Support NeoGAF

[Akia]

The new Advance Wars game is going to be DS Game of the Forever.

 

[Bishman]

Damn you Nintendo! I have to buy a DS now for Advance Wars: Days of Ruin!! Voice chat is awesome and over 150 multiplayer campaigns. Oh man.

No More Heroes is shaping up nicely. It got a 34/40 from Famitsu, which is pretty good. Plus if it is anything like Killer 7 but better, I'm all for it. Wii owners better buy this game! I want more games from Suda 51. Ubisoft please give No More Heroes a good marketing plan.

Nintendo Power getting real critical with their reviews now? What happen to them? lol. New editor? I thought they would give Galaxy a 10. Heh. Good scores for MoH: H2, RE:UC, Trauma Center: New Blood, and Manhunt 2.

 

[MisterHero]

Damn you Nintendo! I have to buy a DS now for Advance Wars: Days of Ruin!! Voice chat is awesome and over 150 multiplayer campaigns. Oh man.

No More Heroes is shaping up nicely. It got a 34/40 from Famitsu, which is pretty good. Plus if it is anything like Killer 7 but better, I'm all for it. Wii owners better buy this game! I want more games from Suda 51. Ubisoft please give No More Heroes a good marketing plan.

Nintendo Power getting real critical with their reviews now? What happen to them? lol. New editor? I thought they would give Galaxy a 10. Heh. Good scores for MoH: H2, RE:UC, Trauma Center: New Blood, and Manhunt 2.

They said Galaxy "wouldn't keep hardcore gamers up at night". A statement like that, I don't know...

Expect NP to continually reinforce that Nintendo products work just as well for hardcore gamers but make it a liability on the company's best release in years.

 

[Ranger X]

-Everytime a unit destroys another unit it gains a rank, which gives it added strength. Can be upgrade 3 times, then it is a “veteran” unit
- CO powers aren’t as powerful as before
- The CO rides with a unit of your choice, giving that unit “veteran” status and power. If the unit gets defeated the CO returns to the base.
-As the CO’s unit destroys enemies the CO fills the CO power gauge.
-CO makes nearby vehicle’s more powerful
- CO’s also have a “CO zone” which gives units in the zone different power ups based on the CO. For example, a CO could give units added defense or increase their visual range.

Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Why didn't i read this earlier? Seriously this basically sold me the game. I hope it's like in Fire Emblem and when your CO unit dies you're game over.

 

[PillowKnight]

Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Why didn't i read this earlier? Seriously this basically sold me the game. I hope it's like in Fire Emblem and when your CO unit dies you're game over.

No no no no no, they want to make the game better, not cheapen it.

I love the changes listed though, that pretty much fixed all my complaints regarding AWDS. Hopefully they won't skimp on the battlemaps now that wifi map trading is in.

 

[Haly]

Did Square Enix change the title?

I thought Wii's FFCC game was subtitled "The Crystal Bearers".

 

[Ranger X]

No no no no no, they want to make the game better, not cheapen it.

I love the changes listed though, that pretty much fixed all my complaints regarding AWDS. Hopefully they won't skimp on the battlemaps now that wifi map trading is in.

Well, many SRPG have the condition of when a certain character dies it's gameover. What's hard for some gamers is that in Fire Emblem you're not gameover when a character dies, you lose it.

I think that since the CO will be in a unit, on the terrain, they might be a victory condition. (in the mean it's the only unit to not lose if you don't want to be game over).

In short, my comment on Fire Emblem was totally misleading and wrong. LOL

 

[rpgfan16k]

Did Square Enix change the title?

I thought Wii's FFCC game was subtitled "The Crystal Bearers".

I think they're talking about the DS title...

 

[Jaded Alyx]

Did Square Enix change the title?

I thought Wii's FFCC game was subtitled "The Crystal Bearers".

Wii CC = Crystal Bearers

DS CC = Ring of Fates

 

[jonezer4]

The main character is Will, after the meteorite hit and killed every one he spent weeks living on only canned bread while digging himself out of rubble and dead bodies.

Canned bread?

 

[Ranger X]

The main character is Will, after the meteorite hit and killed every one he spent weeks living on only canned bread while digging himself out of rubble and dead bodies.

Canned bread?

 

[jonezer4]

That shit looks delicious. We should all be so lucky.

 

[PillowKnight]

Well, many SRPG have the condition of when a certain character dies it's gameover. What's hard for some gamers is that in Fire Emblem you're not gameover when a character dies, you lose it.

I think that since the CO will be in a unit, on the terrain, they might be a victory condition. (in the mean it's the only unit to not lose if you don't want to be game over).

In short, my comment on Fire Emblem was totally misleading and wrong. LOL

I know what you meant, let me clarify; perma death is terrible game design. It gets in the way of any actual strategy, and turns the games into a chore.

From what I understand though the CO wont be unit, it will be attached to a unit, like say you have a recon and then you attach your CO to it and it receives those abilities.

 

[Vic]

Canned feces?

 

[ethelred]

I know what you meant, let me clarify; perma death is terrible game design. It gets in the way of any actual strategy, and turns the games into a chore.

