Support NeoGAF

[heringer]

Since we are talking about SRPGs, which series (or game) do you think is the best outside the popular ones (FE, FFT and TO)?

 

[Dunbar]

Is there a general preference on what game(s) are best for first-time SRPG players? After playing XCOM, I wanted to try and play a more advanced strategy game, so I got FE:A, but I haven't had any luck getting into it. I turned permadeath off so that isn't a problem, but I feel like rather than learning how to play the game properly and utilizing strategic concepts (like you had to do with flanking and overwatch, etc. in XCOM), I'm just turtling my party around and letting the biggest bruiser characters kill everything. Should I try something else?

 

[Brazil]

I'll always prefer the Fire Emblem series, but I can't say I didn't love all the time I spent with all three Final Fantasy Tactics games.

Since we are talking about SRPGs, which series (or game) do you think is the best outside the popular ones (FE, FFT and TO)?

I highly recommend The Banner Saga. Great game with great visuals and an intriguing story.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

I really don't get Fire Emblem though I've only played about 5 hours of Awakening. The permadeath seems poorly designed since there's no way to hire new troops, after looking up if there was a way to hire more units it looked like most people reset the fight when a character dies which makes the whole thing pointless. The leveling systems basic and the heroes skill-sets seem really short.

It's odd because I love other games in the genre like FFT and OT along with similar western games such as X-Com and Original Sin.

 

[krYlon]

Is there a general preference on what game(s) are best for first-time SRPG players? After playing XCOM, I wanted to try and play a more advanced strategy game, so I got FE:A, but I haven't had any luck getting into it. I turned permadeath off so that isn't a problem, but I feel like rather than learning how to play the game properly and utilizing strategic concepts (like you had to do with flanking and overwatch, etc. in XCOM), I'm just turtling my party around and letting the biggest bruiser characters kill everything. Should I try something else?

To be fair, that can be a problem with the FE series, and is a reason why I like Advance Wars much more from a gameplay point of view.

By the way, are you talking about the new XCOM? If you haven't played the original then definitely give it a try, as well as other Gollop games like Rebelstar: Tactical Command.

 

[jackal27]

"Choose your favorite child."

I don't think I could ever choose between these games. They are both really strong in different ways. If you can figure out the obscure mechanics of FFTactics, it probably comes out on top, but Fire Emblem is just so solid.

 

[bonercop]

I really don't get Fire Emblem though I've only played about 5 hours of Awakening. The permadeath seems poorly designed since there's no way to hire new troops, after looking up if there was a way to hire more units it looked like most people reset the fight when a character dies which makes the whole thing pointless.

You recruit new ones throughout the story. There's usually 2-3 replacement units for every class. The low-level ones you get at the start usually end up being better than the promoted guys long-term, though they require more investment in terms of EXP/gold as well. When you lose a unit, you weigh how much you like them/how much you've invested in them vs. how much you value your time.

FE:A sort of messes with this balance a little by allowing you to grind and reclass freely, though.

The leveling systems basic and the heroes skill-sets seem really short.

I would say this is actually a strength of FE. It's more a pure strategy game than the FFT types. Tactics are more important than what builds you use or how much you number-crunch. Awakening is actually the FE game that allows for the most FFT-style customization, the others are even more barebones in that respect.

 

[Kater]

Fire Emblem. I haven't played much of Tactics though but I don't remember it being that good (in comparison to FE on GBA).

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

For pure tactics and customization, FF Tactics or even Tactics Ogre.

FE for the story and, uh...waifus!

 

[Riposte]

Full disclosure: I love Matsuno more than any man should ever love another man. Everything he touches is golden.

Fire Emblem is a good series, but FFT and TO blow them out of the water. Those two games are pinnicles of Japanese game design. TO has some design flaws, such as the final dungeon being pretty boring, but the story and atmosphere and battle system all make up for it. FFT feels like it could have been a chapter longer (the fourth chapter feels a bit rushed to me), but for my money, I can't think of a better written game altogether. Can you break the game? Yes. But it takes work to do so.

The game literally gives you a game breaking character, so it is more fair to say it takes work not to break the game.

