Squeenix are the Final Fantasy Tactics sequels any good?

[Celerity]

We're obviously not discussing the same game here. I'm discussing Fire Emblem, where everything is this melee stat contest and the biggest numbers win and anything less is a liability that will get focus fired and one rounded, 100%. Where any map that has other units appear on is consists of having the help cower in one of the very few tiles not within enemy death range while the solo character smashes everything. I have no idea what game you're discussing, it sounds semi interesting but it's not Fire Emblem. Any game that breaks under basic intelligence and common sense is not a game.

Give some ranged attacks and some AoE at the very least, because I've seen more tactics from casual games like Reverse Crawl.

 

[Siveon]

Why do I get the feeling you've only played the first few levels of Fire Emblem 8 and called it a day? Soloing just doesn't happen in most Fire Emblem games, and most attempts at doing so require heavy amounts of metagame knowledge about stat growths and enemy placement. EDIT: As well as AI abuse, but anyone can do that in seconds.

Trying to do so would be extremely tedious under normal circumstances.

 

[TigerKnee]

I got a feeling there's some communication failure here involving the meaning of the word "liability"

The only scenario I can see where having less units is preferable to having more units is if you don't know how to control EXP distribution and thus can't properly funnel EXP into your key few units. That's about it.

Even a naked unarmed level 1 unit is still useful for being a magnet distraction to get killed though very few people actually play FE that way.

A liability would be if the enemy had Mind Control and could turn them on you ala X-Com or gain strength from killing off your units... which they don't in Fire Emblem

 

[Damned Registrations]

Show me one tactical game, other than Fire Emblem in which a larger squad is actually a liability. There is not one, so you cannot.

*Cough*Tactics Ogre*Cough*

 

[Celerity]

Yeah, there really is. Even though it's not a serious tactical game, I'm using Disgaea as an example again. A map lets me field 10 units. If I pick one super unit and some Braveheart bots... noone there is a liability. If they kill my Braveheart bots they diverted an attack and then I revive them. If FE had generics it'd be the same way, instead what happens is everything on the field swarms your weakest unit, and unless your weakest unit is actually your strongest they die.

And good thing I missed "Tactics" Ogre then.

 

[Siveon]

Despite TigerKnee's efforts, it really does seem like you don't know what the word "liability" means.

Someone or something that causes problems

No unit in Fire Emblem that isn't under some sort of berserk spell is, by definition, a liability. Never do they cause a problem within themselves, or hinder the progress of anyone else on the team - other then, again, they start soaking up the EXP. But you never once referred to that. They can be used to hold a vulnerary, rescue a party member, kill a weaker enemy, injure a stronger one, anything. Even when they're puny.

I really don't understand what other "issues" you keep enforcing. It's a problem when the AI does something smart and tries to take down weaker units? Heaven forbid you plan around that (reinforcement bullshit notwithstanding). It's a problem that each character is worth some value instead of just an overpowered Orlandeau or two coupled with cannon fodder?

Barring all of that, all of it. Fire Emblem did have cannon fodder at one point.
http://fireemblem.wikia.com/wiki/Replacement_character
People hardly used it because Shadow Dragon was banal because it wasn't necessary due to the fact that everyone restarts the level if a character dies.

 

[Celerity]

It's a problem because this not being a tactical game, you can't do anything about it. If the game just gave you one unit, at the beginning and you never got any others, ever the entire game would be you out melee stat contesting everything and winning. Every time it puts another character on the field, it gives you a liability.

At least when you use Orlandeau and cannon fodder the cannon fodder does something (and really, generic units are better anyways).

As I said, this is about the only game in existence that has permadeath that'd be better off without it.

 

[Siveon]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

As I said, this is about the only game

Series, 14 in total.

 

[LizardWizard]

I like Vandal Hearts quite a bit -- more than FFT, actually, though I realize that's an extreme minority opinion. It's more Shining Force-ish in party size and composition (and even narrative), and it's definitely less Deep and Serious than FFT, but I actually liked its story more as a consequence.

Loved Vandal Hearts. The intro fucking owned and dat blood splatter was extremely satisfying.

 

[Rahdulan]

Vandal Hearts is great if you favor map design over character building. Apparently 2 was worse off(? never played) and the XBLA/PSN sequel was alright, but the 1st game, really good SRPG. No doubt about that. In that regard, Vandal Hearts is more like Fire Emblem but simply looks like FFT.

