Oh my God. I am playing the demo right now... holy SHIT. I wish WISH I had money at this very moment, or else I'd go out and buy this game immediately. This is incredible. I thought you guys were pulling my chain when you said "one of the best games this year". Wow.
8-) Yeah its pretty great. Frankly I think its special in that there really aren't any other 3D turn based tactical games that aren't overly complicated and have a nice learning curve like this one while presenting it such a pleasing matter. (Canvas graphics engine, units have unique/fun personalities, cute anime story)
I realize this game doesn't have a wide appeal to say the Gears, Halo, Madden crowds, but for gamers like us its fucking great.
And it's sad that it won't win any awards at all.
Mainly because FO3 will probably overtake it for "PS3 RPG of the year" for a lot of publications.
And as much as I'd like to say otherwise, "RPG of the year" would go to Persona 4 for me, edging out VC.
Oh my God. I am playing the demo right now... holy SHIT. I wish WISH I had money at this very moment, or else I'd go out and buy this game immediately. This is incredible. I thought you guys were pulling my chain when you said "one of the best games this year". Wow.
8-) Yeah its pretty great. Frankly I think its special in that there really aren't any other 3D turn based tactical games that aren't overly complicated and have a nice learning curve like this one while presenting it such a pleasing matter. (Canvas graphics engine, units have unique/fun personalities, cute anime story)
I realize this game doesn't have a wide appeal to say the Gears, Halo, Madden crowds, but for gamers like us its fucking great.
And it's sad that it won't win any awards at all.
Mainly because FO3 will probably overtake it for "PS3 RPG of the year" for a lot of publications.
And as much as I'd like to say otherwise, "RPG of the year" would go to Persona 4 for me, edging out VC.
Sad but true. FO3 is a great game no doubt but it honestly was too damn easy to live up to the original games. Where as this is an original IP with the most amazing ingame engine I've ever seen for a tactical RPG but it flew under the radar and if most publications gave it the props it deserved I think most people would scoff because it bumped they're precious GOW2 or GTA4 down a peg.
Dickhead Kotaku Reviewer doesn't think the story elements are APPROPRIATE.
AJ Glasser is a chick, they sometimes have weird sensibilities. Its also probably why she thought some of the missions were too hard, pssh, women gamers. But in all seriousness I don't think the story is the strong point in the game. Don't get me wrong, I liked it well enough, but the meat and potatoes is the gameplay. In anycase while she did have issues with the story she did say overall its a very good game and every ps3 owner should check it out. So yeah, another positive review for VC.
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
Some Sega games disappear off of store shelves real quick. Panzer Dragoon Saga. Rez. Is this game going to be around for years or is it more like a game published by Atlus?
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
Some Sega games disappear off of store shelves real quick. Panzer Dragoon Saga. Rez. Is this game going to be around for years or is it more like a game published by Atlus?
See this is why I bought the game last week although I had planned to wait.
You can't even BUY the game in Canada (none of the major retailers are carrying it), unless you go to an independant gaming store or buy online. This alone convinced me that they did a very limited run of the game, and given the low sales, once done I very much doubt we'll ever see the game again except on Ebay selling for Texa$
I could be wrong, and if sales pick up maybe it could justify a reprint but I doubt it. From reading over the Neogaf thread it appears that sales were very poor for VC (they were saying it only moved 30 or 60 thousand, I can'r remember which) which is a damn shame. I suspect down the road VC is going to be one of those mythical titles people talk about but can't find to buy anywhere.
Some Sega games disappear off of store shelves real quick. Panzer Dragoon Saga. Rez. Is this game going to be around for years or is it more like a game published by Atlus?
See this is why I bought the game last week although I had planned to wait.
You can't even BUY the game in Canada (none of the major retailers are carrying it), unless you go to an independant gaming store or buy online. This alone convinced me that they did a very limited run of the game, and given the low sales, once done I very much doubt we'll ever see the game again except on Ebay selling for Texa$
I could be wrong, and if sales pick up maybe it could justify a reprint but I doubt it. From reading over the Neogaf thread it appears that sales were very poor for VC (they were saying it only moved 30 or 60 thousand, I can'r remember which) which is a damn shame. I suspect down the road VC is going to be one of those mythical titles people talk about but can't find to buy anywhere.
Same here, except for the...Canada part. Anyway, up to Chapter 3 now. Cool fucking beans.
Woodroez on
0
zllehsHiding in a box, waiting to strike.Registered Userregular
I got it off the official page. They don't have any other featuring 2nd string characters, but they do have a nice one with the Empire guys. They also have some Avatars too.
Also the Amazon reviews for this game are funny. 38 5-star reviews 1 4-star review, and nothing lower than that. (They one guy said it should be 4.5 stars with the -.5 because of the ratings being turn based instead of completionist.) I'm fine with the rating system. If you do the mission well you should be able to kill all the enemy aces and leaders while still getting A-rank.
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I'm fine with the rating system. If you do the mission well you should be able to kill all the enemy aces and leaders while still getting A-rank.
Not really... there are some missions where you can and some where it's extremely unlikely that you'd be able to. My real problem with the rating system, however, is that it rewards speed in a tactics game. Doing someting faster in a racing game means you're doing well, doing things faster in a tactics game often means you're being suicidal and not considering what would be overall best for victory. It rewards people who buff up a scout and run her (usually Alicia) through to the base, while hoping she doesn't get killed on the way. Ideally a rating system should reward those who are exceptionally proficient in the game - it doesn't require proficiency to run through the level, it require proficiency to take every base while losing none of your own, or every enemy without a single loss. I'd rather be rewarded for my tactics than the fact that I'm using overleveled Alicia with buffs to run through to the end.
