-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together |OT|: Fat Bottomed Girls
- Thread starter Peff
- Start date
mjemirzian said:
I don't even know if there are quicksaves enabled in this game, but if someone wants to quicksave before every action and reload in the case that something goes wrong, who cares? It's lame, but it's also a single-player game. I still don't know why you care so strongly about the objective difficulty level in a single-player game. As long as individual players can make the game as tough or easy for themselves as they want, what's the problem? The worst possible result for the developer is for beginner-level players to get frustrated and give up without beating the game, while I can always refuse to use CHARIOT, try to earn the in-game achievements, or intentionally gimp myself by trying to win with all melee/monster/etc.
mjemirzian
Banned
I don't care what people do with their games - if the game rules allow a feature, it's not the players fault for using it. It's a matter of objective analysis to me, and not excusing an imbalanced game just because 'it's single player'. I don't see a difference in importance regarding balance in single and multi-player games. Single player games can be competitive too (pretty much a forgotten fact these days, but oh well). I'd love to see the developers do better. And yes I do like player defined challenges, and I've done (and will continue to do) many of them.
Before anyone goes nuts, I am buying at least 2 copies of this game. I've owned a PSP for years and played almost every tactics game on it, even the imports like Daisenryaku. So chill out.
Before anyone goes nuts, I am buying at least 2 copies of this game. I've owned a PSP for years and played almost every tactics game on it, even the imports like Daisenryaku. So chill out.
Urban Scholar
Member
I was curious to see how many people were getting this at work. Only me it seems...so much for having my TO discussions at work. Thinking of getting the guide as well but I'm uncertain at this point.
Edit: mjemirzian it seems like you're really having to defend yourself in your points. I don't think you have to because they are valid(can't speak for others). We are here to discuss everything good or bad. I mean otherwise what would be the point of popping in the thread.
Edit: mjemirzian it seems like you're really having to defend yourself in your points. I don't think you have to because they are valid(can't speak for others). We are here to discuss everything good or bad. I mean otherwise what would be the point of popping in the thread.
Fimbulvetr
Member
Oh mjemirzian's concerns are usually valid.
He just seems to come off as condescending or aggressive. I don't think he's trying to be.
He just seems to come off as condescending or aggressive. I don't think he's trying to be.
mjemirzian
Banned
Trying to work on that.Fimbulvetr said:
So now that everyone here is buying a PSP if they don't have it already, I highly suggest getting Valkyria Chronicles 3. Really great game so far.
Urban Scholar
Member
Fimbulvetr said:
Going off topic but I think half the time folks forget weren't all here for 100% I agree, me too talks. I mean we do have back & forths for a reason, i.e real talk.
mjemirzian
Banned
No sir.Peff said:
PataHikari
Banned
Not really. I've always found them to be inane and stupid.Fimbulvetr said:
mjemirzian
Banned
PataHikari said:
PataHikari
Banned
And it's a right one too!
PataHikari
Banned
Not really.Jerk 2.0 said:
For instance, his silly quicksave criticism ignores the practicalities of hand held game design. Also, he claims that you could abuse it to make random events fall into your favor while largely ignoring how impractical this is. Since the CHARIOT system saves the RNG, you would have to manually turn off the PSP, reload the entire game, load the save, and try again. And even then it's entirely possible that the RNG is saved for the quicksave! Rendering the entire thing moot. If you want to win that much to put up with such an annoyance then you're not looking for any sense of challenge regardless and should probably look into a different genre then SRPG.
MikeE21286
Member
wow! Just saw Parish gave this an A+ over at 1up. The hype builds!
This, plus DQVI, plus MvC3 on the same day ! :0
This, plus DQVI, plus MvC3 on the same day ! :0
Urban Scholar
Member
Toasty frog's 1UP review just gave me more hype and also reinforced the Chariot system is only on a need basis.
mjemirzian said:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't think the game needs to be excused. There's nothing balance-breaking about CHARIOT, unless you consider making sure that every person who plays the game can actually beat it balance-breaking. The hardcore competitive types who actually care about balance are just going to not use it. It's not like the game has online leaderboards, and people will use CHARIOT to "cheat" their way to a better ranking. It's every individual player and their conscience :lol
Edit: Where I can see a complaint is the new permadeath system. I'd think either implementing the FFT 3-turn countdown or granting each character three lives is enough to keep people from raging out over one unlucky break, so I don't really think both had to be implemented. Of course, I could just play it the FFT way and reset the game if I'm about to lose a heart.
gunstarhero
Member
entrement said:
So pissed about this!!!! >_<
I wanna play!
but I have a GO
Dead Prince
Banned
if they have a CFW PSP to begin with to rip it.Quixzlizx said:
BentMyWookiee
Member
This has nothing to do with your post, but I <3 your avatar! Zillion will forever be one of my favorite games.gunstarhero said:
firehawk12
Subete no aware
They'd have to put it on PSN eventually, unless they want to lose out on future PSP2-based sales.
mistuhcahlos
Member
Just read 1up's review and I am now very amped.....for the PSN version. I'd like to know if it's not going DD so I can get Tarot cards.
