dead unit disappear forever after the battle and a very rare revival method, this PSP remake is more lenient, with a new system based on Final Fantasy Tactics. Now, any unit that is knocked out during battle will have a 3-turn counter. Once it reaches zero, said unit will lose one of his or her three hearts. Lose the three hearts and only then that unit will be permanently gone. If the battle is ended or the character revived before the counter reaches zero, no hearts will be lost.

Holy shit. The merciless death system of the PS1 version is what kept me from finishing the game. I'd get all OCD about losing troops so that when one died I'd restart the battle. It got to be really really frustrating, especially if someone died at the very end. It made the game too difficult and it was one tiny difference that broke it for me.

Day Fucking One. Come on PSN release (although if there isn't one I have an excuse to pick up that beautiful collector's edition).

 

[Joule]

But we’re not done yet. Random battles (Which is how you find rare objects and recruit new monsters and non-story based characters) have all but been wiped out. I encountered less than ten of them in my first playthrough of the game. The random encounter percentage has been nerfed to almost non existence and you may find yourself just walking the battlefield for minutes trying to hopefully trigger one that has a class or monster you haven’t encountered yet.

Hrm that is kind of meh if it's true. I thought the original's encounter rate was fine as is.

The remarks about the AI don't really sound all that different from the original's.

The bit about training is just nonsense.

 

[Basileus777]

Diehard's review doesn't seem too objective, reeks of nostalgia and frustration that it's not a carbon copy of the SFC/PSX version.

Most of it seems that way. But things like the AI issues and the way class leveling is handled seem like they could be legitimate problems. The new classes start at level one thing really sounds annoying, especially if it induces Disgaea type grinding for new characters/classes.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Less Random Encounters? :I

 

[Yaweee]

Less Random Encounters? :I

I don't see why that is really bad. Did people like it taking 30+ minutes to get across the map before when going back and forth for sidequests?

 

[Basileus777]

I don't see why that is really bad. Did people like it taking 30+ minutes to get across the map before when going back and forth for sidequests?

Moving across the map in chapter 4 for some of those sidequests was a real pain in the original. I remember reloading my save over and over so I could do it without fighting a ton of battles.

 

[Minsc]

Diehard's review doesn't seem too objective, reeks of nostalgia and frustration that it's not a carbon copy of the SFC/PSX version.

Yea, I get the feeling that if someone (particularly him I suppose) was first exposed to the game by the PSP version, and then 10 years later reviewed the original release, they'd have even more awful things to say than he had to say in that review. I think his pricing comment kinda makes your point. No doubt people will think $40 is a lot for an enchanced port of what would have been $10 re-released with no extras on PSN, but I appreciate all the improvements (script, DLC, WORLD, items, 3D battlefield, etc) even if a few of them aren't optimal.

I don't see why that is really bad. Did people like it taking 30+ minutes to get across the map before when going back and forth for sidequests

Yea, seems more logical to spend an extra minute clicking back and forth for a battle if you really want one than an extra hour moving between points A and B because you got unlucky and hit a ton of random battles.

Besides, that 100 floor DLC should fill all your random battle needs shouldn't it?

 

[Basileus777]

Besides, that 100 floor DLC should fill all your random battle needs shouldn't it?

Hell's Gate is DLC now?

It wouldn't really fill that role though, as it's a very late game dungeon.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

I don't see why that is really bad. Did people like it taking 30+ minutes to get across the map before when going back and forth for sidequests?

I said ":I" cause I'm not sure how to feel.

There's a certain balance they should go for so players who want to fight are satisfied while players who wanna get shit done aren't annoyed.

 

[Yaweee]

Hell's Gate is DLC now?

It wouldn't really fill that role though, as it's a very late game dungeon.

No, Hell's Gate is still there, but DLC 1 adds another section (around 20) to the original 100.

A wilderness area bonus dungeon with multiple maps opens up during the middle of the game.

In terms of major sidequests, there's:

- Hell Gate (huge, 100, floors, resets when you leave, tons of randomness and hidden shops and shit)
- Wilderness extra dungeon (10+ maps, I think)
- New side dungeon for one of the other extra characters
- The Sisters/Shrine quest
- 12 Generals scattered around the world that you need special items to uncover
- 20 more floors to Hell Gate in DLC1
- A chain of bosses in DLC 2
- I'm not sure what DLC 3 really entails.
- A whole bunch of shorter sidequests (a few missions here and there) to unlock extra characters.

So, there's a lot more than just the main game.

I'm confused why the reviewer seemed to idolize the final boss battle in the original. There's a few videos online of people just owning the shit out of him with bows equipped to every character, because bows (and archers) were simply broken in the original. Like, ~100-180 damage against a 550 HP final boss, across 1/3rd of the map =(

 

[BentMyWookiee]

I was planning on selling my PSP since it's pretty much just a paperweight for me nowadays. But this game just looks too awesome. So I went ahead and preordered a copy. Though it'll probably take me a year to beat it (I don't really have the time that I used to when it comes to games like this).