I'm fine with the rating system. If you do the mission well you should be able to kill all the enemy aces and leaders while still getting A-rank.
Not really... there are some missions where you can and some where it's extremely unlikely that you'd be able to. My real problem with the rating system, however, is that it rewards speed in a tactics game. Doing someting faster in a racing game means you're doing well, doing things faster in a tactics game often means you're being suicidal and not considering what would be overall best for victory. It rewards people who buff up a scout and run her (usually Alicia) through to the base, while hoping she doesn't get killed on the way. Ideally a rating system should reward those who are exceptionally proficient in the game - it doesn't require proficiency to run through the level, it require proficiency to take every base while losing none of your own, or every enemy without a single loss. I'd rather be rewarded for my tactics than the fact that I'm using overleveled Alicia with buffs to run through to the end.
This x10. When I started I assumed other factors were taken into account like Advanced wars. It just seems silly that it only relies on number of turns. It encourages puzzle like play in a tactical game. I'm curious if they didn't have time to make a more nuanced rating system.
Apostate on
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
In some ways though speed suits the whole battlefield setting, rather than anihilating the entire opposing force.
Hmm, that's true. I just don't like that they reward you, in a tactics game, for making unnecessary gambits based on a single unit. In my mind, a game's rankings should be related to how well you performed on something in game. That's why I brought up racing - in a racing game, speed is everything, so you should be judged on it. In an FPS, the point is to stay alive and make other people not alive, so you should be judged on how well you did it. Your efficiency (ratio of shots fired to shots that connected), kill count, number of headshots and number of deaths should all be accounted for. After all, if you improve any of those, you're doing better.
In tactics games, I'll concede that speed is a good gauge on how efficient you were, and thus deserves some recognition. To use this to the exclusion of all other factors, however, seems somewhat foolish. It's like judging an FPS solely on the headshot number - yes, it's important, and someone with a higher headshot number is probably better, but it's far from the whole picture, and encourages people to go for headshots when a body shot is probably a better decision. Just like in Valkyria Chronicles, you could have a scout rush in to first turn take a base, but it makes much more tactical sense to have her advance slowly while being covered by snipers on rooftops. After all, the second shows the player has a thought out plan involving legitimate tactics, whereas the first shows lack of tactics - specifically, it's a high risk plan which in the end accomplishes less than the other.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that speed can be an important factor in ranking, but if it's the only factor, then it doesn't encourage playing well, or sound thinking, but rather throws tactics out to encourage reckless attacks. A better system would be one that takes into account number of tanks left alive, number of leaders left alive, people lost, and so on to come up with a comprehensive ranking system.
Yes, I am not too overly happy with the "speed = ranking" way of scoring. It can get utterly unrealistic, when you use these "scout rushing tactics" to run a single scout all over the battlefield and the end the phase by having cleared the base but the 20 troops within were never attacked. If it would work that way, they should recruit the RoadRunner to fight the wars for them. Because, who can say honestly that they find it realistic when you sneak a scout forward while all other troops are slaughtered, and he goes "IM IN UR BASE, CAPTURING UR FLAG!" and all the enemies go "OH NOES, WE IZ PWND!"
That's why I have such an intense dislike for the orders; they basically encourage you to "bend the rules" by letting scouts being able to blow up tanks to "taking lesser damage without any other penalty". It is a good way for non-wargamers to hand them tools to beat a battle without using a good strategy, so the game gets more accessible to non-wargamers. And I am OK with that.
But I intensly dislike the thing called "S-rank guide", which basically revolves around using these "tactics" by abusing orders. Furthermore, it is a wargame, so there actually shouldn't be guides; it's all about figuring it out yourself; that's the fun part about "wargames".
Maybe in a sequel they could do something like "you capture the base if you can hold it for 2 turns" or so; that would be far more interesting; scout rushing would work, but then you would get horrible retaliation.
But then again, I would very much like a "hardcore campaign", in which you cannot use orders, AND which autosaves for you (so that you can't use Save Game to correct little mistakes). This would up the tactical factor of the game quite a lot.
And may I ask : why is everyone calling this an RPG? I am pulling my hairs out over that! It is a turn based wargame with levelling elements.
If you have ever played X-Com : UFO Enemy Unknown, you have almost the same gameplay! You have a group of characters, who have to fight, and earn experience if they survive the battle. When they die, they die (so you have to fight very carefully). If you have never played this game, grab that ancient 486 PC from the attic, or be a PC Wiz an get it to work under a current OS. You will see, that that is a turn based wargame with levelling elements.
Or take Panzer General (also on the PC, from around the 486 era). You fight your battles (on a hex map) and everyone of your core troops gets experience, so that they fight better. Levelling elements, but not an RPG, still a wargame.
Advance Wars Dual Strike (on the Nintendo DS) has levelling elements. But it isn't an RPG at all!
Is it because there is a storyline that people say "it's an RPG"? Or is it that the storyline between battles takes up more than a few sentences? Is it because the characters are personalised with potentials that it is called an RPG? Or does everyone associate the JRPG term to the game when they see the graphics?
Personally I would never see it win any RPG awards because for me, it isn't one. But apparently not enough war games are released a year to make a "Best strategy/tactical game" category.
This is actually an interesting issue, because "what makes an RPG an RPG?" isn't that clear anymore; I might be inclined to say that an RPG is about tweaking and fiddling and levelling the stats of individual characters, but then I look at Disgaea (which has many tweaking fiddling capabilities), and I'm like "Disgaea isn't an RPG for me too"...
