Final Fantasy Tactics Advance had its flaws, but the game was enjoyable and gave Square Enix a great start to something that could turn into a viable series on portable systems. Since I do not own PSP, and as such have not played Final Fantasy Tactics: War of the Lions, I had been relegated to patiently waiting for Square-Enix to develop a sequel to FFTA. It took them almost 5 years and a completely different portable system to make one, but the real question is: had they used that time wisely to improve on the faults of the original? It's difficult to answer straight yes or no (but you've come to expect this from me).
Enter Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Grimore of the Rift. The game is almost identical in looks to the first title, which is more good than bad considering some of the great art and technical marvel Square-Enix puts into its games. Immediately appealing to those new to the game and pleasantly inviting to fans of the original, the environments, characters and monsters are beautifully stylized and really help show how the Nintendo DS can excel when given proper artistic direction. But by now we've all learned that looks aren't everything, right?
Storywise, FFTA2 is very similar to FFTA, which is definitely not a compliment. Not only is it extremely shallow and completely lacking in immersion, but for those returning from the original it is nothing more than a plot rehash with a slightly different "flavor". There is a certain level of fan service vis a vis some character cameos and the like, as well as a more fleshed out tie in to other "Ivalice Alliance" games (FFTA, FFXII, etc), but it feels very uninspired and is not even close to being original and unique. It doesn't turn me off from the game completely, since I'm mostly there to play the game like an excel spreadsheet on steroids, but when I'm not even the least bit bothered that the new 20 missions available to me are going to cause me to not see the story play out for at least another 2 weeks I begin to grow concerned, or at the very least disappointed. Perhaps I am just too spoiled by the huge, epic flair of normal Final Fantasy games, but even the original FFT (for all it's confusion) was bizarre, twisted and interesting. I don't think I should be at fault for hoping that a game's story will at least pique my interest, if not hold it.
It certainly doesn't help that most of the characters are equally as shallow and uninviting. The main character is an almost exact copy from FFTA: lost, helpless and attempting to find his way home. The "love interest" starts out actually being a very curious character, but is later dragged along in normal cliche fashion, presumably for ease of plot integration. The cameos are awkwardly forced and especially bland (although perhaps this is because I've yet to give FFXII it's due diligence) and most of your squad mates are just randomly named, mindless drones that you have no real connection with. This is where Fire Emblem greatly outshines the FFT series - all characters you control are given a story, a life and a purpose and it really helps add in that extra layer of immersion and interest. When your characters are nameless zombies that just happen to be along for the ride, well, they are more like tools than people, and the onus is left on what few story "characters" there are to carry a load they are just simply unable to bear successfully. It is just really hard to build anything of meaning or substance around an entire world of battle fodder.
Design wise, the game comes with just as many improvements on the original as it does new problems. There are still many of the things here that made FFTA so good: an astonishing number of missions, a diversity of mission goals, a large number of available jobs and races, mastering abilities through equipped items, etc. All the basics necessary for a truly extraordinary strategy experience are here, but once again it gets dragged down by absurd design decisions.
First off you have laws. Yes, laws are back, but they have been changed so surely they fixed them, right? Perhaps in word, but not in fact. Maybe Square-Enix only heard people complain about how laws punish you, so instead they flipped the idea on its head and had laws only reward you. "Neat", you might think, "they solved the biggest problem with laws". And at first, I completely agreed. No more jails! No more cards! No more ridiculous fines! And, like before, the first few missions go OK; a few utterly worthless rewards (mostly items you have dozens of already) and a small damage bonus or the like. Nothing to really make you hesitate to break laws, but a huge boon from the "punishable by severe hindrance" that was FFTA.
But where FFTA swings the pendulum too far into punishment, FFTA2 swings too far toward reward. At first it seems like a very contradictory statement - that offering too much reward is somehow 'bad' - but at some point not obtaining the reward becomes the new "severe punishment". You can at one point early in the game earn the ability to increase the AP you earn after a battle substantially. Since AP is used to learn new skills through items, it can generally be considered as a (usually very powerful) form of character progression, like leveling. Unfortunately, the bonus gets so huge that you feel almost hindered by the 'usual' method of leveling, and since breaking a law will lose you this reward it is often times still "better" (from a time spent perspective) to restart a mission and try again than it would be to suffer the consequences.