Anyway, I don't think Matsuno could make a good SRPG combat system to save his life. The strength of his games are the aesthetics.

 

[Who]

Awakening was my first FE and I adored it. Can't wait to replay it someday. I've never tried FFT but I think I would probably like it because I tend to like SRPGs I guess.

Gladius on the Gamecube was one of my favorite games at the time.

 

[Zaku]

Permadeath is why I find the strategy elements boring in FE games. Because of the permadeath, most of your strategies have to be very defensive/conservative (the original TO release had this problem too, and even the PSP one still does to a lesser extent).

With non-permadeath games, you open op a lot more viable aggressive strategies, such as sending characters on suicide runs. Instead of just starting over when a character dies, you now need to consider attrition rates and opportunity costs. Just think how awful chess would be if you conceded whenever you lost a piece. The depth of strategy comes from balancing your losses vs the opportunities they give you.

I've got to agree with this. Final Fantasy Tactics & Vandal Hearts open up a lot of options for players in terms of tactics thanks to the more forgiving nature of the death mechanics. Especially as regards specialized units with weaknesses to weapon types and/or magic.

God knows in a game with permadeath like Fire Emblem, I never use heavy armor-types or flight types because the limited increase in utility is never outweighed by the disadvantage of being a critical weakness in the party's defenses.

I recently started a game of Awakening on Normal Classic, and I'm finding that rather than risking splitting my party to cut off enemy advances, I'm just moving a giant blob of troops around, the heavies at the front and the spellcasters, archers, and javelin users at the rear.

It's far more grindy than strategy for me.

 

[Apt101]

I find Fire Emblem to be more fun, but the challenge of FF:T can be really rewarding.

 

[Mature]

The one with the Akihiko Yoshida art.

 

[hemtae]

Since we are talking about SRPGs, which series (or game) do you think is the best outside the popular ones (FE, FFT and TO)?

Jagged Alliance 2 but I think that's the best including the popular ones.

 

[HK-47]

Devil Survivor I mean oh Fire Emblem

 

[BobbyRobby]

I think FE has an easier time reiterating. It's simpler and more like chess. I can play through a new Fire Emblem pretty quickly.

I had way more fun with Tactics than any single Fire Emblem. I just don't think I'd have the time to learn a new system and sink that much time into it now.

 

[HK-47]

Since we are talking about SRPGs, which series (or game) do you think is the best outside the popular ones (FE, FFT and TO)?

Devil Survivor for japan, X-COM or Jagged Alliance for the west (some people dont consider these RPGs though).

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Tactics. I am dying for a console sequel. I think they could get away with a downloadable title that looks like the old games and just port it everywhere under the sun. But my dream is a highly stylized cel shaded version that plays like Valkryia Chronicles on consoles.

 

[Riposte]

Tactics. I am dying for a console sequel. I think they could get away with a downloadable title that looks like the old games and just port it everywhere under the sun. But my dream is a highly stylized cel shaded version that plays like Valkryia Chronicles on consoles.

It would probably draw inspiration from Vagrant Story.

The one with the Akihiko Yoshida art.

Don't forget the music of Hitoshi Sakimoto.

Spoiler

A.k.a., two of the few reasons to play any Matsuno game.

 

[Reuenthal]

I love, love Fire Emblem Path of Radiance on the Gamecube. Such a great game. Then Fire Emblem 7 and Tactics Ogre Knight of Lodis for the GBA. To be frank, I found the PS1 Tactics Ogre to be too long, too slow and boring and have too long and hard battles.

 

[impetuous_silly]

To be honest, I don't think the two are comparable. They play quite differently.

 

[SixMachine]

I would say this is actually a strength of FE. It's more a pure strategy game than the FFT types. Tactics are more important than what builds you use or how much you number-crunch. Awakening is actually the FE game that allows for the most FFT-style customization, the others are even more barebones in that respect.

I would agree with this thought. I like both series but I believe FE demands more "strategy" from the player (though I haven't played awakening since I don't have a 3ds). There's just so many ways to make your character completely overpowered in FFT due to the skills you can get, though it is understandable if someone gets stuck at something like Wiegraf the first time because they still most likely didn't unlock the later classes and skills. I usually play the FE on hard mode and try not to lose any characters which does make it harder but it does make me think more about my unit placement, since the AI is programmed in a way that they will always go after the weakest c character that is available to be hit.

