Not much, really... you go to cities, visit the blacksmith, the healer and the merchant, rest on a inn, learn skills with a trainer and talk with NPCs for gossip, story quests or sidequests. As I said, this game is heavily focused on combat. That doesn't mean that there aren't optional fights and side-quests, but don't expect to play Baldur's Gate or Fallout.EDIT: I just found out there isn't. Can you sum up what you do in between battles, then?
I'm not sure how to answer this question. In the end, the game wasn't ambitious. It was just linear set pieces.That did make the project ambitious when the game was less so.
You deny SRR failed to live up to its ambitions?
I'm not sure how to answer this question. In the end, the game wasn't ambitious. It was just linear set pieces.That did make the project ambitious when the game was less so.
You deny SRR failed to live up to its ambitions?
If you picked up the game not knowing anything about it, you wouldn't know about the dropped plans for stealth or subterfuge.
I think what you're calling ambition, I would call lack of focus. Yeah the game has the charisma stat, which is almost useless. The problem isn't that they were ambitious and tried to do something with charisma. The problem is that they didn't know what to do with charisma.
I see no evidence of failing their ambition. The game does have parts where you can scout the levels.The game has free-move environs with attempts at exploration. The ambition was clearly to have exploration. Failed ambition.
Doing something badly isn't the same thing as failing ambition. They made a crappy character system, but there's nothing ambitious about it.The game has multiple ability trees with sub-skills and abilities, and multiple nearly without. The latter should have had, but doesn't. Failed ambition.
Or the ambition was to copy those super successful Bioware games.The game has dialogue-trees and one or two choice situations, then 20-30 fake choice situation. The ambition was clearly to have some choice in the trees. The game fails.
To me, failed ambition would have been to have broken item progression. Theirs pretty much worked, it was just boring. That's not having ambition in the first place.The game has an armorupgrade system and an itemsystem. The intention was clearly to have some choice and item progression, but all you have is a linear progression in damage and damage reduction. Failed ambition.
Yes, they're super shallow, but it's because they didn't have ambition in their game design.I could keep going on. The game's systems are shallow and do not live up to their ambitions.
I don't think early Access games go on steam sales so it will probably be a while yet before either game is eligable.The obvious answer is to wait for the Steam sales and see which one gets a deeper discount.(probably MMX since it's been out longer)
I don't think early Access games go on steam sales so it will probably be a while yet before either game is eligable.The obvious answer is to wait for the Steam sales and see which one gets a deeper discount.(probably MMX since it's been out longer)
To me failed ambition is actual depth that doesn't work right. While lack of depth, even if implied, is saying "ah fuck it, we might as well not even try" or lacking ambition.But the systems aren't shallow, tuluse. On the contrary, they imply great depth, that the game fails to deliver.
Not much, really... you go to cities, visit the blacksmith, the healer and the merchant, rest on a inn, learn skills with a trainer and talk with NPCs for gossip, story quests or sidequests. As I said, this game is heavily focused on combat. That doesn't mean that there aren't optional fights and side-quests, but don't expect to play Baldur's Gate or Fallout.EDIT: I just found out there isn't. Can you sum up what you do in between battles, then?
To help you understand, this is the world map (a small part of it):
![]()
Make it a toggleable option anyway.The combat log is a tool designed to show a detailed summary of a battle. The game's calculations are pretty complex and displaying all variables would render the combat log much less useful.
Not if highlighting a portrait also highlights the character on the battlefield.The portraits are useful for showing initiative sequences, but are not suitable to display complex tactical situations. Declaring actions by relying on portraits could result in pretty frustrating mistakes.
Cute.Why is there no window mode?
So you won't get distracted ;-).
I approve. Balance ftw.We experimented with a flanking system, but ultimately, we ditched it. It would've caused unwanted 'tactical' patterns, having players running around enemies every turn just to get a flanking bonus/backstab.
...
Endurance mechanics would have caused a great imbalance between casters and melee fighters. To keep the balance, we decided against such a system.
Yes, it plays like a western Final Fantasy Tactics. It uses a classless system and have less abilities/spells and party customization options, but, as you said, the combat encounters are more varied and more numerous. Also, once you reach Chapter 3 the game opens up a lot, you'll have various side-quests to choose from and almost the entire world map to explore, instead of the mostly linear progression of the first two chapters.@ Felipepepe: Is this structured like FFTactics?
If so, then this could become an instant classic, because those combat situations looked way more interesting.
western Final Fantasy Tactics.
...plays like a western Final Fantasy Tactics... classless system...
Yes, it plays like a western Final Fantasy Tactics