-
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.
Valkyria Chronicles |OT| Beautiful art meets genre-redefining gameplay
- Thread starter Durante
- Start date
RpgN
Junior Member
Die Squirrel Die said:
Yes, I just had that yesterday with Rosie.
It was in chapter 12. I was very close at the enemy base camp and there was an ace sniper who is very annoying. She was standing infront of him. He tried to attack Rosie twice with a sniper and she dodged them all and killed him instead XD
Ted is really good too. There were 2 elite snipers from above also very close to him. They attacked him from the back and he dodged and killed them too XD I love his lines too:
Knock knock! It's Ted!
I could just kiss you (luckily I had a female engineer do the healing for him)
I A-M Ted!
Thank you! Thank you!
He's just amazing...and cute. And like to show off a lot
U K Narayan said:
Well, Salinas is very handy too. He can spot soldiers hiding from far and he can shish kabab Lancers without a sweat
Jane is really good too, you don't want to face her. I agree about Edy though, I don't understand why she is liked that much. Probably because of her cute looks for the pedo fans.badcrumble
Member
Wendy is the best shock trooper because she's obviously nuts and just likes carnage.
fistwell_old
Member
So, in other words, you're saying that if they do the multiplayer wrong, it would not work. You've got a firm grasp of the obvious, good for you.Tempy said:
Got anything intelligent to contribute to the conversation?
fistwell_old
Member
Yet the smart people who figured it out are unable to make a convincing case as to why it would not work.Defuser said:
Go figure.
It'd work after they spend 1 year and millions of dollars into development completely overhauling the game and spending loads of time into balancing, eventually turning the game into something completely different and uninteresting for their target audience.Fistwell said:
Face it. The only people who care about multiplayer are North Americans who want to squeeze out value for their dollars and end up not even taking advantage of the replayability. They're not going to spend the time and money if they have to completely rehaul the game mechanics.
badcrumble
Member
or they could just have multiplayer work somewhat differently instead of overhauling the single player game
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
Tempy said:
Post of the week
Farnack said:
While I wouldn't say it is millions of dollars, I do agree that it will take away time and effort from developing the quality single player game we have now.
At the very least, it would have delayed the release of the game (into a time period where it could have sold more) :lol
fistwell_old
Member
No man, face it. We're dumb, ignorant, and someone's gonna hit us in the face.badcrumble said:
Well, for development, time is money.Hcoregamer00 said:
1 year would definitely be quite some millions of dollars. Since all the maps are asymmetric and unbalanced, they would need to create and art up new levels, and you can't just create one multiplayer level, they probably need eight. Game designers would definitely be hard pressed to make things work, and doubling the efforts of testing.
They would have to remove/modify quite alot of stuff if they were make it multiplayer. No potentials,no orders,balanced maps,limited CP,no main base capturing and the aiming system.
I'm not saying they must be removed but it's to play a fair game here. You don't want your opponent having double movement or ultimate accuracy. Like the rest said,they have to compromise alot of stuff and it's not worth it.
I'm not saying they must be removed but it's to play a fair game here. You don't want your opponent having double movement or ultimate accuracy. Like the rest said,they have to compromise alot of stuff and it's not worth it.
Fistwell said:
The single player game mechanics do not facilitate a multiplayer mode without revising every gameplay mechanic.
My example illustrates exactly what would go wrong if one were to just use the single player mechanics. It just doesn't work.
In short - people want to play a multiplayer game which is not Valkyria Chronicles. People basically want two different games using the same setting, but that's not really viable for a niche genre game.
I especially like some people's suggestion that it would be "easy" and they can just use the single player maps.
It's been rehashed earlier in the thread and it's becoming a very tired subject.
I could go further on using even simpler language, and I could make some drawings to help you understand a bit better, but I don't think I can do that without insulting your intelligence.
davidpdong
Member
Quick question. When you promote to elite does your character look any different?
(this is 50% of the reason why I play fire emblem. Seriously)
Still waiting on my copy, Half.com seller is slow wit it.
(this is 50% of the reason why I play fire emblem. Seriously)
Still waiting on my copy, Half.com seller is slow wit it.
So the multiplayer topic is still going on?
I'll make it really easy for you:
(1) Fact: Multiplayer wouldn't work with the game mechanics & balance as is (if you can't see that there is no helping you)
(2) Proposition: Changing game mechanics & balance to fit MP may degrade the SP experience -- and even if it doesn't it would require redesigning that as well
(3) By (1) and (2), adding multiplayer would no just incur the cost for additional net code development and testing, but also for the design changes and related SP changes required
(4) Fact: Game budgets are finite
(5) By (3) and (4), the game would have suffered in other areas had they included multiplayer
(6) Fact: Historically, SRPGs simply don't include multiplayer, and the fanbase never seemed to care
(7) By (5) and (6), the game would have most likely been less appealing to the main target audience had they included MP
In conclusion:
There are very valid reasons for not including multiplayer. Perhaps, given the superb feedback on the gameplay and the related sporadic cries for MP they would consider planning the sequel with it in mind from the beginning. So if you really want MP buy a few more copies of the game.