 

[OuterLimits]

Vandal Hearts is brilliant. I remember playing it for the second time and realising I could beat the Crimson Guard instead of running away - so fun. Getting Ash to Vandelier was insanely complex, but he becomes such a cheat character afterwards, especially if you went for two archbishops - payoff is totally worth it.

VH2 was a lot less fun for me. Being able to see characters armour that you chose was super-cool, but the enemy moving at the same time as you made the game so easy it was ridiculous.



Saiyuki was fun. Vanguard Bandits had great story branching and awesome mechs. Love that game

Yeah Vanguard Bandits was actually difficult at times. I remember one battle where your mech was surrounded and attacked at the start. That map almost made me take out the CD and throw it in the trash. The first time I played I got the short bad ending as well.

Front Mission 3 and Ring of Red are good mech SRPGs as well.

Many people just remember FFT and a couple others but surprisingly quite a few quality games have been released in the genre.

 

[decoyplatypus]

So GAF, what say you?

I have not played either of these games but have always wanted to. I've heard great things about both and they're both tactical.

I'm referring to the FE on GBA and FFT on PS1. Which do you recommend and why?

EDIT: Mention your favourite SRPGs too.

They're both worth playing. FFT has the advantage in story, art, and soundtrack. FE7 is faster paced and more replayable. I generally prefer Fire Emblem games to the TO/FFT games. The latter are a bit fussy for my taste. I feel like I have to watch or manage a dozen dull things for every interesting decision I get to make (bear in mind, I always turn off animations in FE). FE is about as streamlined as it gets in the tactics genre. As for other sRPGs, I like X-COM, Valkria Chronicles, Devil Survivor, and Jagged Alliance 2.

Permadeath is why I find the strategy elements boring in FE games. Because of the permadeath, most of your strategies have to be very defensive/conservative (the original TO release had this problem too, and even the PSP one still does to a lesser extent).

With non-permadeath games, you open op a lot more viable aggressive strategies, such as sending characters on suicide runs. Instead of just starting over when a character dies, you now need to consider attrition rates and opportunity costs. Just think how awful chess would be if you conceded whenever you lost a piece. The depth of strategy comes from balancing your losses vs the opportunities they give you.

I agree that the effectiveness of turtle formation can be a problem in FE, but the games frequently coax players out of their defensive shells by offering optional rewards for saving a village or plundering a chest.

 

[lugicarus]

Tactics Ogre

 

[Sol_Goodguy]

I don't know how much my opinion is worth, since I've never played Final Fantasy Tactics, but Fire Emblem is my favourite video game series with Path of Radiance being the best of the bunch. The primary reason for this is because the gameplay is top notch, though I'm fond of the music and characters as well. The mechanics are fairly straight forward (simple math, really). This means that once you understand them, there isn't really much that can cause confusion, which I see as a plus. The size of the cast offers replay-ability.

Permadeath is why I find the strategy elements boring in FE games. Because of the permadeath, most of your strategies have to be very defensive/conservative (the original TO release had this problem too, and even the PSP one still does to a lesser extent).

With non-permadeath games, you open op a lot more viable aggressive strategies, such as sending characters on suicide runs. Instead of just starting over when a character dies, you now need to consider attrition rates and opportunity costs. Just think how awful chess would be if you conceded whenever you lost a piece. The depth of strategy comes from balancing your losses vs the opportunities they give you.

On a first playthrough, I agree. However on further playthroughs, when the player is familiar with the game, it's all about being 'efficient', which requires aggressive tactics. Some of the games offer incentives for aggressive play, such as Fire Emblem 7's ranking system and Path of Radiance's bonus experience.

 

[ciD_Vain]

God knows in a game with permadeath like Fire Emblem, I never use heavy armor-types or flight types because the limited increase in utility is never outweighed by the disadvantage of being a critical weakness in the party's defenses.

