Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

I need to get a translated version of Front Mission.  I played somewhat far in Japanese but eventually got tired of it, although it was quite fun early on and very creative.

Fire Emblem I've never played and need to try.  Same with Persona.  I'll look into those.

I think that people like FFTA because it's uncomplicated, and gives you lots of room to choose which way you want to totally abuse the game mechanics.

I would murder for a literal top hat and handlebar moustache villain. Fighting Snidely Whiplash in a tactics game would be the funniest thing ever.

Oh man, that would be awesome.  But would he be a Golbez or a Kefka?  Hmmm...

I'm also pondering the example of "kill a hundred guys with a tiny force then take their stuff", which seems like it's most fun for only one battle.  Could a Battletech-clans-inspired system be a good thing here, where the player always has the choice of deploying fewer or weaker units to a battle, being rewarded for how underpowered he is while still winning?  I don't want to just give more XP or "hey you get awesome loot early" for doing that, because that takes away the whole point of having an underpowered team!  Maybe these honor points are what unlock new customization options?  What else could they be good for...how can you reward a very awesome team, team without getting rid of the 'underpowered' thing, and without making the game too short by letting them win too soon?

I can think of a few things 'honor' could do for you. Simplest one is to unlock side-story missions. Other options include abilities/customization not normally available at all (don't have to be super powerful, just interesting), and possibly unlocking characters. Generally, though, you can go for the angle of getting interesting stuff that way without shortening the game or ramping up the power level a whole lot.

That sounds seriously awesome in a plot-centric game, where you can only get a finite amount of honor.  It would start to suffer if you could get honor from non-story missions and keep racking it up though.  Hmm...

Are there any good Tactics-style games that have customization, but no character progression?  Levelling up is sensible for the plot of these games (need to get stronger to beat the big bad enemy army), but the mechanics themselves have always seemed a little weird.

[Goron]

and no permadeath like X-Com has.

Heh, and perma-death is one of the reasons xcom is (one of) the best tactics game ever. ever.
Jagged Alliance is bloody good too... 1.13 is awesome (www.ja-galaxy-forum.com)

I think you peeps that think all these console games are good tactics games are a little confused.

[Neonivek]

perma-death is one of the reasons xcom is (one of) the best tactics game ever

I thought it was because the scope and resources you have at your disposal makes you feel like your actually a group of powerful people.

I could picture myself liking the game without Perma-death.

[Sowelu]

X-com's permadeath is a strategic element, not a tactical element.  It's a great tactical strategy game.  It is very intense.  But it's in a different genre.

Permadeath only works if your forces have a big advantage over the enemy.  In X-com, this advantage is that you are much smarter and you have way more tactical options (IE blow a hole in the side of the house, and then have five snipers who were reserving their TUs all open fire through that hole), while all the aliens have is an infinite number of strategic resources.  It's nothing remotely like a fair fight!  The aliens don't scout much, they just mill around with no objective.  If they all rushed your lander on turn 1 and kept grenade/blaster coverage, and had a couple guys in the back aiming the blaster randomly near your lander like a mortar with no LOS, you'd never play.  As it is, losing eight guys on the first turn to an alien grenade/blaster is enough to make even -most- hardened vets reload a save...and if you're reloading saves, it's not permadeath, now is it?

Also, imagine what would happen if a human player had to siege an X-Com base as the aliens.  "Hm, okay, let's take ten sectoids with blaster launchers sitting on piles of ammo, and ten chryssalids."  That's a win on turn 2 at the latest.  Really, X-Com is just a tactics game with very HARD grinding, and occasionally the enemy tries to erase your saved game.  It's like playing chess if you have only two rooks, two knights, two bishops, queen and king...and the enemy has 15 pawns and one king.

For the record, I do like X-Com.

Console tactics games tend to be more balanced fights.  Somewhat.  Not perfect, but in that direction.

[Neonivek]

One thing that pernamently put me off X-com was realising what you actually had to do to win and how effective it was.

Kinda disapointed me that I was effectively doing everything the hard way when I could have just blew people up without even needing to see them.

Though the only part of Xcom I really dislike is Looking for the aliens especially if there is one or two left (often in areas they can't get to)

[Goron]

X-com's permadeath is a strategic element, not a tactical element.  It's a great tactical strategy game.  It is very intense.  But it's in a different genre.

So are you suggesting that you would play out a battle exactly the same in a game that has perma death versus in a game that doesn't have perma death, all other things equal?

The perma death makes you utilize tactics. When I played FF(any) I just smashed buttons over and over and over, occasionally healing someone. There was hardly any real maneuvering, no real use of LOS, no use of terrain... all I really did was pick an attack (nearly at random, naturally you need to make appropriate selections based on the encounter, but they hardly matter, and usually its just a choice between fire attk vs water def or the like...) and watch the annoying cut scenes and animations.

Maybe I missed the hard setting, but for the life of me, I could never get a challenge out of a Final Fantasy game, a challenge besides trying to not bore myself to death having standing battles with little to no choices available to me.