I'll make it really easy for you:
(1) Fact: Multiplayer wouldn't work with the game mechanics & balance as is (if you can't see that there is no helping you)
(2) Proposition: Changing game mechanics & balance to fit MP may degrade the SP experience -- and even if it doesn't it would require redesigning that as well
(3) By (1) and (2), adding multiplayer would no just incur the cost for additional net code development and testing, but also for the design changes and related SP changes required
(4) Fact: Game budgets are finite
(5) By (3) and (4), the game would have suffered in other areas had they included multiplayer
(6) Fact: Historically, SRPGs simply don't include multiplayer, and the fanbase never seemed to care
(7) By (5) and (6), the game would have most likely been less appealing to the main target audience had they included MP
In conclusion:
There are very valid reasons for not including multiplayer. Perhaps, given the superb feedback on the gameplay and the related sporadic cries for MP they would consider planning the sequel with it in mind from the beginning. So if you really want MP buy a few more copies of the game.
fistwell_old
Member
Well, it's at least nice that a conversation is starting to emerge, without the insecure bullying bs.Farnack said:
I think you have a fair point. However, i dont think there's much need to "art up" new levels, recycling assets from the sp would provide more than enough material. Besides, that's essentially what happens with most games that have both mp and sp.
As far as balance goes, they could easily draw up symmetrical, or close to symmetrical maps. There would still be an advantage to the white, but that could be balanced by reducing amounts of CP, providing sufficient initial cover, and/or drawing up maps that are large enough to nullify the opening move advantage.
Edit: for more discussion.
Every gameplay mechanics? With that kind of unsubstantiated blanket statement, you could "prove" anything you want.Tempy said:
Your example shows that if the mp is designed to be unbalanced, it would be unbalanced.Tempy said:
It's alright, most of your recent posts in this thread have done the latter already, so, no pressure. At least, you're not threatening to hit anyone in the face anymore.Tempy said:
Thanks for a level headed contribution.Durante said:
(1) agreed.
(2) & (3) why would they change the sp according to the mp? The sp seems nice enough to me as is.
(5) the game is out already, i see no point in speculating in what could have been. If they're looking at a sequel, they already have the engine. They could have room to add stuff to the package, and all i'm saying is that mp could make sense.
(6) weren't you that guy saying this game was so different from anything else? Besides, there does seem to be some people in this thread, who probably qualify as part of the target audience, who would be interested in mp.
I like how we actually agree on the essential.Durante said:
(although i'm kinda broke, might have to wait a little before i can afford those 100,000 extra copies)
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
Farnack said:
Very true, all the maps in valkyria is designed for one thing.
Putting you at a disadvantage versus the empire until you figure out a cohesive strategy to beat the level. There is no balance if you use said maps for mutiplayer.
Also, balancing would be a total bitch.
Volcynika said:
If the budget really is 11 million, they will need more than 100,000 extra copies sold.
More like 300,000 extra copies over whatever the USA and European sales are
RpgN
Junior Member
Tempy said:
That's why I'm not even joining the discussion this round. It reminds me of a guy who thought Tales battle would work with touch-screen -_- That was with Tales of Innocence. Some games just wouldn't work with eveything that we want unless they keep our thoughts in mind at the start of development.
fistwell_old
Member
Good, better signal over noise ratio.Tempy said:
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
Tempy said:
Cheer up, you have Mokona
On the former, absolutely, the game is very different from every SRPG before it -- that doesn't change the fact that it's still marketed and described as an SRPG. On the latter, yes, of the probably ~100 people in this thread, 2 or 3 really want multiplayer and are very vocal about it.Fistwell said:
However, quite a few others (including me) agree that if everything else stayed the same, it would be nice to have, while realizing that the simple facts of game development (eg. limited budget and time) dictate that the SP experience would suffer due to the inclusion of a feature that requires as much programming, design and especially testing effort as MP. In a game that is still somewhat anchored in a genre that historically has no multiplayer support, and is first and foremost targeted at Japan where (online) MP gaming is perhaps even more of a niche than SRPGs, it is not at all clear that including a multiplayer mode would be worth the undeniable tradeoff.
fistwell_old
Member
I thought i saw more that 3, but i might be wrong.Durante said:
Cool. See, the appeal of a sequel is increasing.Durante said:
I see what you're saying. But, the engine is up and running. So they could be able to redirect some of their resources to other things. Like mp for example.Durante said:
That's one the points i was trying to make earlier. On one hand, the game is so different than anything else. But on the other hand, the game is still very much the same as everything that's come before. It kinda feels as if you wanna have your cake and eat it too.Durante said:
We don't exactly agree on the undeniability of the tradeoff. So that kinda looks "deniable" if you will.Durante said:
If the fact that srpg are not supposed to have mps is the main road block, why not take the rpg out of the mp? Strategy games work well in multiplayer. The main draw being that people are more interesting to play against than bots. And i believe that would be the case with the mechanics in this game as well.