Maybe, for me, an RPG is about "getting through the story" while a wargame is about "fighting the battles and tweaking the troops"...
Deploy 2 lancers, 2 shocktroopers and 2 scouts symmetrically.
Start by destroying the gatling to the left and the tank to the right.
Use the shocktroopers to climb the stairs and take out the enemy shocktroopers.
Use the scouts to take the southwestern and southeastern bases (You'll probably need to spend 2 CP on each, as well as a defence order on the scout that isn't Alicia). Don't bother activating the lifts.
All the above should be done on turn 1. From here on it's pretty straightforward.
Deploy 2 lancers, 2 shocktroopers and 2 scouts symmetrically.
Start by destroying the gatling to the left and the tank to the right.
Use the shocktroopers to climb the stairs and take out the enemy shocktroopers.
Use the scouts to take the southwestern and southeastern bases (You'll probably need to spend 2 CP on each, as well as a defence order on the scout that isn't Alicia). Don't bother activating the lifts.
All the above should be done on turn 1. From here on it's pretty straightforward.
Right, I'll give that a try, thanks, so basically.....
I dont use the Edelweiss or the Shamrock at all? And do I hide the scouts in a corner or something to take shots at Selvaria?
OneWingedOtaku on
Gamertag:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
This is actually an interesting issue, because "what makes an RPG an RPG?" isn't that clear anymore; I might be inclined to say that an RPG is about tweaking and fiddling and levelling the stats of individual characters, but then I look at Disgaea (which has many tweaking fiddling capabilities), and I'm like "Disgaea isn't an RPG for me too"...
RPGs have never been a well categorized...category for me. When I learned what RPG was an acronym for (and it must have been a long time ago, because I don't remember NOT knowing what it was), my first thought was "isn't every game an RPG?". I mean, you take on the role of Mario in Super Mario Brothers, you take on the role of James Bond in Goldeneye, and you take on the role of... well, in strategy games it's rarely defined. In Fire Emblem, you were a tactician that traveled with Lyn, and later Hector and Eliwood.
When I was younger, the category, though ill-defined, still worked. I'd only played JRPGs like Final; Fantasy and Secret of mana, so the easiest way to define it was "a game where you can see your hit points, strength/agility/damage and so on (remember, almost all game use stats. Though you can't see it, you have a definite hit point number in Halo)". I mean, this is still fairly applicable. When the stats are visible, it's generally an RPG, and when they aren't, it's not (this is NOT an absolute, but a general trend). This, obviously, isn't what makes it an RPG, but tends to go along with it.
But that's the thing, when you look at something and call it an RPG, you're basically saying "it has these traits, which are like other RPGs". These traits can include turn based battles, customization, levels, visible statistics, choices that change the story, and a strong, coherent story. It's not like the FPS category where "you're in first person and you shoot things". It's not like a sports game where you... well, play sports. It encompasses a huge number of games with very little in common, and that may share things with other categories. Remember, many RTS games have unit veterancy - which is exactly the same as an RPG level with invisible stats.
So I end up with the category being almost worthless to me. It's both too big and too vague. Tales of Symphonia and Final Fantasy VI were both RPGs, by most definitions, but completely different. One is almost an action game, and one is a turn-based game. Both are story-driven. Then there's games like Morrowind, which could be story-driven, but you really don't have to make it that way if you don't want. They all have completely different gameplay (which is what most games are categorized by). Categorizing those three in he same category is almost like putting Goldeneye in with racing games. You know, cuz you get a tank in Goldeneye and those are vehicles too. Also both can be done in first person. They're almost identical!
In the end, I'd call it an RPG, mostly because I know that's how everyone defines it and it's the easiest way to communicate it. And because I'm using a label I hate to describe somthing that doesn't even fit in, I'll cry a little every time I do.
Deploy 2 lancers, 2 shocktroopers and 2 scouts symmetrically.
Start by destroying the gatling to the left and the tank to the right.
Use the shocktroopers to climb the stairs and take out the enemy shocktroopers.
Use the scouts to take the southwestern and southeastern bases (You'll probably need to spend 2 CP on each, as well as a defence order on the scout that isn't Alicia). Don't bother activating the lifts.
All the above should be done on turn 1. From here on it's pretty straightforward.
Right, I'll give that a try, thanks, so basically.....
I dont use the Edelweiss or the Shamrock at all? And do I hide the scouts in a corner or something to take shots at Selvaria?
Edelweiss is great for smoke rounds. Shoot it where Selveria is, and she won't be able to do intercepting fire when you're moving.
Just keep doing that while moving a Scout and a Shocktrooper on the leftside, Alicia and Rosie preferably for their undodgeable shot. When facing Selveria, be sure to use the orders defense up and Attack up on Alicia. Be sure to have Rosie beside to heal if you ever need to.
Incredibly risky, but that's how I did it for the first time with A rank.
But I intensly dislike the thing called "S-rank guide", which basically revolves around using these "tactics" by abusing orders. Furthermore, it is a wargame, so there actually shouldn't be guides; it's all about figuring it out yourself; that's the fun part about "wargames".
I fail to see why you find fault in a guide that tries to get you S-ranks in the game simply because it requires you to abuse the game system that, if not done, would NOT result in getting said rank the guide was meant for?
If there was a way to do so without doing it, you'd have a point. But I think you're confusing your dislike for the scoring system and orders in general with, it seems, your dislike for people who might want to use a guide if they're stuck.