Shouta
Member
Yaweee said:
You have to recruit most of them on the field I believe. It's not particularly hard to though as I recall. Just make sure in advance which monster classes you want and aim for them.Also selling your big monsters off at auction nets you stat boosting items, poor monsters. =(
Also, although I didn't use monsters myself apparently they've been buffed pretty well. They're really strong as opponents and I've heard they're just as strong as allies. They do have classes though so you have to raise them some.
Fimbulvetr said:
The storyline your first time through is built so that you don't need many random encounters on the whole. You can if you want to play with classes are do some catch-up but you don't have to very often or maybe at all.
mjemirzian said:
Pretty sure the RNG is saved even when using a quicksave option. If you wanted to avoid it though, most games with fixed RNG change it when you switch order of actions.
mjemirzian said:
You'll have to excuse my possible slight incoherence in the following stuff because I'm in Japanese mode for work.
Here's the thing I have problems with; your analysis always assumes that players exploit everything short of bugs. I don't think it provides a fair analysis of a game's difficulty. If you want to say that the game's difficulty is this after exploiting everything, then that's fair. However, I don't think it's particularly objective because the conditions for analysis is loaded. You're setting the parameters and they're skewed towards your view of how the game should be approached and played. You're also removing a lot of the intent when looking at it in that manner.
Let's take a look at quicksave reloading as a general example. Yes, it makes the game easier. However, some folks may not know you can do this. You'd have to be a total moron not to figure it out though. Anyway, it also usually isn't an intended feature by the creators of the game. They implement quicksave as a means for players to simply save their progress in cases where they're mid-mission and have to leave or turn off their system and not to be used as a fast way of changing outcomes. The only thing that goes against this is that some games take it a step further and erase a mid-battle save once you've reloaded it. That may not be because it's an anti-quick reload measure though but because the system wasn't meant to hold data indefinitely like that. Still, in most cases a quicksave exists for players that can't finish in one sitting and not to be exploited.
I don't really see how it's fair (or even objective) to use this as an argument against a game's difficulty when it ignores the original intent of the feature. Mind you, this is just an example. it applies to most everything else in this same category.
So how about an example from TO PSP? The CHARIOT system was invented by the creators as a means of easing the difficulty of the game. This is rather undeniable. However, they implemented it so that it is an optional system in the game rather than a compulsory one. It's up to the discretion of the player whether or not they use it. The implication here is that the creators made the game with a baseline difficulty in mind and added an optional system to make it easier should it be needed. So I don't really understand why, when looking at a game's difficulty, you have to take an optional system into account. You have the standard to work with and that's something everyone has to face regardless of what systems they use or not. That leads into...
If you're going to look at a game's difficulty, I think looking at baseline is a far more balanced and fair approach to it. I general think that baseline is everything that the player encounters that's of mandatory usage and/or are elements intended for use. CHARIOT in TO is intended to make the game easier by allowing redoing moves but at the same time it's an optional element not forced on the player. Hence, I don't consider it when I talk about the difficulty. Quicksave reloading is neither of mandatory usage nor is it even intended to be used in that manner. The list goes on, etc.
A game is easier if you exploit everything you can but that doesn't really say anything about the game's difficulty. To me, that says that the game has a lot of stuff to exploit to. Arguing that a game is only hard if it's hard while you're exploiting everything is kind of silly to me.
Minsc said:
but theres also not one thing confirming it either. I know thats a really stupid thing to say but hey its Square.. Didn't they already say 3rd Birthday won't come to PSN anywhere else besides Japan? Not sure what the excuse is on that one was but they can't use the same one they said for KH: Birth By Sleep.
Also the PS blog had tons of questions asked from the fans a while back and they avoided every question asked about a PSN release. Add all of that together and what do you get?
PataHikari
Banned
Shouta that is everything I wanted to say only far more coherent and with less insults.
Hikash Winzalf
Banned
mjemirzian was already trolling this game's threads when it was announced and has never stop since. His posts smell the frustrated fanboy to me.
Ikkarus said:Have you got a link to the seller you bought them from?
I am interested in the cards but might be put off the price.