Tactics Ogre, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Fire Emblem are terrible and devoid of actual strategy? Really..?

Permadeath is a limiting factor that forces the player to use sltrategy and be more conservative, rather than being able to go all out with a no-holds-barred risk-nothing-gain-everything plowthrough in every battle. Of course, AW isn't FE, and Wars aims toward the same goal by a slightly different path... but still, to suggest permadeath as a mechanic is inherently unstrategic seems flawed to me. I wish more strategy games and SRPGs used it.

 

[grandjedi6]

Nintendo Power getting real critical with their reviews now? What happen to them? lol. New editor? I thought they would give Galaxy a 10. Heh. Good scores for MoH: H2, RE:UC, Trauma Center: New Blood, and Manhunt 2.

Nintendo has always been like this, especially since the format change. They don't give out 10s easily.

They said Galaxy "wouldn't keep hardcore gamers up at night". A statement like that, I don't know...

Expect NP to continually reinforce that Nintendo products work just as well for hardcore gamers but make it a liability on the company's best release in years.

This is misleading. They said that Galaxy's difficulty wouldn't keep hardcore gamers up at night. As in the game is challenging but for most gamers it will seem easy compared to games like DMC and Fire Emblem.

Nintendo Power's only compaints for Mario Galaxy was small instantances of uneven difficulty and jumping still being imperfect in certain places (though they said it was rare)

 

[rpgfan16k]

Tactics Ogre, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Fire Emblem are terrible and devoid of actual strategy? Really..?

Permadeath is a limiting factor that forces the player to use sltrategy and be more conservative, rather than being able to go all out with a no-holds-barred risk-nothing-gain-everything plowthrough in every battle. Of course, AW isn't FE, and Wars aims toward the same goal by a slightly different path... but still, to suggest permadeath as a mechanic is inherently unstrategic seems flawed to me. I wish more strategy games and SRPGs used it.

Cue new thread about the positive nuances of gameplay limitations?

 

[BoZhangles]

Sounds like No More Heroes is rounding out nicely. I'll be glad to have a "real" third party game on the Wii, finally.

 

[Bishman]

Sounds like No More Heroes is rounding out nicely. I'll be glad to have a "real" third party game on the Wii, finally.

^5

 

[PillowKnight]

Tactics Ogre, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Fire Emblem are terrible and devoid of actual strategy? Really..?

Permadeath is a limiting factor that forces the player to use sltrategy and be more conservative, rather than being able to go all out with a no-holds-barred risk-nothing-gain-everything plowthrough in every battle. Of course, AW isn't FE, and Wars aims toward the same goal by a slightly different path... but still, to suggest permadeath as a mechanic is inherently unstrategic seems flawed to me. I wish more strategy games and SRPGs used it.

Why are you listing FE with Tactics Ogre, and specifically FFT? FFT is the only game that's gotten perma-death right. There's a palpable sense of losing your character, but it's always under your control. Having three turns to revive you character was a great design choice. Whenever a character died you'd have a choice : win the match in three turns, or use up a turn reviving him. Oftentimes you'd have to think your way out of messes,i.e. "I've got no one left to revive my character, so I have two turns to finish this match if I want to keep him alive" this not only added an extra time challenge but it was fun. By doing that, FFT sidesteps the frustration of having to start a battle over because an enemy got a lucky crit on you, or because you forgot to notice x unit in y location and instead turns those moments into an opportunity for the player to find a strategic way out.

Although, I didn't say perma-death was devoid, I said it gets in the way of strategy. There's a huge difference between the two. I also didn't say anything about them being terrible. Perma death is absolutely lacking in strategy, even worse, its shoddy game design.

It never forces the player to use strategy, it's only successful at forcing the player to count. I'm already pretty good at counting. If else, it forces the player to needlessly re-do missions.

"being able to go all out with a no-holds-barred risk-nothing-gain-everything plowthrough in every battle."

See, this can be done without punishing the player through Perma-death. As in AW where if you charge in gung-ho you'll quickly get your ass kicked, the same can be said for just about any SRPG without perma-death. If you rush straight into a battle, your units are going to die. If they die, you won't be able to use them for the remainder of the battle , within there is your incentive to keep them alive.

 

[ethelred]

Why are you listing FE with Tactics Ogre, and specifically FFT?

Because they're three of the best SRPGs/SRPG series, and all three used permadeath to great effect. Fact is, almost all of the greatest examples within the genre have gone that route because it's an excellent mechanic for forcing the player to use better strategies.

FFT is the only game that's gotten perma-death right.

This is not at all true.

By doing that, FFT sidesteps the frustration of having to start a battle over because an enemy got a lucky crit on you, or because you forgot to notice x unit in y location and instead turns those moments into an opportunity for the player to find a strategic way out.

True, the delayed permadeath in FFT was a nice way to implement the mechanic.

Although, I didn't say perma-death was devoid, I said it gets in the way of strategy. There's a huge difference between the two. I also didn't say anything about them being terrible. Perma death is absolutely lacking in strategy, even worse, its shoddy game design.