As for the descriptor, I've played wargames on the PC for decades. I enjoyed the Panzer Generals and Steel Panthers and Combat Missions. But even I wouldn't classify this or even Advance Wars as "wargames." They're tactical RPGs at best, though SRPG is the moniker they frequently get. They fall in line with your FFTs and your Sakura Taisens, games like Gladius and Fire Emblem and Ogre Battle. In other words, they're more Fantasy General or Heroes of Might & Magic than People's General or Close Combat.
They may share core elements and mechanics here and there, but the overall setting and game structure make me classify VC in the RPG realm. VC is closest to the Sakura Taisen franchise more than anything as the combat is very similar, and likely were developed by a good chunk of the same dev team.
But I intensly dislike the thing called "S-rank guide", which basically revolves around using these "tactics" by abusing orders. Furthermore, it is a wargame, so there actually shouldn't be guides; it's all about figuring it out yourself; that's the fun part about "wargames".
I fail to see why you find fault in a guide that tries to get you S-ranks in the game simply because it requires you to abuse the game system that, if not done, would NOT result in getting said rank the guide was meant for?
If there was a way to do so without doing it, you'd have a point. But I think you're confusing your dislike for the scoring system and orders in general with, it seems, your dislike for people who might want to use a guide if they're stuck.
As for the descriptor, I've played wargames on the PC for decades. I enjoyed the Panzer Generals and Steel Panthers and Combat Missions. But even I wouldn't classify this or even Advance Wars as "wargames." They're tactical RPGs at best, though SRPG is the moniker they frequently get. They fall in line with your FFTs and your Sakura Taisens, games like Gladius and Fire Emblem and Ogre Battle. In other words, they're more Fantasy General or Heroes of Might & Magic than People's General or Close Combat.
They may share core elements and mechanics here and there, but the overall setting and game structure make me classify VC in the RPG realm. VC is closest to the Sakura Taisen franchise more than anything as the combat is very similar, and likely were developed by a good chunk of the same dev team.
I have to disagree completely with this. RPGs involve some level of choice in storyline. It may end the same, depending on the game, but it involves choices in how you get there. VC has none. It plays a story and then gives you a tactical map to play the game. Unit abilities may carry over from map to map. But the upgrades are across the board and not specific to individuals. The only individual uprgade you can even give people are different weapons. Personalities not withstanding, everyone is essentially interchangable.
Even Jagged Alliance 2 had dialog trees and choices that produced different options throughout the story but few people would consider that an RPG. VC also doesn't have a character that you "play." You could argue Welkin is the character you play because it mostly happens from his perspective, but you still have no choice in what he does or says. Your only choices are where do I drive the tank?
I agree there are games that you can argue what they are exactly, but VC isn't one of them. It is pretty much definitively a tactical wargame.
Is O or X the 'yes' button for you guys? Mine is O, but it seems that everyone else has it as X. I'm wondering if it's got something to do with the fact I'm using a region 3 PS3. (My game's NTSC U/C)
I have to disagree completely with this. RPGs involve some level of choice in storyline. It may end the same, depending on the game, but it involves choices in how you get there.
I don't agree with this at all. For a game to be an RPG, there has to be storyline branching of ANY sort? Even if it's just dialogue trees to give the illusion of choice? Linear stories that end the same way no matter how you "choose" to get there where the choices only alter what you read are RPGs, but VC isn't?
The storyline "choice" isn't in the dialogue in this game. It's in the tactical battles, and how you choose to get through them. You build your own damn story of how you got through each battle, who gives a goddamn if it's not through dialogue choices or alternate cutscenes.
So I'm LTTP on this game. Haven't read the whole thread but already seeing horror stories of finding it in Canada (although I think the local HMVs always have stock the odd time I remember to look.) Is this looking to be a Suikoden 1/2 scenario where it will be impossible to find a copy in a few months?
Half my monies go to Rock Band, the other half went to LBP. What's left for VC?
I have to disagree completely with this. RPGs involve some level of choice in storyline. It may end the same, depending on the game, but it involves choices in how you get there.
I don't agree with this at all. For a game to be an RPG, there has to be storyline branching of ANY sort? Even if it's just dialogue trees to give the illusion of choice? Linear stories that end the same way no matter how you "choose" to get there where the choices only alter what you read are RPGs, but VC isn't?
The storyline "choice" isn't in the dialogue in this game. It's in the tactical battles, and how you choose to get through them. You build your own damn story of how you got through each battle, who gives a goddamn if it's not through dialogue choices or alternate cutscenes.
By that definition then every game is an RPG. All games have an element of choice. It's why a game is not movie or a book.
An RPG is a Role Playing Game. The idea being that you play a role and make choices for the lead character, or characters in some cases, and based on that role affect the way they make their way through the story whether or not the ending is "fixed." In VC you either win the round or you don't. You can't skip a battle or choose others that you like more. You can't say "I don't care about the Darcsens," and go do something else. You either win the round or you lose. Every map is predetermined for you as are all character interactions.
It's understandable that sometimes the lines blur. RPGs evolved out of tactical wargaming. So there will be similiarities.
The only reason I even bothered to bring this up was because I don't want people reading this thread and determining whether or not to buy the game based on false assumptions. If they think they are picking up an RPG then they may be disapponted as that isn't what it is. It's a tactical game with great artwork and a nice story. It's not like it should be ashamed of that.