I recently started a game of Awakening on Normal Classic, and I'm finding that rather than risking splitting my party to cut off enemy advances, I'm just moving a giant blob of troops around, the heavies at the front and the spellcasters, archers, and javelin users at the rear.

It's far more grindy than strategy for me.

I don't agree with this. If you maneuver your characters right, you wouldn't have to worry about their critical weakness. And not using flying types leaves out the advantage of carrying characters across the map.

 

[canedaddy]

FFT. But if you're new to these kinds of games, play something like Jeanne d'Arc to get your beak wet, then move on to FFT, Tactics Ogre and the Fire Emblem and Disgaea series.

 

[Deps]

I like both, but to me FFT is better in every way.

 

[R-User!]

Tactics. I am dying for a console sequel. I think they could get away with a downloadable title that looks like the old games and just port it everywhere under the sun. But my dream is a highly stylized cel shaded version that plays like Valkryia Chronicles on consoles.

Avatar quote: "Oh yeeeeeeeaaaah!"

Me too...

 

[Riposte]

Permadeath is why I find the strategy elements boring in FE games. Because of the permadeath, most of your strategies have to be very defensive/conservative (the original TO release had this problem too, and even the PSP one still does to a lesser extent).

With non-permadeath games, you open op a lot more viable aggressive strategies, such as sending characters on suicide runs. Instead of just starting over when a character dies, you now need to consider attrition rates and opportunity costs. Just think how awful chess would be if you conceded whenever you lost a piece. The depth of strategy comes from balancing your losses vs the opportunities they give you.

Chess isn't designed (or played) in such a way where the comparison you make is in anyway meaningful. Clearing Fire Emblem maps without losing characters is a fairly doable task, even on its higher difficulties or while aiming for higher scores.

More viable strategies doesn't necessarily lead to more depth, as those viable strategies can become powerful enough to take away meaningful complexity (suicide tactics tend to do this). On the other hand, more demanding win conditions means more demanding strategies, which creates depth in the way of requiring more skill and intelligence.

 

[Zaku]

I don't agree with this. If you maneuver your characters right, you wouldn't have to worry about their critical weakness. And not using flying types leaves out the advantage of carrying characters across the map.

Except that carrying characters across the map comes with disadvantage that they're now stuck with a flying party member by their side, or by themselves and unable to take advantage of the pairing mechanic. It's not very useful outside of liberating towns or dropping an over-leveled Chrom or MU beside a critical target.

And while covering for weaknesses is fine, not having to worry about them at all is better. I'd rather take a character with reliable defenses into battle than worry about shielding X characters from Y, Z characters from A, B from C, etc, etc. The more you simplify, the more you can adapt your strategy to changes.

 

[RMI]

I love both games, but I would recommend FE: Awakening over FFT any day of the week if only because of the Wiegraf fight. What a terrible, terrible dark spot in an otherwise amazing game.

 

[Macka]

I loved FFTA, but Fire Emblem is my preference.

I've been meaning to try more FFT. Is there any reason not to play War of the Lions over the original PSX game?

 

[Zaku]

I loved FFTA, but Fire Emblem is my preference.

I've been meaning to try more FFT. Is there any reason not to play War of the Lions over the original PSX game?

There's some slowdown present and the translation likes to lean on the "Ye Oldde Englishe" a little too much for my tastes, but that's a personal preference. It does have some added content and characters.

 

[krYlon]

I loved FFTA, but Fire Emblem is my preference.

I've been meaning to try more FFT. Is there any reason not to play War of the Lions over the original PSX game?

There's some slowdown present and the translation likes to lean on the "Ye Oldde Englishe" a little too much for my tastes, but that's a personal preference. It does have some added content and characters.

There is a patch for the slowdown if you have cfw on your psp. Also I think the ios version fixes it.

 

[skLaFarebear]

Fire Emblem for me. Love 6,7, PoR, and Awakening.

 

[roknin]

Why not both?

Both are great in their own right.

Pretty much.

Does remind me I need to finish both someday though lol.

 

[lt519]

Permadeath is why I find the strategy elements boring in FE games. Because of the permadeath, most of your strategies have to be very defensive/conservative (the original TO release had this problem too, and even the PSP one still does to a lesser extent).

