Volcynika said:What the hell?
I just attempted a boss fight for the second timeNaja, Rajiv, and a feral on the ship after the Botanical Gardens. The first time I almost won but just made some bad choices. Right on Rajiv's first turn he uses Voice of Chains (attack I didn't see at all the first bout), which deals heavy damage to my party and paralyzes all of them and they then wipe me out.
:/
NeoZylom said:I don't get the second part of the last dungeon.They told me to look around in the pink room, but I don't find anything. Also, when I try to go in other rooms, they are locked with doors :S WTH am I suposed to do?
Nevermind,you have to go back in the first part ....
NeoZylom said:I don't understand anymore ...I have the rectangular module 1,4 and 3. In the pink room they ask me for the block #4, isn't that the rectangular module #4?
Dunno you, but I would fire the guy who did the dungeon layers design in this game ...
NeoZylom said:I beat the last boss on my first try
The Grind said:The Sands of Quirkiness
Full coverage on console, PC, MMO and tabletop RPGs.
by Kat Bailey | Jan 18, 2010 2:47PM PST
Tags: Nintendo DS Sands of Destruction (NintendoDS)
Sands of Destruction represents a bit of a conundrum for me. I can list out a dozen ways in which it's completely broken as an RPG. It tends to be one-dimensional, there are abilities and spells that are overpowered, and it laughs in the face of risk vs. reward. On a superficial level though, I'm enjoying myself, and I'm determined to figure out why.
At its heart, Sands of Destruction represents an attempt to streamline and modernize the ground combat found in Xenogears. The combat points are still there, but abilities are mapped right to "strong" and "weak" buttons rather than being activated by certain button combinations. It also loses some of the risk vs. reward by losing the ability to save up points and unleash a lengthy combo. Instead, more points are gained whenever 10 hits are strung together, culminating in a super attack.
Once it becomes possible to chain three attacks into a single combat point, those combos become more or less automatic, and every single battle begins to revolve around buffing the entire party with a spell that raises attack and going to town with combos. There are offensive spells, but they're only good for draining away valuable SP that could be better used for healing and buffs. The result is a system that has been called 'limited and boring' by people I respect, and it's hard for me to reasonably disagree except to say, "Nuh uh! It's fun!" I'm going to try though, so here goes.
In many ways, Sands of Destruction has a lot in common with Super Robot Taisen Original Generation: Endless Frontier (the dungeon crawler, not the game with the tactical robot action), and that ought to be a massive red flag. But while I found Endless Frontier's boss battles to be a pain, Sands of Destruction's fights are often tense and terrifying. That's exactly the feeling I want when I'm playing an RPG, and I think it's a good starting point for figuring out why I don't hate Sands of Destruction.
I think the biggest difference between Sands of Destruction and Endless Frontier is that the battles in the latter have a tendency to overstay their welcome. Barring some serious grinding, even lengthy combos will barely scratch the average boss. And grinding is a real chore in Endless Frontier thanks to a combination of powerful grunts, slow leveling and the very marginal improvement that generally comes with character growth.
Sands of Destruction speeds all of that up to great effect. Assuming you've properly distributed your points and purchased the right gear, it's possible to beat powerful enemies fairly quickly. However, bosses get combat points too, and they can string together some pretty nasty attacks. It wasn't uncommon for me to knock off more than half of a boss's HP with a single combo, only to find my party on the brink as well thanks to a withering barrage of debuffs, status effects and super attacks. Victory was dependent on maximizing my turns in such a way that my party could stay on their feet while dishing out the maximum possible damage.
That rule applies to pretty much any RPG, but Sands of Destruction has a very weird and interesting way of going about it. Since magic is tied to combat points, it's actually possible to cast a spell and attack in the same turn. Once chains are unlocked, it actually becomes possible to use a buff and launch an all-out attack with the same character. By allowing such a combination, Sands of Destruction seemingly throws away the question of whether to power-up, heal or attack, which is a bedrock of many an RPG battle system.
That's not entirely the case though. Since there's only one character who can improve attack and defense, the spell basically has to be cast when his turn comes around. However, there's a reasonable chance that your party has just been wrecked by the boss, which means you need to heal. You could heal and use a buff, but generally precludes attacking, and there's always the chance that another party member will die before they get the chance to use their new power. Not only that, the buff doesn't last very long, so it needs to be used while its available.