Is O or X the 'yes' button for you guys? Mine is O, but it seems that everyone else has it as X. I'm wondering if it's got something to do with the fact I'm using a region 3 PS3. (My game's NTSC U/C)
That's funny. One of the "translation" elements for Japan to "the west" is changing that -- O is the "confirm" button for most Japanese games. In the US and Europe, it's X. Funny that your "western" game reverts to the Japanese configuration based on the console -- must've been coded that way originally!
I have to disagree completely with this. RPGs involve some level of choice in storyline. It may end the same, depending on the game, but it involves choices in how you get there.
I don't agree with this at all. For a game to be an RPG, there has to be storyline branching of ANY sort? Even if it's just dialogue trees to give the illusion of choice? Linear stories that end the same way no matter how you "choose" to get there where the choices only alter what you read are RPGs, but VC isn't?
The storyline "choice" isn't in the dialogue in this game. It's in the tactical battles, and how you choose to get through them. You build your own damn story of how you got through each battle, who gives a goddamn if it's not through dialogue choices or alternate cutscenes.
By that definition then every game is an RPG. All games have an element of choice. It's why a game is not movie or a book.
An RPG is a Role Playing Game. The idea being that you play a role and make choices for the lead character, or characters in some cases, and based on that role affect the way they make their way through the story whether or not the ending is "fixed." In VC you either win the round or you don't. You can't skip a battle or choose others that you like more. You can't say "I don't care about the Darcsens," and go do something else. You either win the round or you lose. Every map is predetermined for you as are all character interactions.
It's understandable that sometimes the lines blur. RPGs evolved out of tactical wargaming. So there will be similiarities.
The only reason I even bothered to bring this up was because I don't want people reading this thread and determining whether or not to buy the game based on false assumptions. If they think they are picking up an RPG then they may be disapponted as that isn't what it is. It's a tactical game with great artwork and a nice story. It's not like it should be ashamed of that.
It's not a traditonal JRPG, no. I never argued that point. But anyone who has played the SRPGs I mentioned above would have no problem with this game either if they enjoy games like Sakura Taisen or Fire Emblem or FFT. Whether or not those types of games fit your definition of a traditional RPG is moot when compared to the general gaming vocabulary that's already been established for these game types.
By that definition then every game is an RPG. All games have an element of choice. It's why a game is not movie or a book.
I'm only quoting you so this isn't a huge block of text (I know you go on to explain it).
An RPG is simply based on some element of D&D, which involves levels, hit points, numerical damage, and so on. Obviously D&D is as role-playing as it gets, so video games got stuck with the label when they adopted the mechanics -- move around, fight monsters, all based on a numbers system rather than dexterity.
ValkyC is still an RPG in this context, but technically is more "action RPG" than any other form. An Action RPG/Tactics game would probably be the best way to describe it.
Of course, when people think Action RPG they think swords & sorcery, so that's why we have this thread ;D
It's not a traditonal JRPG, no. I never argued that point. But anyone who has played the SRPGs I mentioned above would have no problem with this game either if they enjoy games like Sakura Taisen or Fire Emblem or FFT. Whether or not those types of games fit your definition of a traditional RPG is moot when compared to the general gaming vocabulary that's already been established for these game types.
I would agree with that. Especially regarding Fire Emblem, and FFT. And I know SRPG is common term (even if I believe it is incorrectly applied). I think the the reason RPG is applied to those games is because of their prior games, such as FF1-7 and the like, or from the genre itself like in Fire Emblem. It's a typical medieval fantasy setting and often fantasy setting equals RPG to some.
Again I don't want to belabor the discusson. I just want people, who may not be familiar with some of the terms, to understand what they are buying.
Finally beat that Chapter 15! Here's how I did it, after reading some more stategy's on the net:
Fired a smoke round at the squad, then got 4 snipers out in front of the smoke and took one headshot each at Selvaria. She went down in 4 headshots, 1 turn and I got an A-Rank (my first in the game, if you can beleive that)
Anyway after that I went through the 3 Ellet reports you can get, and will be starting CHapter 16 tommorow. I know I'm nearing the end now and I dont wan't it to finish! AgH!
While on vacation here; it seems someone made a sexier Selvaria sig... Can someone pls make a nice one for moi if possible? Pls? I don't like copy-pasting-mimicking sigs that I like but are already in use. (Not to mention that I suck trying to work photoshop.)
Anyway, I'm still working on my VC fanfic; but I'm really waiting until I read the manga version or watch the anime version (hopefully the anime version will do the game justice; in both character styles and storyline-wise).
Also, now I just need Alicia and Rosie figures; I now have Eleanor and Isara gracing my game shelf (and they look oddly nice with the Gundam models and war torn model setting I placed them in... maybe that's just due to my love of Mechs and Girls (I want SELVARIA!)).
Good to see that people love the game!
P.S. I STILL Selvaria. And not just for visual reasons. She got the short stick
(in a way, it was worse than Isara's death IMO).
ValkyriaX01 on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
P.S. I STILL Selvaria. And not just for visual reasons. She got the short stick
(in a way, it was worse than Isara's death IMO).
I'm going to disagree vehemently. Well, as much as you can with an opinion
Sylvaria's death was sad, because she was forced into it, but far from the tragedy that Isara's was. Sylvaria accepted her death, and choose to die. She wanted that. She also didn't leave anyone behind that cared about her. Maximilian clearly was done with her. Gregor was already gone, and Jaeger felt sorry for her but that's it. She had no family, Maximilian was the only person she cared about. And she chose to die to help him out. Contrast Isara, who was 16, and whose death wasn't chosen. She didn't want it, she didn't choose it. And it didn't even accomplish anything. It was utterly meaningless. Couple that with the fact that she had an entire squad of what was basically family, including four people that were close to her, and she left behind many people to mourn. Sylvaria's death was only really tragic for her, and a lot of that tragedy had nothing to do with the death but with the fact that the only person she loved didn't care about her. Isara's was tragic for many more people, and made more so by her relative innocence and general good-naturedness. I'm not saying I don't feel sorry for Sylvaria, just that Isara's death was much more tragic.
