They said Galaxy "wouldn't keep hardcore gamers up at night". A statement like that, I don't know...Bishman said: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.
-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 arent 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 COs unit destroys enemies the CO fills the CO power gauge.
-CO makes nearby vehicles more powerful
- COs 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.
No no no no no, they want to make the game better, not cheapen it.Ranger X said: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 said: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.
Halycon said:Did Square Enix change the title?
I thought Wii's FFCC game was subtitled "The Crystal Bearers".
Halycon said:Did Square Enix change the title?
I thought Wii's FFCC game was subtitled "The Crystal Bearers".
jonezer4 said: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 said:
Ranger X said: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
Canned feces?Ranger X said:
PillowKnight said: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.
Bishman said: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 said: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.
ethelred said: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.
^5BoZhangles said:Sounds like No More Heroes is rounding out nicely. I'll be glad to have a "real" third party game on the Wii, finally.
ethelred said: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.
PillowKnight said:Why are you listing FE with Tactics Ogre, and specifically FFT?
PillowKnight said:FFT is the only game that's gotten perma-death right.
PillowKnight said: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.
PillowKnight said: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.
PillowKnight said: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.
PillowKnight said:If else, it forces the player to needlessly re-do missions.
PillowKnight said:"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 said: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.
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.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.
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.