I've noticed this sitting around in various stores running about $30, and it's pulling a 75% at Gamerankings right now. Does it have the relatively low rating because it's mediocre, or because it's strictly for the hardcore? Because in theory, I don't see how a turn-based strategy game with giant robots could not be good.
-
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.
What's the verdict on Front Mission 4?
- Thread starter Prospero
- Start date
MightyHedgehog
Member
Front Mission Alternative and Front Mission 2 destroy it.
*I haven't played it...only the demo, which was meh.
*I haven't played it...only the demo, which was meh.
RevenantKioku
PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
I've only played the demo, but I really liked the slight tweaks over FM3. Not to mention it was not nearly as blurry and painful on the eyes. It shouldn't be hard to find, so you could always wait a bit longer to snag it like I am, but I do intend to pick it up eventually.
Gotta complete the FM collection.
Gotta complete the FM collection.
RevenantKioku said:
Hmm. If it's not going to become rare, then I might wait for it to drop to $20 (since the fall/winter gaming season is about to begin, and I have enough on my plate as it is).
Blackace said:
Story isn't relevant to me. I know nothing about the Front Mission series, but FM4 is a purchase for me if I can:
--build giant robots
--put a lot of effort into figuring out how to properly customize them, preferably by adding attachments to their arms and legs that have long and threatening names such as "Super Violent Death Ray Gotterdammerung Mark VII"
--use these robots to destroy the living hell out of other giant robots
--repeat, for at least 30 hours.
Bonus points if it has overteched levelling and battle systems, because I love to keep track of ridiculously complicated stats--the more, the better. I want the kind of gameplay where I have to sacrifice armor, in order to keep the giant robot light enough to mount weapons of mass destruction on it.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Prospero said:
Then this is the game for you!!!! You can't build robots like Armor core ...but it is pretty deep in that area.. plus battles can take a long good time... (something that fans of the older games didn't like..but I did) I think you'd really enjoy this game
Diomedeskun
Member
Above all else, the gameplay in Front Mission 4 is far better than 3. The link system is highly strategic and the level design is more complex with much larger levels. I also liked the characters much more than those in Emma's story in Front Mission 3 (I loved killing Dennis in the Alisa version).
The story is a bit weaker, but my chief compaint about 4 is that customization is less interesting than 3 as most of the bodies with the highest carrying capacity have the highest stats except for evade, they are just more expensive, but money is readily available, which means that scouts are likely to be the only units with different bodies. Snipers will have different arms, but those are very heavy and still need the powerful bodies.
Abilities are much improved, especially sniper skills: they let you choose to target specific body parts and are among a new set of skills that are not randomly activated. I owuld have preferred branching skill tree, but each character has a pre-selected set of skills that they can learn with experience gained in battle. Any skills a character does not have naturally can be purchased in the computer store and then learned with experience points.
Overall, not the best SRPG I have played, but highly recommended.
Yes, it is likely to last you about 40 or 50 hours if you play the simulator missions (where all the secrets are located.) Not as long as both games of 3, which took me about 110 hours, but that inlcuded a nearly equivalent time spent in the game's Internet feature as actual combat.
The story is a bit weaker, but my chief compaint about 4 is that customization is less interesting than 3 as most of the bodies with the highest carrying capacity have the highest stats except for evade, they are just more expensive, but money is readily available, which means that scouts are likely to be the only units with different bodies. Snipers will have different arms, but those are very heavy and still need the powerful bodies.
Abilities are much improved, especially sniper skills: they let you choose to target specific body parts and are among a new set of skills that are not randomly activated. I owuld have preferred branching skill tree, but each character has a pre-selected set of skills that they can learn with experience gained in battle. Any skills a character does not have naturally can be purchased in the computer store and then learned with experience points.
Overall, not the best SRPG I have played, but highly recommended.
Yes, it is likely to last you about 40 or 50 hours if you play the simulator missions (where all the secrets are located.) Not as long as both games of 3, which took me about 110 hours, but that inlcuded a nearly equivalent time spent in the game's Internet feature as actual combat.
seismologist
Banned
I like it. I haven't played the earlier games but it's one of the better games I've played on any system this gen.
The strategy is well done and it's got some nice Square touches like the music (although repetitive) and nicely detailed animation.
The strategy is well done and it's got some nice Square touches like the music (although repetitive) and nicely detailed animation.