Finally beat that Chapter 15! Here's how I did it, after reading some more stategy's on the net:
Fired a smoke round at the squad, then got 4 snipers out in front of the smoke and took one headshot each at Selvaria. She went down in 4 headshots, 1 turn and I got an A-Rank (my first in the game, if you can beleive that)
Anyway after that I went through the 3 Ellet reports you can get, and will be starting CHapter 16 tommorow. I know I'm nearing the end now and I dont wan't it to finish! AgH!
That's strange, I tried that but after the first sniper shot, she was able to dodge all the rest.
Yes, she dodged bullets from snipers firing from smoke.
That's strange, I tried that but after the first sniper shot, she was able to dodge all the rest.
Yes, she dodged bullets from snipers firing from smoke.
Did you use different snipers to shoot at her? Because apparently only the first shot can surprise her, from then on she knows where the shooter is.
Finally beat that Chapter 15! Here's how I did it, after reading some more stategy's on the net:
Fired a smoke round at the squad, then got 4 snipers out in front of the smoke and took one headshot each at Selvaria. She went down in 4 headshots, 1 turn and I got an A-Rank (my first in the game, if you can beleive that)
Anyway after that I went through the 3 Ellet reports you can get, and will be starting CHapter 16 tommorow. I know I'm nearing the end now and I dont wan't it to finish! AgH!
That's strange, I tried that but after the first sniper shot, she was able to dodge all the rest.
Yes, she dodged bullets from snipers firing from smoke.
Yeah it had to be only one shot per sniper, so I had to take 4 snipers into battle. After the first shot she knows where they are and can doge them apparently.
Yeah, first I shot from the right sandbag (hit), then I used someone else to shoot from the left sandbag (dodge). Then I used the first person to shoot from the right sandbag again (dodge).
Yeah, first I shot from the right sandbag (hit), then I used someone else to shoot from the left sandbag (dodge). Then I used the first person to shoot from the right sandbag again (dodge).
Yeah that'll be it. She would have known where the first Sniper was by the second shot. What I did was move the snipers to front of the smoke, almost out of it but still hidden, so I could see Selvaria. Catherine had an awesome sniper rifle given by Cordelia which took like nearly half the health off in one hit! lol
Posts
Mainly because FO3 will probably overtake it for "PS3 RPG of the year" for a lot of publications.
And as much as I'd like to say otherwise, "RPG of the year" would go to Persona 4 for me, edging out VC.
Sad but true. FO3 is a great game no doubt but it honestly was too damn easy to live up to the original games. Where as this is an original IP with the most amazing ingame engine I've ever seen for a tactical RPG but it flew under the radar and if most publications gave it the props it deserved I think most people would scoff because it bumped they're precious GOW2 or GTA4 down a peg.
AJ Glasser is a chick, they sometimes have weird sensibilities. Its also probably why she thought some of the missions were too hard, pssh, women gamers.
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
She said that Hans wasn't appropriate.
I'm cool with that.
Some Sega games disappear off of store shelves real quick. Panzer Dragoon Saga. Rez. Is this game going to be around for years or is it more like a game published by Atlus?
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
See this is why I bought the game last week although I had planned to wait.
You can't even BUY the game in Canada (none of the major retailers are carrying it), unless you go to an independant gaming store or buy online. This alone convinced me that they did a very limited run of the game, and given the low sales, once done I very much doubt we'll ever see the game again except on Ebay selling for Texa$
I could be wrong, and if sales pick up maybe it could justify a reprint but I doubt it. From reading over the Neogaf thread it appears that sales were very poor for VC (they were saying it only moved 30 or 60 thousand, I can'r remember which) which is a damn shame. I suspect down the road VC is going to be one of those mythical titles people talk about but can't find to buy anywhere.
Same here, except for the...Canada part. Anyway, up to Chapter 3 now. Cool fucking beans.
THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO PEOPLE!!!!
SPREAD THE WORD IF YO EVER WANT TO SEE A SEQUEL TO THIS MASTERPIECE!!!!!
whats wrong with hans?
none of my faves are there... no freesia vyse alex or aika just edy lol...
any more where that came from?
http://www.sega.com/valkyria/us/downloads.html
Also the Amazon reviews for this game are funny. 38 5-star reviews 1 4-star review, and nothing lower than that. (They one guy said it should be 4.5 stars with the -.5 because of the ratings being turn based instead of completionist.) I'm fine with the rating system. If you do the mission well you should be able to kill all the enemy aces and leaders while still getting A-rank.
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
Not really... there are some missions where you can and some where it's extremely unlikely that you'd be able to. My real problem with the rating system, however, is that it rewards speed in a tactics game. Doing someting faster in a racing game means you're doing well, doing things faster in a tactics game often means you're being suicidal and not considering what would be overall best for victory. It rewards people who buff up a scout and run her (usually Alicia) through to the base, while hoping she doesn't get killed on the way. Ideally a rating system should reward those who are exceptionally proficient in the game - it doesn't require proficiency to run through the level, it require proficiency to take every base while losing none of your own, or every enemy without a single loss. I'd rather be rewarded for my tactics than the fact that I'm using overleveled Alicia with buffs to run through to the end.