This is the link, 19 with registered air mail:
http://cgi.ebay.it/PSP-Tactics-Ogre...839?pt=AU_LM_Metaphysical&hash=item3cb5020777
Shouta said:
Ill have to see how difficult the game is when going from one story battle to another. But I am one who does like the option of building up sometimes and the less random encounters is a little disheartening to hear.
I have enjoyed the Fire Emblem games I have played (loved PoF), but one aspect I dont like about the series is you cant fight in ANY random encounters to build up if you want to.
At least in TO the option is there, its just a little annoying it takes so much to get into a (random) battle. However, far from a breaking point for me, still will be day 1.
Minsc
Gold Member
Hobbun said:
Takes so much?
It takes clicking between point A & point B one or two extra times while you walk over 10 dots on a map, or am I mis-understanding something? Probably less than 30 seconds of your time, vs the 20 minute battle you didn't want to get.
In FF:T I had no problems walking around for a few seconds to trigger a battle if I wanted one (though I remember being annoyed to get one when I didn't want to play one), so unless it takes like 10 minutes to trigger one in TO, I don't see the problem.
Minsc
Gold Member
Hobbun said:
Unless the encounter rate is less than 1:100 (you can easily travel more than one dot per second), there's no way it will take minutes. Where was it mentioned besides that one guy's review, where it's likely to be hyperbole?
Besides, there are additional labyrinth areas for grinding, where encounters are not random aren't there?
Add to all that by getting too many random encounters you're nerfing the ability to raise stats of your future recruits/NPCs, and it starts to sound like lowering the rate was a good idea to me.
Minsc said:
The only source I had heard it was minutes was from that one guys review, and as no one really nixed it and actually agreed the encounter rate was lessened a lot, I didnt take his estimation as hyperbole.
But if it is hyperbole, then great. However, I can only go by what I have read, like everyone else here who has not played the game.
And I wasnt saying I wanted a large amount of random encounters. But again, going by that guys review, he said that he ran into maybe 10 total for the whole game, and that seems kind of low.
However, like I said, it was only one aspect I have heard that has bothered me in any sense about the game, and it may not even be an issue for me in the end. Everything else I have heard makes me more excited for the game.
mjemirzian
Banned
You use the loaded, opionated word "exploit" several times. That word has no place in game analysis. There is no "exploiting" or "cheapness" or "abuse" - those are imaginary, irrelevant constructs players use to morally regulate what they see as unfair behavior. If a move is legal by the games rules, it is valid. Don't like it? Take it up with the people who created the game. Game analysis has nothing to do with fairness or other opinions. It has to do with measurable skills, probabilistic luck, and optimal strategies.Shouta said:
Games are played to win as defined by the games rules. They're skewed towards an optimal playthrough of the game in order for developers to properly balance the difficulty. If it's balanced when played optimally, it's balanced when a less skilled player approaches it. Thus it's the most efficient and accurate way to analyze and balance a game. Most importantly, if you balance a game with the mindset that it won't be exploited or without regard to optimal playthroughs, it's going to end up an imbalanced mess like most RPGs out there. Being in the "RPG genre" does not garner it a magical free pass.
You already got called out for declaring the developers intentions without proof, and now you're doing it again. Regardless of intentions, rules can be analyzed, intents can't. It doesn't matter what the intentions are, it matters what the game rules are.
The first, most important rule of analyzing any game is that you may not arbitrarily ignore parts of the game or game rules for any reason. Games are analyzed by utilizing every legal or legitimate game rule available to the player to reach the stated goals, usually reaching the end of the game and/or getting a high score. Games are not analyzed by restricting yourself or adding meta-rules onto the game that alter how it is played, usually in the form of trying to patch up imbalanced parts of the game that reduce the amount of skill needed to score or complete it. In the absence of a scoring system that penalizes the use of difficulty reducing features, there is no way to differentiate between a player who used them and who didn't as defined by the game rules. Again, if you have a problem with that, stop apologizing for developers who won't or can't balance their games to ensure their challenges aren't easily mitigated.
Someone with an ogre battle avatar making trollish insults and calling me a fanboy. The hypocricy/irony doesn't get much thicker.Hikash Winzalf said:
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=54279u6850548757&size=largestmjemerzian said:
I still think it has to be a bit of hyperbole, but either way I'm not too bothered by it.Hobbun said:
toythatkills
Member
25th in Europe
Suzzopher said:
Oh god it's beautiful
And I still don't think CHARIOT is a huge strike against the difficulty, unless you consider minutes or hours of wasted time as a measure of difficulty. It's a turn-based strategy game with very little randomnesss; any state you can rewind to could be re-achieved by just making the same actions again, barring crits or huge deviations in AI behavior.