 

[Joule]

I'm confused why the reviewer seemed to idolize the final boss battle in the original. There's a few videos online of people just owning the shit out of him with bows equipped to every character, because bows (and archers) were simply broken in the original. Like, ~100-180 damage against a 550 HP final boss, across 13/rd of the map =(

I suppose if you didn't abuse Archers or had far too much levels, it would of been a fair challenge. I remember the first time I faced it, I wasn't quite ready for it (particularly the full screen orb spam). The preceding battles were also a fair bit easier too.

 

[w1ndst0rm]

PRO Tip

Dont forget to:
Find and\or dust off your PSP's.
Remove FFT (or maybe Jean D'Arc)
Charge the battery.
Sit through the damnable update.

Enjoy!

I can't wait for the 15th.

 

[Yaweee]

... and in the red corner, J. Parish, 1up, A+
http://www.1up.com/reviews/tactics-ogre-review?pager.offset=0

I've played a lot of remakes over the years. I've loved a lot of remakes. But until now, a remake has never loved me back.
Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together is, without question, the finest classic remake I've ever played. It helps that the source material is so strong, of course, but what really makes this PSP rendition stand out is the way its creators have addressed every single sticking point that frustrated me all those years ago.

...referencing the retrospective he wrote recently.

The one downside to all these changes is that veteran Tactics Ogre fans are likely to find some disappointment in them, as they do somewhat water down the game's infamous difficulty level. Some of that disappointment, I think, is unwarranted: The first iteration of the game was often hard simply because of cumbersome design choices, and this remake is easier in large part because it doesn't require as much tedious labor on the player's part to keep up with the computer. It's not as though these are thoughtless revisions inflicted on the game by people who don't understand it, either; they're refinements overseen and implemented by the game's original creators, benefiting from 15 years of personal experience (not to mention the maturation of the medium).

 

[TommyT]

This is turning into a really off-topic discussion. Lol.

Both, but lets not speak of it anymore, lest we anger Ducky.

Let's just hope there aren't these scenarios in TO amirite?! ;D BACK ON TOPIC!

 

[mjemirzian]

The game keeps track of how many battles you need to use CHARIOT to beat, so your humiliation will be recorded for all posterity.

This is a meaningless statistic, since in addition to the autosaves you also have access to manual quicksaves you can reload from. They aren't as handy as the autosaves but they are there.

No I think it did at some point in development, but Matsuno removed that constrain when it got annoying/unbalanced.

Unlimited reloading or quicksaves is usually less balanced than limiting their use. Reloading excessively for luck based procs, for example.

Regarding this diehardgamefan guys review: He's complaining that lv 1 upgraded classes are weaker than lv 10 older ones and it's harder to form monster parties. That does seem like a negative point since a lot of people enjoyed FFT, TO, Disgaea, etc. for the opportunity to dink around and make whatever party setup they felt like. But if the game is as easy as he claims, it shouldn't matter.
"you can see why this is such a step in the wrong direction." Being unable to make uber characters with imbalanced skill combinations is the "wrong direction" according to him, then he turns around and complains the game is too easy.
"Random battles (Which is how you find rare objects and recruit new monsters and non-story based characters) have all but been wiped out." Oh noes, less filler battles, how terrible.
"alienates long time fans of the series and the general SRPG audience by punishing what many love about this genre – the difficulty and the class changes" Disagree with this. The more difficult an SRPG or difficulty mode is, the less popular it is.

Didn't like some parts of the 1up review, either, but w/e.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Reloading excessively for luck based procs, for example.

Pretty sure multiple previews say you can't do this. If an action misses, for example, and you use CHARIOT to retry it the action will miss every time.

 

[TommyT]

... and in the red corner, J. Parish, 1up, A+
http://www.1up.com/reviews/tactics-ogre-review?pager.offset=0

I like it ToastyFrog!

 

[mjemirzian]

Pretty sure multiple previews say you can't do this. If an action misses, for example, and you use CHARIOT to retry it the action will miss every time.

How about when loading from a quicksave?
It depends whether the RNG table is saved with the game or regenerated every time.
Even if the RNG table is fixed, you can determine the fixed values and then reload to execute your moves in an order that accomplishes what you wanted to do.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

How about when loading from a quicksave?
It depends whether the RNG table is saved with the game or regenerated every time.
Even if the RNG table is fixed, you can determine the fixed values and then reload to execute your moves in an order that accomplishes what you wanted to do.

Nobody's mentioned quicksave yet so I don't really know.

Most people probably won't consider it.

 

[Joule]

Somebody just reminded me, I think Tactics Ogre fans should check out this parody video.

Tactics Idol: Let us Sing Together