This x10. When I started I assumed other factors were taken into account like Advanced wars. It just seems silly that it only relies on number of turns. It encourages puzzle like play in a tactical game. I'm curious if they didn't have time to make a more nuanced rating system.
Hmm, that's true. I just don't like that they reward you, in a tactics game, for making unnecessary gambits based on a single unit. In my mind, a game's rankings should be related to how well you performed on something in game. That's why I brought up racing - in a racing game, speed is everything, so you should be judged on it. In an FPS, the point is to stay alive and make other people not alive, so you should be judged on how well you did it. Your efficiency (ratio of shots fired to shots that connected), kill count, number of headshots and number of deaths should all be accounted for. After all, if you improve any of those, you're doing better.
In tactics games, I'll concede that speed is a good gauge on how efficient you were, and thus deserves some recognition. To use this to the exclusion of all other factors, however, seems somewhat foolish. It's like judging an FPS solely on the headshot number - yes, it's important, and someone with a higher headshot number is probably better, but it's far from the whole picture, and encourages people to go for headshots when a body shot is probably a better decision. Just like in Valkyria Chronicles, you could have a scout rush in to first turn take a base, but it makes much more tactical sense to have her advance slowly while being covered by snipers on rooftops. After all, the second shows the player has a thought out plan involving legitimate tactics, whereas the first shows lack of tactics - specifically, it's a high risk plan which in the end accomplishes less than the other.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that speed can be an important factor in ranking, but if it's the only factor, then it doesn't encourage playing well, or sound thinking, but rather throws tactics out to encourage reckless attacks. A better system would be one that takes into account number of tanks left alive, number of leaders left alive, people lost, and so on to come up with a comprehensive ranking system.
That's why I have such an intense dislike for the orders; they basically encourage you to "bend the rules" by letting scouts being able to blow up tanks to "taking lesser damage without any other penalty". It is a good way for non-wargamers to hand them tools to beat a battle without using a good strategy, so the game gets more accessible to non-wargamers. And I am OK with that.
But I intensly dislike the thing called "S-rank guide", which basically revolves around using these "tactics" by abusing orders. Furthermore, it is a wargame, so there actually shouldn't be guides; it's all about figuring it out yourself; that's the fun part about "wargames".
Maybe in a sequel they could do something like "you capture the base if you can hold it for 2 turns" or so; that would be far more interesting; scout rushing would work, but then you would get horrible retaliation.
But then again, I would very much like a "hardcore campaign", in which you cannot use orders, AND which autosaves for you (so that you can't use Save Game to correct little mistakes). This would up the tactical factor of the game quite a lot.
And may I ask : why is everyone calling this an RPG? I am pulling my hairs out over that! It is a turn based wargame with levelling elements.
If you have ever played X-Com : UFO Enemy Unknown, you have almost the same gameplay! You have a group of characters, who have to fight, and earn experience if they survive the battle. When they die, they die (so you have to fight very carefully). If you have never played this game, grab that ancient 486 PC from the attic, or be a PC Wiz an get it to work under a current OS. You will see, that that is a turn based wargame with levelling elements.
Or take Panzer General (also on the PC, from around the 486 era). You fight your battles (on a hex map) and everyone of your core troops gets experience, so that they fight better. Levelling elements, but not an RPG, still a wargame.
Advance Wars Dual Strike (on the Nintendo DS) has levelling elements. But it isn't an RPG at all!
Is it because there is a storyline that people say "it's an RPG"? Or is it that the storyline between battles takes up more than a few sentences? Is it because the characters are personalised with potentials that it is called an RPG? Or does everyone associate the JRPG term to the game when they see the graphics?
Personally I would never see it win any RPG awards because for me, it isn't one. But apparently not enough war games are released a year to make a "Best strategy/tactical game" category.
This is actually an interesting issue, because "what makes an RPG an RPG?" isn't that clear anymore; I might be inclined to say that an RPG is about tweaking and fiddling and levelling the stats of individual characters, but then I look at Disgaea (which has many tweaking fiddling capabilities), and I'm like "Disgaea isn't an RPG for me too"...
Maybe, for me, an RPG is about "getting through the story" while a wargame is about "fighting the battles and tweaking the troops"...
Start by destroying the gatling to the left and the tank to the right.
Use the shocktroopers to climb the stairs and take out the enemy shocktroopers.
Use the scouts to take the southwestern and southeastern bases (You'll probably need to spend 2 CP on each, as well as a defence order on the scout that isn't Alicia). Don't bother activating the lifts.
All the above should be done on turn 1. From here on it's pretty straightforward.
Right, I'll give that a try, thanks, so basically.....
RPGs have never been a well categorized...category for me. When I learned what RPG was an acronym for (and it must have been a long time ago, because I don't remember NOT knowing what it was), my first thought was "isn't every game an RPG?". I mean, you take on the role of Mario in Super Mario Brothers, you take on the role of James Bond in Goldeneye, and you take on the role of... well, in strategy games it's rarely defined. In Fire Emblem, you were a tactician that traveled with Lyn, and later Hector and Eliwood.
When I was younger, the category, though ill-defined, still worked. I'd only played JRPGs like Final; Fantasy and Secret of mana, so the easiest way to define it was "a game where you can see your hit points, strength/agility/damage and so on (remember, almost all game use stats. Though you can't see it, you have a definite hit point number in Halo)". I mean, this is still fairly applicable. When the stats are visible, it's generally an RPG, and when they aren't, it's not (this is NOT an absolute, but a general trend). This, obviously, isn't what makes it an RPG, but tends to go along with it.