I spend a majority of my fights in a game like Xcom or JA moving around. Fighting (preferably) only takes place when I am comfortable with my position.  In a game like FFT, the sole purpose of my movement is to get up to the enemy so that I can just use my most powerful attack.

its funny you mentioned Xcom being like a weak game of chess... I'll take that, I'll accept that... but to me, to fit FFT in to that analogy, I see FFT as a game of checkers. Sure, its pretty streamlined and has a tactical feel, but its still just a kids game.

EDIT: I will point out that I am not a Final Fantasy hater, I own and played. They have a fun factor, yes, but not that much. I have never beaten a final fantasy game- they bored out too quickly. I have also never gone back to a final fantasy game. On the otherhand, I have reinstalled and replayed xcom more times than I dare count... same goes for JA.
EDIT 2: ok... now that I think of it, maybe I am a little bit of a FF hater... otherwise I prolly wouldn't be knocking on it so much. But at least in my case, its because I honestly have issues with the games and think they are often inferior to bigger better games. That and I can admit the fun in the games- I just don't think they are as fun as most other options.

[Mephansteras]

its funny you mentioned Xcom being like a weak game of chess... I'll take that, I'll accept that... but to me, to fit FFT in to that analogy, I see FFT as a game of checkers. Sure, its pretty streamlined and has a tactical feel, but its still just a kids game.

EDIT: I will point out that I am not a Final Fantasy hater, I own and played. They have a fun factor, yes, but not that much. I have never beaten a final fantasy game- they bored out too quickly. I have also never gone back to a final fantasy game. On the otherhand, I have reinstalled and replayed xcom more times than I dare count... same goes for JA.

I can't speak for the FFTA series, but I found the original FFT to involve quite a lot of strategy if you didn't do a lot of level grinding. Sure, the game is VERY easy to beat if you level up a lot, but the challenge level went way up if you just played through the story and only did random battles on your way to the next plot point. I also really enjoyed the plot of FFT, which is quite in-depth and better then most plots I've seen in an RPG.

Replay value...I guess varies on the person. I've played that game quite a few times, even buying the re-released version for my PsP.

Haven't played Jagged Alliance, but I've certainly played quite a few games of X-com.

[Dakk]

No love for dominions 3? While you can't control your units directly on it, positioning your army in a more efficient way before a battle can make all the difference, and anyway, it makes things more realistic then just mind-controlling everyone (tis fun though ).

[Sowelu]

Final Fantasy games ARE mind-numbingly easy.  You can make them more fun by, for example, in FF6 only putting three guys in your party instead of four.  Also, try to beat them fast instead of 100% completion.

I just don't see how X-Com is very different from a tactics game where your mission objectives include "No more than X soldiers must be knocked out".  Sure, it's your choice, but eventually it just means you lose the strategic game because you're broke (but you don't know you've lost for another couple months).  And how many veteran X-Com players don't send rookies ahead of the main force to scout/draw fire?  If you have enough cash, you can do that all day, even send them in with primed grenades.  When your soldiers die, you lose points; naturally you'll normally still profit.  Yes, I think that a non-permadeath where you were punished for soldiers dying with a point loss instead of permadeath would play very, very similar to X-Com.  You'd still take the easy missions whenever possible, you'd still only very rarely retreat, you'd still farm simple things until you got bored.

[Goron]

And how many veteran X-Com players don't send rookies ahead of the main force to scout/draw fire? 

And that right there is a tactical decision/move.
One you need not worry about in a game with little to no consequences for haste or being ill prepared.
If you lose a tactical encounter in xcom or JA the game goes on.
If you lose an encounter in FF you restart it therefore you have no reason to do well or use sound tactics- cuz a win is a win is a win. Thats not the case in xcom. My win can be a whole lot better than your win, or loss. Heck, my loss can still be better than your win


I have never played Dominions 3, but heard good things.

[Mephansteras]

Hmmm.


I think the biggest thing to do in a good tactics game is to allow the player to have multiple viable play styles. Make it easy enough for the beginner to enjoy while providing depth that the veteran can use to his advantage.

I've found that the games I dislike the most are the ones where the game designer decided that *his* way was the only way to have fun, and other styles weren't allowed. They're either too tough or too easy or just boring if I don't like doing things that way.

Disgaea has that issue for me, FFT, Vandal Hearts, and X-com did not.

[Sowelu]

When you have Pyrrhic victories like you do in X-Com, that's certainly a strategy game.

I like the tactical elements of X-Com, I enjoy them a lot.  What I don't like are the strategic elements, after years of playing it.  They make a fun tactical game into an annoying long-term chore, for me.  And unfortunately, the strategic decisions that make the tactical game more fun, don't have a place in a purely tactical game.  If you want to play through a full X-Com game, they are important--but if you don't want to worry about "Oh, while I was sending out those three tactical squads, a mothership was on its way to siege my almost-empty base, and now I have to successfully defend with four rookies or lose hours of progress", well...

Tactical games can be casual.  Short strategic games can be casual.  X-Com is seriously hardcore.  I'm after a less-hardcore game right now. 