Crazymoogle
Member
Keep in mind this is coming from someone who thinks FM3 is the best game on the PlayStation, but I thought Front Mission 4 was definitely worth playing. The whole point buying system was brilliant and single handedly erases any memory of the demo (which seemed very shallow thanks to the buying system being disabled).
Battles are not Ring of Red long (unless you're reviewing the game for IGN) but they tend to be longer than FM3 levels. The AI is basically the same as in 3, which irritates some people but also tends to be pretty important to how the game plays.
Diomedeskun's comment about bodies actually just depends on how you set up your team. I typically keep my short-mid range brawlers with high evade gear, because once you start chaining and boosting, prepare to dodge 5+ attacks in a row. I tend to keep long range (Bazooka/Missile) units on high HP armors, with Supply/Sniper types on balanced wanzers (since they seem to do best with quad legs or hover legs).
The customization really is the strongest in the series; you'll actually WANT to play training just to get more money for stat upgrades. Some of the Wanzers can end up with 35+AP, which makes for some insane link strategies (necessary to get through the secret training levels).
I still think FM3 is a stronger game (better story, 2x as long, actual humans, and so on) but FM4 was a real breath of fresh air for the PS2 lineup. The game also has a new game+ mode, essentially liquifying all of your purchases and cash and then giving it back to you at the beginning of the next playthrough in the form of a lump sum.
If you want a more balanced look at the game (including the points that inevitably drag the game down from being an all-time classic), I talk about it in my FM4 war journals here.
Battles are not Ring of Red long (unless you're reviewing the game for IGN) but they tend to be longer than FM3 levels. The AI is basically the same as in 3, which irritates some people but also tends to be pretty important to how the game plays.
Diomedeskun's comment about bodies actually just depends on how you set up your team. I typically keep my short-mid range brawlers with high evade gear, because once you start chaining and boosting, prepare to dodge 5+ attacks in a row. I tend to keep long range (Bazooka/Missile) units on high HP armors, with Supply/Sniper types on balanced wanzers (since they seem to do best with quad legs or hover legs).
The customization really is the strongest in the series; you'll actually WANT to play training just to get more money for stat upgrades. Some of the Wanzers can end up with 35+AP, which makes for some insane link strategies (necessary to get through the secret training levels).
I still think FM3 is a stronger game (better story, 2x as long, actual humans, and so on) but FM4 was a real breath of fresh air for the PS2 lineup. The game also has a new game+ mode, essentially liquifying all of your purchases and cash and then giving it back to you at the beginning of the next playthrough in the form of a lump sum.
If you want a more balanced look at the game (including the points that inevitably drag the game down from being an all-time classic), I talk about it in my FM4 war journals here.
Diomedeskun
Member
It's not that there is no selection in parts in FM4, but I found precious little experimentation in the setup screen, unlike 3. I was pretty much just led to a better version of similar types of Wanzer parts between each mission, unlike 3 where I could upgrade parts and utilize captured parts as well. New parts just all seem to fall in a few categories and I usually just picked out high evade/medium/power based on the unit, instead of fiddling around for an hour like in FM3. There are many more parts in shops, but stats vary far less than in 3 and more expensive parts in each category seem to nearly always improve every stat. Capturing and/or upgrading would also mean that you can upgrade some units just about every battle instead of all every few battles.
There were a few exceptions, like the wonderful weapon arms and the occasional different wanzer that would lead you to a new play style for a character (I took quite a liking to Bazookas with Becht). I was also annoyed that not every leg type was available for every update. I came to like some types for some units, but I had to discard them when they were not available for an upgrade (none were so useful that I would have taken the loss in HP).
I like the story more in FM3 and I greatly enjoyed the internet, but the gameplay component is just about all there is in FM4 and it trounces FM3's gameplay, which (outisde of between mission customization) consisted of simply throwing your units at the enemy and healing any who got hit. FM4 is much more challenging and planning links is great fun.
There were a few exceptions, like the wonderful weapon arms and the occasional different wanzer that would lead you to a new play style for a character (I took quite a liking to Bazookas with Becht). I was also annoyed that not every leg type was available for every update. I came to like some types for some units, but I had to discard them when they were not available for an upgrade (none were so useful that I would have taken the loss in HP).
I like the story more in FM3 and I greatly enjoyed the internet, but the gameplay component is just about all there is in FM4 and it trounces FM3's gameplay, which (outisde of between mission customization) consisted of simply throwing your units at the enemy and healing any who got hit. FM4 is much more challenging and planning links is great fun.
Similar threads
- Poll