It isn't shoddy game design, it isn't lacking in strategy, and it absolutely does not get in the way of strategy. I don't even understand how someone can suggest these things. They're nonsensical. Permadeath is a long-term consequence of enough significance that it mandates the player use the best possible strategy at all times in order to ensure minimal losses because the losses matter.

It never forces the player to use strategy, it's only successful at forcing the player to count. I'm already pretty good at counting.

Huh? This is an even weirder remark than the last one! How does permadeath have anything to do with counting? If I'm playing Tactics Ogre and I fuck up, overplay my hand, and get Canopus killed in battle, that is not an indication that I'm in need of a few rounds of Brain Age and a session of Sesame Street.

If else, it forces the player to needlessly re-do missions.

If you fuck up, absolutely. I see nothing wrong with this. If a player employs a bad strategy, a strategically challenging strategy game or SRPG should punish the player for that and, if the mess-up is severe enough, force him to start over with more knowledge and the wounded sense of pride necessary to know his limitations within the confines of a particular battle.

"being able to go all out with a no-holds-barred risk-nothing-gain-everything plowthrough in every battle."

See, this can be done without punishing the player through Perma-death. As in AW where if you charge in gung-ho you'll quickly get your ass kicked, the same can be said for just about any SRPG without perma-death. If you rush straight into a battle, your units are going to die. If they die, you won't be able to use them for the remainder of the battle , within there is your incentive to keep them alive.

Certainly there are other methods besides permadeath to force the player to be somewhat conservative and not overplay their hand. But permadeath remains one of the best and most strategic ways of accomplishing this. If they die, you won't be able to use them for the remainder of the battle...? So what? That's not much of a disincentive from taking strategically unsound risks in battle. There's absolutely no loss involved there if you screw up, there's no reason to be careful out of fear for long-term impacts. The setback is minor and temporary; it's done as soon as the battle is, so it's no big deal. All it does is encourage the player to take the absolute bare minimum level of thought and effort to win the battle because there's really no consequences otherwise.

 

[PillowKnight]

It isn't shoddy game design, it isn't lacking in strategy, and it absolutely does not get in the way ** strategy. I don't even understand how someone can suggest these things. They're nonsensical. Permadeath is a long-term consequence ** enough significance that it mandates the player use the best possible strategy at all times in order to ensure minimal losses because the losses matter.

Huh? This is an even weirder remark than the last one! How does permadeath have anything to do with counting? If I'm playing Tactics Ogre and I fuck up, overplay my hand, and get Canopus killed in battle, that is not an indication that I'm in need ** a few rounds ** Brain Age and a session ** Sesame Street.

What I meant to say was, perma-death forces the player to be meticulous in babysitting units. To do that, you have to constantly count the squares between your back row characters and their back row characters(I'm assuming you've already got a wall ** melee between them). That gets in the way ** strategy, because instead ** actually plotting out a course ** action and implementing it.

** course this only occurs because the computer isn't smart enough to realize that throwing units to their doom is a good way to lose a battle.

If you fuck up, absolutely. I see nothing wrong with this. If a player employs a bad strategy, a strategically challenging strategy game or SRPG should punish the player for that and, if the mess-up is severe enough, force him to start over with more knowledge and the wounded sense ** pride necessary to know his limitations within the confines ** a particular battle.

Depends on how you define 'fuck up' . My point was perma-death **ten punishes players for making minor mistakes, or in the case ** Fire Emblem because ** arbitrary causes (See : crits). It's specifically painful to start over a 30 minute battle because the game decided to roll a six. Likewise if you simply made a minor mistake. Perma-death is an excessive punishment.

That leads to another point; a 30 minute or so set back is unacceptable and is not a good way for newer to learn so more **ten than not those players who you mentioned won't get very far into the game and will **ten be frustrated because ** their wasted time.

Certainly there are other methods besides permadeath to force the player to be somewhat conservative and not overplay their hand. But permadeath remains one ** the best and most strategic ways ** accomplishing this. If they die, you won't be able to use them for the remainder ** the battle...? So what? That's not much ** a disincentive from taking strategically unsound risks in battle. There's absolutely no loss involved there if you screw up, there's no reason to be careful out ** fear for long-term impacts. The setback is minor and temporary; it's done as soon as the battle is, so it's no big deal. All it does is encourage the player to take the absolute bare minimum level ** thought and effort to win the battle because there's really no consequences otherwise.

Wait so you're telling me being one man down and having a unit that was practically useless in battle isn't a proper deterrent to a frivolous play style? That sounds more like a poorly designed scenario that's being masked by perma-death. If you're a man down and you pretty much wasted that unit by charging in that should be a huge blow to your ability to continue that battle, a loss which should require novel tactics to burrow your way out. Not sure about FE because I'd always restart whenever someone died, but in TO if you have one or two units **f to the side eating shit, you're guaranteed to get your ass kicked.

Edit: Why is o-f censored? ** = o-f

 

[Rentahamster]

Advance Wars sounds awesome awesome awesome!

 

[Nocebo]

I'm looking forward to Apollo justice. I can't find a lot of gameplay videos but what I've seen so far looks great! I absolutely loved the bonus case made specially for the DS in Ace Attorney 1, all the little tools and such. Apollo Justice appears to have even more of that.