With non-permadeath games, you open op a lot more viable aggressive strategies, such as sending characters on suicide runs. Instead of just starting over when a character dies, you now need to consider attrition rates and opportunity costs. Just think how awful chess would be if you conceded whenever you lost a piece. The depth of strategy comes from balancing your losses vs the opportunities they give you.

That's if you restart every time you lose somebody. I don't do that, it adds to the tension and difficulty of the Fire Emblem games. At the end of the Fire Emblem games I'm sacrificing everyone willy nilly so I can get my best units unscathed to the boss to take him down. It actually becomes quite epic.

 

[tokkun]

That's if you restart every time you lose somebody. I don't do that, it adds to the tension and difficulty of the Fire Emblem games. At the end of the Fire Emblem games I'm sacrificing everyone willy nilly so I can get my best units unscathed to the boss to take him down. It actually becomes quite epic.

Well, it's nice that works out for you, but I don't think it's the common way of playing those games. If you look at a game like Fire Emblem: Awakening, letting characters die will lock you out of a lot of content, like getting child characters and doing their associated missions.

 

[Zaku]

Well, it's nice that works out for you, but I don't think it's the common way of playing those games. If you look at a game like Fire Emblem: Awakening, letting characters die will lock you out of a lot of content, like getting child characters and doing their associated missions.

The entire mechanic is flawed, as far as I'm concerned.

Give me characters which have unique stories and content and who I have to live with, or give me generic characters I can lose at any time. Because if you give me the former, I'm going to reset and do the battle over again rather than lose out.

It's poor game design not to consider player reactions to mechanics.

 

[Sajjaja]

How's Valkyria Chronicles 2? I know it's slightly different but it's still considered a SRPG right?

 

[AudioTechnica]

FFT is more complex tactically so for me it's the better game but obviously both are great.

Since we are talking about SRPGs, which series (or game) do you think is the best outside the popular ones (FE, FFT and TO)?

Frozen Synapse

It's not an RPG but in terms of turnbased strategy Frozen Synapse is as much an improvement on FFT as FFT is on chess. Especially heads-up play, it's like the ultimate test of game theory. And apparently a version is coming out for Vita as well so there's that too.

 

[Dremark]

Fire Emblem is better.

 

[ccbfan]

I find the in battle strategic aspect of FFT completely underrated.

Because of how effective skills, customizations and setups are, most people completely miss the huge level of depth in the on field gameplay.

People always complain about the Wiegraf battle but I can 99 percent guarantee you I can complete the Wiegraf battle easily with your save file.

The problem is most people don't know the strategic aspects of in battle FFT and most people only know know how to play FFT the "prep time" way where its all about training new skills and levels.

Hell I've beaten Wiegraf with nothing but squires and only squire skills before. I'm pretty sure most save files have way more classes and skills than only from squires.

 

[Mephala]

Snip

Spoiler tag maybe? Since the OP hasn't played it.

 

[Zaku]

Spoiler tag maybe? Since the OP hasn't played it.

Talking about the Weigraf fight isn't a spoiler, it's a warning. Like watching out for the sound of a rattle while hiking.

 

[Riposte]

I find the in battle strategic aspect of FFT completely underrated.

Because of how effective skills, customizations and setups are, most people completely miss the huge level of depth in the on field gameplay.

People always complain about the Wiegraf battle but I can 99 percent guarantee you I can complete the Wiegraf battle easily with your save file.

The problem is most people don't know the strategic aspects of in battle FFT and most people only know know how to play FFT the "prep time" way where its all about training new skills and levels.

Hell I've beaten Wiegraf with nothing but squires and only squire skills before. I'm pretty sure most save files have way more classes and skills than only from squires.

If it can be completely overlooked, then it is not depth.

I agree Wiegraf may be a little overrated. I beat him with an unremarkable build without giving it much thought. The top of the castle was more of a problem. (Then the game is never even somewhat difficult again.)

 

[Akzel]

Tactics all the way. I'm not a huge fan of Fire Emblem but still I do like characters in the series. Thanks Super Smash =p