Now, none of this works quite as well as I just described. Unless your characters are really weak, bosses tend to have a hard time taking them down in a single round, so you're generally safe just healing and powering up. The point is that there are more variables at play in any given boss fight than it seems, and those fights move so quickly that you can barely catch your breath at times. I appreciate that in an RPG.
Having said that, I still think Sands of Destruction is broken. The 'quips' that you unlock throughout the course of the game are quite powerful, for instance, and there's no real limit on using them. Rather than making them specific to each character, it would been better if they had to be distributed amongst the entire party, with only a certain number of slots for each (admittedly, they would have to change the name at that point). It would have also been nice if Sands had taken a cue from Endless Frontier and made launching a super attack dependent on a power bar rather than how many hits are landed. It might have added more of a tactical dimension to the game, particularly if there were some reward for maxxing out the super bar for every character at once.
It always feels like it's teetering on the brink of becoming painfully one-dimensional, and I'm honestly still trying to figure out whether or not it ends up losing its footing and plunging into the abyss. I trust my instincts though, and my instincts generally say, "Hey, this is pretty fun!" Unless I'm completely crazy (possible), there must be some merit to these feelings. I guess I need to brood on it some more.
Anyway, no, Sands of Destruction is certainly not perfect. If anything, it's a B-grade 32-bit RPG, a "mutant echo of Xenogears" as Jeremy called it. But while the flaws are quite apparent, I think there's also something powerfully right in the emotions that come with the boss fights. If that feeling is the only thing that Sands of Destruction manages to nail, then I suppose it could do far worse.
The discussion that cropped up in the wake of last week's Final Fantasy VIII musings have reinforced my awareness that polarizing game design can sometimes be great game design. The idea sounds fairly stupid on the face of it, I suppose: If half the people who play a game hate it, how could it be good? Yet in revisiting the decade-long debate over FFVIII, I find that the content of the arguments surrounding the game is interesting. While the "con" team has its share of people who simply don't like the game for perfectly good reasons, a significant percentage of people who criticize it don't quite seem to understand the game -- or, at the very least, they don't seem to be taking it on the terms its developers intended. They approach the combat system from the wrong direction, they get bogged down by habits carried over from other RPGs which prove ineffective here, they write off the cast based on surface appearances or on general Internet hive-mind perceptions. The "pro" team has its foibles, too; there are an awful lot of people who will admit no fault in the game, or who try desperately to come up with insane rationalizations for its failings out of some misguided sense of chivalry. On the whole, though, the game's fan base takes the game as it is, accepting its flaws while praising its strengths and reveling in its uniqueness.
So which side is right? Is FFVIII a ruinous mess of a game, or is it actually a commendable work? Obviously, my opinion falls into the latter camp, but not without justification. (Or so I'd like to think, anyway.) This seems a case where a game's polarizing nature speaks well for it: The creators did something unconventional in the name of their collective vision for the game. Their experimental efforts didn't always pan out for the best, but they were more successful than not. Gaming is a medium increasingly dominated by safe, complacent design in name of profitability. That Square would follow up its most successful work ever by something that broke so many accepted rules and practices was gutsy.
This is one of those things I have to keep in mind when I review games; I may not always like an off-the-wall or laterally designed game, but I think it's important to be able to recognize the intent behind it. God Hand, for instance, isn't necessarily something I think is fun. That's not because it's a lousy creation; it's because God Hand a loving homage to a genre and style I don't really enjoy. (See also: Bayonetta.) Just because a game bores to me to tears doesn't mean I think it's crappy... I just means I duck out of reviewing it.
On the other hand, you have Order of Ecclesia, a game in a genre and series I love -- it bores me to tears, which is probably a sign that something about it terribly wrong. In theory, I should like Ecclesia, but in practice I find the developers' decision to take the standard Metroidvania template and boost the difficulty to be poorly executed, since their attempt revolved around cranking up enemy stats rather than smarter level design or trickier AI. Being forced to chip away at the same stupid enemies I've been breezing through for two decades doesn't make them more interesting, it just slows the pace, which in turn causes me to look around and realize how stagnant the Castlevania series' design has become. It's like the Wizard pulled back the curtain before Toto even arrived in the scene.