People couldn't handle didn't like the simultaneous turn system in VH2 which, of course, automatically means game is bad. Not that utterly predictable AI always going for back attack helped in that field mind you, but it's one of those games I never understood why people seemed to have some kind of inherent dislike towards. It's probably the only SRPG on the system I would put side-by-side with FFT and TO when it comes to uncomfortable grim setting and layered story dealing with politics and people being scum, except seen from a POV of characters who were distinctly not playing the political game but just got caught up in it because life sucks. Then again, they also upped the GRIMDARK in art style compared to the first game so maybe that put off some people. I do remember unit sprites actually changing depending on what equipment they wore and being able to easily identify their weapons aka enemy threat level at a glance blew my mind back in the day.

Have a handy picture comparing 1 and 2 I found at 4Chan somewhere.

That overture will also always have a special place in my heart.

 

[aweigh]

vandal hearts 1 was the shit. i loved that game on ps1. haven't played the sequel... i should emulate it. wow after all these long years i still remember chars like klint and amon and the drunk guy. heh.

 

[MRY]

It's funny -- despite loving VH1, I couldn't get into VH2. Maybe it was because of the simultaneous turns, but I dunno, it also seemed to lose some of the punchiness and energy of the plotting, and basically drift into being an inferior FFT. What I liked some much about VH1 is that the whole thing is like the blood sprays: over-the-top, un-self-conscious, and awesome. Though I am definitely remembering it through 20 years of nostalgia.

 

[A user named cat]

Loved almost everything about VH1, especially the later challenging battles where you're severely outnumbered. The sequel should've just been more of the same minus the linearity and level scaling but they veered too off course. VH: Flames of Judgement for PS3/Xbork looks like an abomination.

 

[Siveon]

VH: Flames of Judgement for PS3/Xbork looks like an abomination.

Yeah...

I don't know what they were going for with the art, but, no. Just, no.

 

[Athelas]

Vandal Hearts is great if you favor map design over character building. Apparently 2 was worse off(? never played) and the XBLA/PSN sequel was alright, but the 1st game, really good SRPG. No doubt about that. In that regard, Vandal Hearts is more like Fire Emblem but simply looks like FFT.

People couldn't handle didn't like the simultaneous turn system in VH2 which, of course, automatically means game is bad.

The problem with Vandal Hearts 2 is that the implementation of simultaneous turns was nonsensical - units didn't react at all to what the other was doing. Phase-based games typically have some level of automation that prevents that, i.e. units chasing/tracking each other if they move. The point of a phase-based system is to create interesting scenario's where you have to think ahead about what the enemy will do and react accordingly. The designers of Vandal Hearts 2 just took the Vandal Hearts 1 system and slapped on simultaneous turns as a gimmick.

I recently played Vandal Hearts 1 for the first time and while it starts out very well, it eventually turns into both a gameplay slog and convoluted story-wise. It doesn't help that you get access to the optimal strategy before you're halfway through: an absurdly powerful AoE spell that deals significant damage to targets in a radius anywhere from a quarter to half of the map without friendly fire that can be targeted from afar - this in a game where every physical attack, even with a bow, provokes a counterattack.

 

[e-mailio estevez]

I didn't get far into Vandal Hearts because I thought the character portraits were too ugly. It really bothered me for some reason.

 

[LizardWizard]

Regarding VH2, despite finishing it I don't remember anything about it other than the strong feeling of decline compared to its predecessor. Similar feeling to every Suikoden after the second.

 

[A user named cat]

Regarding VH2, despite finishing it I don't remember anything about it other than the strong feeling of decline compared to its predecessor. Similar feeling to every Suikoden after the second.

Yeah, I recently tried out both Suikoden III and V. Found them both pretty awful and disappointing like many JRPGs for PS2. Funny how V was lauded as being a return to form yet I played almost seven hours before quitting and it was insanely linear and railroaded. Absolutely nothing like the originals and very boring.

 

[Zetor]

I have a soft spot for Saiyuki: Journey West. It's not particularly tacticool compared to FFT, but I thought the setting / story / characters were pretty cool (I'm a sucker for settings like this). Plus, you get to play as the REAL Son Goku!