You do make good points.  Pyrrhic victories SHOULD be possible...but in a game with a pre-defined plot, it's very hard to do that well.  Some tactics games have excellent plots, but they can't easily fork at each and every mission.  X-Com is sandboxy and minimalistic in the plot department.  It would be nice to have a point system whereby excellent play is recognized, but without FORCING you to play very well.  Like the honor-point system brought up earlier, it might be neat to have 'honor' for fighting with an underpowered force, and 'success' for getting very few of your forces KO'd, and tweak the plot slightly, give extras, or change the ending when you have very high or very low honor/success.  Heck, even other genres' games like Hitman do that (it had 'stealth' and 'aggression' ratings that were just for your own edification, while giving little bonuses for max stealth min aggression).  But at least let the player keep playing through the game!

I think the biggest thing to do in a good tactics game is to allow the player to have multiple viable play styles. Make it easy enough for the beginner to enjoy while providing depth that the veteran can use to his advantage.

I've found that the games I dislike the most are the ones where the game designer decided that *his* way was the only way to have fun, and other styles weren't allowed. They're either too tough or too easy or just boring if I don't like doing things that way.

Disgaea has that issue for me, FFT, Vandal Hearts, and X-com did not.

I think Disgaea was a big culprit here because the level design was very puzzle-ish (and sometimes very obvious).  Oh hey, there's four enemies, and they're all standing on 'reverse damage' tiles.  MAYBE I SHOULD CAST AREA-EFFECT HEALING SPELLS ON THEM.  Oh hey, this level TELLS me I'm supposed to use a big geochain.  Ugh.  Only the item world let you be creative.

Yeah, different styles should be hugely possible.  The game should still be possible if you rip out any 2/3 of the classes or abilities, ideally.

[Goron]

I'll list what I like/dislike in tactics games:

I hate linear stories. In fact, the more a game tries to push a story on me, the more I feel like they are trying to use the fiction to make up for gameplay. Give me a simple story (read: background as to why I am killing stuff) and let me loose. Don't make me do things your way. if I want to do the last fight first, let me. In fact, there should be no last fight because if there is, it means you have given me a linear game. I want open ended choices.

Levels are stupid. 'Hey, you have killed enough giant snakes with a sword to level up and increase your gun skill!'   -thats just silly.
I like skill points. If one of my units uses a sword, it should get better at using a sword, not a gun, not a camera, not its fists.

I like variety of weapons and equipment and armor, but I hate when I can go from a gun that does [3 damage] to an gun that does [5 damage] to a gun that does [10 damage] up to a gun that does [3000 damage]. A 5.56mm round is going to do a ton of damage regardless of the gun it comes from.

I like when 'skill level' influences ability to hit, ability to block moderately. I hate when skill level influences damage more than a smidgen. No matter how good my unit is with a club, hit flying rod of steel will hurt an enemy the exact same amount as another guy who hits in the same spot. Unit's skill shouldn't add extra spikes to that club.

I like line of sight and flanking. Any game that lacks maneuvering and movement is not a tactics game.

I like relative equal playing fields. A 'start game' monster should not be infinitely easier than an 'end game' monster. If one stabs me in the face with a claw, it should hurt, regardless of whether I have played for 50 hours or not.

I don't like games that, rather than increasing the difficulty, AI, or challenge in some creative and meaningful way, just increase hitpoints and damage all around. I mean really, why would I send my dudes into battle with crappy gear at the start of my campaign when all of this fricking awesome gear is just laying around in the world? And, how come all this awesome gear just happens to show up in order of how much 'damage' it does? Why can't I walk around the first battle sites and just pick up that awesome weapon that you chumps normally find half way through the game, right at the start?

I think the number one thing for me, is I like realism within the context of the game world. In a world with magic, my units are not going to progressively stumble into harder and harder magical opponents while finding progressively better magical weapons- thats silly. Fictional, fantasy/sci-fi elements are fine- just not when they are implemented stupidly.

Thats all I can think of for now.

[Sowelu]

Oh yeah, this deserves a post of its own.

The 'steal' ability is the worst thing to happen to tactics games.

Oops, you didn't read the FAQ so you don't know that guy has the best hat in the game!  Or you don't want to keep trying the fight over and over until your 10% chance to steal succeeds!  It even sucked in Disgaea, where it just contributed to item-world farming and made it worse.

Seriously, it doesn't even make much sense.  If you want to disable your enemy's equipment with an ability, sure, but needing to do a specific thing in-combat with a probably-low chance of success to get better stuff IF you know it's there is an awful system, second only to "you need to make a guy stand on this rooftop so he finds the item hidden there".  There are WAY better ways to reward a player for being so much better than the enemy that they can waste time like that.


And Goron, than you for your like/dislike post.  That's a very sensible list!

[Goron]

When you have Pyrrhic victories like you do in X-Com, that's certainly a strategy game.

What does Pyrrhic victory mean?



Ok. I should take a step back and indicate: yes xcom is a strategy game. BUT it is also a tactics game. The fights in xcom are some of the best tactical gaming ever. Those mini tactical games just happen to be encompassed in a strategy game. :-)