They can even market it as a strategy mp game here (with srpg sp), and a srpg in japan (with a strategy mp). Problem solved, best of both worlds, they make 3 gazillon dineros, and we all get to ride in the sunset with a cool game.
While I don't care about multiplayer for this game, I'll play devil's advocate and suggest that there are a few things that could be done to make an adequate multiplayer experience without much effort. This effort of course does not take into account coding network or local multiplayer, or the UI required to start multiplayer matches, but it doesn't change any of the original gameplay mechanics and provides a much better multiplayer experience than Fire Emblem.
There's no point trying to balance the armies or create specific multiplayer maps because whoever has the first turn has a serious advantage against the other side. Instead, use the skirmish maps and create an experience based around asymmetic multiplayer. Since the Gallian front has the advantage of unit specialisation, give the Empire the advantage of a much greater unit capacity and the ability to create more units per turn. Scale the Empire unit levels to match those of the Gallian units as well.
Those playing for Gallia still enjoy the game as if it were a single player experience, except that the enemy AI is now human controlled. Those playing for the Empire will enjoy acting like an evil general, sending disposable units to their deaths with reckless abandon. The goals don't even have to change; Gallia still needs to occupy the enemy base camp, while the Empire has to eliminate Welkin or all the Gallian units.
There's no point trying to balance the armies or create specific multiplayer maps because whoever has the first turn has a serious advantage against the other side. Instead, use the skirmish maps and create an experience based around asymmetic multiplayer. Since the Gallian front has the advantage of unit specialisation, give the Empire the advantage of a much greater unit capacity and the ability to create more units per turn. Scale the Empire unit levels to match those of the Gallian units as well.
Those playing for Gallia still enjoy the game as if it were a single player experience, except that the enemy AI is now human controlled. Those playing for the Empire will enjoy acting like an evil general, sending disposable units to their deaths with reckless abandon. The goals don't even have to change; Gallia still needs to occupy the enemy base camp, while the Empire has to eliminate Welkin or all the Gallian units.
@Fistwell:
The main point is that it would cost a lot of money to develop and test solid MP, money that would not be available to improve the SP experience. Which poses the question of whether it would be worth the tradeoff -- will more people worldwide buy an anime-themed SRPG with (imaginary "quality" scores, out of 10) a 10/10 SP experience and no MP or a 7/10 SP experience and a 6/10 MP one?
The main point is that it would cost a lot of money to develop and test solid MP, money that would not be available to improve the SP experience. Which poses the question of whether it would be worth the tradeoff -- will more people worldwide buy an anime-themed SRPG with (imaginary "quality" scores, out of 10) a 10/10 SP experience and no MP or a 7/10 SP experience and a 6/10 MP one?
Fistwell said:
This goes back to my statement that what people want isn't Valkyria Chronicles multiplayer (Valkyria Chronicles is an SRPG)- they just want a different game in the same setting. Or two games in one -> which just isn't feasible with the limited budgets SRPGs get. I'm already amazed VC is such a polished game with quality voice actors.
fistwell_old
Member
Yeah, i think the discussion is coming to a close. All we're left with is speculation.Durante said:
You're speculating that adding (crappy-ish 6/10) mp would hurt the quality of sp by 30%. I'm speculating that it wouldn't. Oh well.
Edit:
Yes, two games in one. The mp being the same game as the sp but stripped down. So very different and completely unfeasable.Tempy said:
Tenkei: yeah, that sounds pretty good to me.
Tenkei said:
Interesting idea, but you can still finish skirmish maps in 1 turn, so there's still the need for extra balancing.
A more interesting alternative someone mentioned before is having people play after each CP use. This prevents the first-turn-walkover scenario. Of course there might be other issues as well, but it seems like a method worth looking at. Not to mention you still have other balancing issues like map balance, level difference, etc.
pancakesandsex
Member
Tempy said:
You could solve all of these issues by having configurable map settings for multiplayer mode. CP slider and a level/handicap slider, would address almost all of your complaints. Also, why let the single player levels carry over into multiplayer?
Regarding complaints about waiting too long, did you ever play a multiplayer game of Heroes of Might and Magic?
fistwell_old
Member
*hi-five*pancakesandsex said:
fistwell_old
Member
Sounds good.Farnack said:
To that one dude that told me there was a world of difference between C and B accuracy for sniper rifles: holy crap.
My snipers went from somewhat useless to regularly scoring 3 head shots in a row/round.
UpperCaseN
Member
I'm early in the game, but I don't even deploy snipers, they suck so bad right now. I don't have the need to deploy engineers right now either, but I still level every job class because I figure it'll get to the point where they're all necessary
Similar threads
- Poll