But that's the thing, when you look at something and call it an RPG, you're basically saying "it has these traits, which are like other RPGs". These traits can include turn based battles, customization, levels, visible statistics, choices that change the story, and a strong, coherent story. It's not like the FPS category where "you're in first person and you shoot things". It's not like a sports game where you... well, play sports. It encompasses a huge number of games with very little in common, and that may share things with other categories. Remember, many RTS games have unit veterancy - which is exactly the same as an RPG level with invisible stats.
So I end up with the category being almost worthless to me. It's both too big and too vague. Tales of Symphonia and Final Fantasy VI were both RPGs, by most definitions, but completely different. One is almost an action game, and one is a turn-based game. Both are story-driven. Then there's games like Morrowind, which could be story-driven, but you really don't have to make it that way if you don't want. They all have completely different gameplay (which is what most games are categorized by). Categorizing those three in he same category is almost like putting Goldeneye in with racing games. You know, cuz you get a tank in Goldeneye and those are vehicles too. Also both can be done in first person. They're almost identical!
In the end, I'd call it an RPG, mostly because I know that's how everyone defines it and it's the easiest way to communicate it. And because I'm using a label I hate to describe somthing that doesn't even fit in, I'll cry a little every time I do.
Just keep doing that while moving a Scout and a Shocktrooper on the leftside, Alicia and Rosie preferably for their undodgeable shot. When facing Selveria, be sure to use the orders defense up and Attack up on Alicia. Be sure to have Rosie beside to heal if you ever need to.
Incredibly risky, but that's how I did it for the first time with A rank.
I fail to see why you find fault in a guide that tries to get you S-ranks in the game simply because it requires you to abuse the game system that, if not done, would NOT result in getting said rank the guide was meant for?
If there was a way to do so without doing it, you'd have a point. But I think you're confusing your dislike for the scoring system and orders in general with, it seems, your dislike for people who might want to use a guide if they're stuck.
As for the descriptor, I've played wargames on the PC for decades. I enjoyed the Panzer Generals and Steel Panthers and Combat Missions. But even I wouldn't classify this or even Advance Wars as "wargames." They're tactical RPGs at best, though SRPG is the moniker they frequently get. They fall in line with your FFTs and your Sakura Taisens, games like Gladius and Fire Emblem and Ogre Battle. In other words, they're more Fantasy General or Heroes of Might & Magic than People's General or Close Combat.
They may share core elements and mechanics here and there, but the overall setting and game structure make me classify VC in the RPG realm. VC is closest to the Sakura Taisen franchise more than anything as the combat is very similar, and likely were developed by a good chunk of the same dev team.
I have to disagree completely with this. RPGs involve some level of choice in storyline. It may end the same, depending on the game, but it involves choices in how you get there. VC has none. It plays a story and then gives you a tactical map to play the game. Unit abilities may carry over from map to map. But the upgrades are across the board and not specific to individuals. The only individual uprgade you can even give people are different weapons. Personalities not withstanding, everyone is essentially interchangable.
Even Jagged Alliance 2 had dialog trees and choices that produced different options throughout the story but few people would consider that an RPG. VC also doesn't have a character that you "play." You could argue Welkin is the character you play because it mostly happens from his perspective, but you still have no choice in what he does or says. Your only choices are where do I drive the tank?
I agree there are games that you can argue what they are exactly, but VC isn't one of them. It is pretty much definitively a tactical wargame.
Half my monies go to Rock Band, the other half went to LBP. What's left for VC?
That's funny. One of the "translation" elements for Japan to "the west" is changing that -- O is the "confirm" button for most Japanese games. In the US and Europe, it's X. Funny that your "western" game reverts to the Japanese configuration based on the console -- must've been coded that way originally!
I'm only quoting you so this isn't a huge block of text (I know you go on to explain it).
An RPG is simply based on some element of D&D, which involves levels, hit points, numerical damage, and so on. Obviously D&D is as role-playing as it gets, so video games got stuck with the label when they adopted the mechanics -- move around, fight monsters, all based on a numbers system rather than dexterity.
ValkyC is still an RPG in this context, but technically is more "action RPG" than any other form. An Action RPG/Tactics game would probably be the best way to describe it.
Of course, when people think Action RPG they think swords & sorcery, so that's why we have this thread ;D
I would agree with that. Especially regarding Fire Emblem, and FFT. And I know SRPG is common term (even if I believe it is incorrectly applied). I think the the reason RPG is applied to those games is because of their prior games, such as FF1-7 and the like, or from the genre itself like in Fire Emblem. It's a typical medieval fantasy setting and often fantasy setting equals RPG to some.
Again I don't want to belabor the discusson. I just want people, who may not be familiar with some of the terms, to understand what they are buying.
Anyway after that I went through the 3 Ellet reports you can get, and will be starting CHapter 16 tommorow. I know I'm nearing the end now and I dont wan't it to finish! AgH!
Anyway, I'm still working on my VC fanfic; but I'm really waiting until I read the manga version or watch the anime version (hopefully the anime version will do the game justice; in both character styles and storyline-wise).
Also, now I just need Alicia and Rosie figures; I now have Eleanor and Isara gracing my game shelf (and they look oddly nice with the Gundam models and war torn model setting I placed them in... maybe that's just due to my love of Mechs and Girls (I want SELVARIA!)).
Good to see that people love the game!
P.S. I STILL
I'm going to disagree vehemently. Well, as much as you can with an opinion
Yes, she dodged bullets from snipers firing from smoke.