But then, some people really love the game, so who's to say it's badly designed? I keep digging away at it, hoping to strike the nugget of goodness its fans swear exists somewhere inside, but so far I'm panning nothing but gravel and dirt.
Which brings me to my current review conundrum, Sands of Destruction. I ducked out of the Ecclesia review without even knowing how conflicted I'd be about the game, but I volunteered to review Sands out of sheer curiosity. It's like the mutant offspring of Xenogears, the very definition of a conflicted game. Despite my using Xenogears as a whipping boy for so long, I don't actually hate it -- I just found the flaws it possesses to be unusually infuriating. Still, I've always felt that the concepts laid down by the game could be revisited to create a genuine masterpiece. You know, with a little more polish and a lot less ambition that results in a rushed tumble through the second half of the story through a wall of static text. Maybe, I thought, Sands would be that masterpiece.
Turns out it's not. It's not even close, in fact! It is, however, a very bizarre piece of work that feels more like a distorted echo of Xenogears than an actual follow-up. At the same time, I've already had a debate with someone about the merits of its combat system, among other things. So, I suppose I need to keep all of this in mind as I enter the back half of the adventure. Is it a broken mess or a madly inventive work of genius that defies convention? I can't decide just yet.
I can say with certainty that I don't hate it, though. Sands feels exactly like a second-tier 32-bit RPG that fell 12 years through a time warp to land in 2010. I didn't even realize I was nostalgic for that particular niche of gaming, but apparently I am!
First: the arrow on the BP bar is morale. If it's pointing right, the morale is neutral and you're starting the turn with 2 BP. If it's pointing up, you have high morale, and you'll start with 3 BP. If it's down, then you'll start with 1. You can influence your morale by equipping accessories with pink hearts, or broken hearts, which influence positively or negatively respectively.AlbertWeskerUmbrella said:As far as people complaining about the battle system so far, well, I haven't quite figured it out myself yet! I understand the basics, but I think I should read the manual. I don't understand how enemies are launched in the air and why some characters have arrows pointing in different directions on their AP bars.
Kishgal said:First: the arrow on the BP bar is morale. If it's pointing right, the morale is neutral and you're starting the turn with 2 BP. If it's pointing up, you have high morale, and you'll start with 3 BP. If it's down, then you'll start with 1. You can influence your morale by equipping accessories with pink hearts, or broken hearts, which influence positively or negatively respectively.
As for launching enemies into the air, take a look at the customize screen for your characters. You'll notice that some skills have an associated effect listed at the bottom, like "KO 2" or "Toss 1." Toss is what launches enemies. Effects don't have a 100% chance of occuring, but you can improve the chances by leveling up the skill and choosing to fortify it when you're given the option at certain levels.
Thanks for cross-posting the blog, was going to mention that if it hadn't been already.Volcynika said:New blog entry http://blogs.sega.com/usa/2010/01/1...-live-new-info-character-bios-and-anime-ep-3/
Hey look, the website for the game went live http://sega.com/soda week after release, Sega's promoting as stellar as always.
RubyEclipse said:Thanks for cross-posting the blog, was going to mention that if it hadn't been already.
We were hoping to get the website up (a lot) earlier, but it ended up having to go out then. Still, I do think it came out really well, and the music choice was good. The entire soundtrack is pretty much full of win.
Anyone who thinks that the Anime and Game do not cross-promote each other is also quite possibly crazy. (Not that being crazy is a bad thing.) Both work to raise awareness of the other.
For those who find the boss fights challenging - many of them are. That said, if you read up on all the tips and tricks to the combat system, you can really make things easier in a heated fight. I went through the first 4-5 bosses (many months ago) without figuring out how to heavily chain attacks or upgrade my abilities, and doing so made a massive difference.
Lard said:I looked for this yesterday in both Eb Games and an indie store (in Canada) and wasn't able to find it in either place.
Is it out in Canada yet?
Median said:Absolutely, although the EB I work at only got two copies. Try your local Future Shop/Best Buy, they should both be carrying it as well.
Median said:Absolutely, although the EB I work at only got two copies. Try your local Future Shop/Best Buy, they should both be carrying it as well.
Yeah, I noticed that and was thinking about it, but this thread is making me steer clear.donny2112 said:Amazon's Deal of the Day for $21:
NDS Sands of Destruction