 

[aweigh]

i mildly enjoyed suikoden 3 but it was mostly due to residual goodwill leftover from having finished suikoden 1 and then 2 again in anticipation of 3's release. lol i can't even remember who was the 3rd story character in suikoden 3... i remember the lady knight, and the "Cool Guy TM" Geddoe or something like that. who the hell was the 3rd protagonist??

never played suik4 nor 5 they looked nothing like something i would enjoy.

 

[SerratedBiz]

i mildly enjoyed suikoden 3 but it was mostly due to residual goodwill leftover from having finished suikoden 1 and then 2 again in anticipation of 3's release. lol i can't even remember who was the 3rd story character in suikoden 3... i remember the lady knight, and the "Cool Guy TM" Geddoe or something like that. who the hell was the 3rd protagonist??

never played suik4 nor 5 they looked nothing like something i would enjoy.

Third one was the Kayaka (sp?) little tribal dude, aka Totally Not Hiro.

I enjoyed Suikoden 5 more than 3, especially since I fucking hated 3. But 5 switched to RTwP major fights so they fucked that up anyway. S2 for lief.

 

[Rahdulan]

The problem with Vandal Hearts 2 is that the implementation of simultaneous turns was nonsensical - units didn't react at all to what the other was doing. Phase-based games typically have some level of automation that prevents that, i.e. units chasing/tracking each other if they move. The point of a phase-based system is to create interesting scenario's where you have to think ahead about what the enemy will do and react accordingly. The designers of Vandal Hearts 2 just took the Vandal Hearts 1 system and slapped on simultaneous turns as a gimmick.

While I reserve the right to use "I haven't played it in 10+ years" get of jail free card, I agree. I liked the system, but implementation could've been done better. Not to mention that system kinda falls apart the moment you begin to outnumber enemies and game doesn't do anything to level the playing field so it just turns into mop-ups. Problem is also that specific enemies are assigned to your specific characters which means you basically need to waste one turn to see who's paired up with whom, which you'll be doing anyway because you don't want to rush towards enemies in the game. None of these things were game breakers to me though and I had a difficulties going back to slow as molasses classic turn-based system in other games after VH2.

Yeah, I recently tried out both Suikoden III and V. Found them both pretty awful and disappointing like many JRPGs for PS2. Funny how V was lauded as being a return to form yet I played almost seven hours before quitting and it was insanely linear and railroaded. Absolutely nothing like the originals and very boring.

That could be because Suikoden 5 has infamously long prologue lasting up to ten hours before game proper really begins. And I'm not even talking "you're retarded, let me hold your hand" FF13 insulting level of tutorials or something, it's just that pacing is absolutely horrible until the game gets in the swing of things. Suikoden 3 is the divisive one so, yeah.

 

[A user named cat]

Yeah, I recently tried out both Suikoden III and V. Found them both pretty awful and disappointing like many JRPGs for PS2. Funny how V was lauded as being a return to form yet I played almost seven hours before quitting and it was insanely linear and railroaded. Absolutely nothing like the originals and very boring.

That could be because Suikoden 5 has infamously long prologue lasting up to ten hours before game proper really begins. And I'm not even talking "you're retarded, let me hold your hand" FF13 insulting level of tutorials or something, it's just that pacing is absolutely horrible until the game gets in the swing of things.

That figures. Well I kept my saved game and everything, so I could give it another go some time and grind out the remaining linearity. Thanks for the info.

 

[Murk]

My biggest gripe with VH 2 was that all characters were generic, and you simply built up skills based on what gear you used. This can be ok in some cases, but if every character is potentially the same, it just doesn't give me much interest -- I'd rather design them from the start to have clearly different roles ala d&d in that case. VH 1 on he other hand at least forced each character into one of 2 paths.

Tho it's way too easy to break (vh1). There's no real way to grind... until you get to the map with the two hp regen circles... that also regen mana... and then you have your two priests buff each other constantly... then they level up to whatever and then you have your other guys use a single MP herb on them and voila, instant 20 levels. I did this my last play through (beaten it maybe 4 times) and I had final 3rd classes by the time you fight magnus.

Still, I liked the stupid storyline and the dumb dialog bits. Also, the ridiculous animations were pretty neat as were the silly sound effects.

 

[Blaine]

...which is pretty different from FFT where the strategy is usually Orlandu Orlandu Orlandu.

You don't receive Orlandeau until the fourth and final (although also the most expansive) chapter of the game, and there are plenty of other super-overpowered options available. FFT isn't particularly well balanced in the grand scheme of things, no doubt about it, but it's not really because of Orlandeau.