That is, of course, if you actually CHOSE to break that law. Often times, you do not. I cannot even begin to count the number of times I either accidentally broke a law. For instance, sometimes the law is vague and I'm not quite sure what would qualify. Sometimes I would just completely forget what the law was. Sometimes even randomness or computer controlled characters break laws for me. Crit a mob when you weren't supposed to? Have a character do more than X amount of damage? Sorry, start over. The worst yet is laws that were literally impossible to follow - like preventing higher level characters from attacking lower level ones... in zones where I have completely outleveled the mobs. How is that fun when you don't even have an OPTION to follow the laws? This puts us right back in the same spot we were in FFTA: laws becoming more of an inconvenience than a gameplay enhancing device.
Again, I'd love to have something that causes me to change my strategies that are not "choices" to be determined in a risk vs. reward scenario, because tuning the rewards with the risks is almost impossible to do in a game of this scope. Either the risk is too great and not worth taking or the reward is too little and not worth bothering with. And some of the laws - like "don't use daggers" or other super specific nonsense - require painstaking upkeep of character inventory, which is not really something I like doing outside of the already crazy amount I actually like doing to maximize character stats and abilities. If a min-maxer like myself doesn't like the absurd tediousness of the system, how can your average player have any hope of not becoming absolutely frustrated?
A passive, slight tilt of power in a specific direction that changes from mission to mission would be a significantly better implementation then a "risk/reward" system because it removes the choice aspect (which is near impossible to balance) and instead requires you to rethink your strategy and plan around it. Maybe melee damage is reduced by 25% so you focus a bit more on magic damage, or healing is reduced by 50% so you are required to play more defensively. Don't remove options completely, but shift balances of power just enough that it helps to promote a more adaptive tactical strategy for each fight. Something like this would help remove the monotony of using the same characters with the same moves in the same manners every fight and could really challenge the player to learn and master aspects of the game they previously did not focus on. It could just as easily go to far (i.e. all characters have magic immunity) and become insanely restrictive, but the idea is to not take it that far and still leave some options available to those with strange or unbalanced team builds.
Of course, to achieve this, you would also need to make the game actually difficult. Even playing on "hard" difficulty, the only time I was even remotely challenged by missions were the ones where I was grossly outleveled, i.e. my characters are level 30 and my enemies are level 90+. Strategy games are supposed to be about being mentally challenged, planning new strategies to overcome difficult obstacles and facing new challenges. Instead, FFTA2 is almost entirely devoid of even a modicum of difficulty and proceeding through missions feels tedious because you could win even without really paying attention to what was going on around you. I understand it is possible that my completionist nature and frequent use of Bonus AP 3 caused me to quickly out pace the challenges presented to me in the area of the game I was in, but even if that is the case I would hope they could find some way to scale in difficulty as you progressed. A strategy/tactics game that requires neither to play loses your interest very quickly; it would be like playing an FPS with nothing to shoot or an adventure game with nowhere to go. It just doesn't work.
Some of the new side items and tidbits are interesting, but by and large they do not stand up well over the course of the game. The "Auction" system is a unique minigame that you can play over time to gain control over territories and even win some items, and the 'achievement' style progression is really fun to work towards completing. Eventually, though, you gain the ability to simply buy so many coins that other clans cannot hope to ever win and the winnings no longer hold any real value to you for various reasons, so it falls by the wayside. The restrictions on times available and travel limitations compound frustrations with the system, especially when trying to build up clan power, and likely only act as a way to prevent you from winning everything on your first go.
The bazaar is one of my favorite new inclusions to the game, actually, and helps to add variety and challenges to obtaining new weapons beside amassing large amounts of gold. It also helps to give you small, incremental goals to work on while churning through the hundreds of missions in the game and gives your characters a much smoother progression curve than normal, as you can exert some choice behind how and when you collect the items necessary to create specific items. That being said, an actual guide and/or list of items and where to find them would be nice to have in the game itself. Frustrations with finding specific ones simply lead players to look them up online, which could be solved by at least providing some general direction or guidance for finding items.
My tone thus far might come off as strongly negative, but this is not because the game is completely terrible. Instead, it is because this is twice that I've seen what could otherwise be an extremely fun and interesting concept being mutilated by improper direction. This is clearly the case of Square-Enix trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and it is not doing their otherwise stellar game justice. I have easily put 90+ hours into FFTA2 over the course of several months and completed over 200 missions, but at one point my interest in the game began to wane. It simply offered no real challenge, provided nothing of intrigue (story, characters or otherwise) and was beginning to feel almost more like a chore than a game. Was it still worth playing? I'd say so. May I go back and finish it one day? Possibly, if I run out of other portable games. Could it have been much better? Yes. Definitely yes.
If you've purchased neither, I would definitely recommend Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon (I guess that means I have to review that at some point) over FFTA2, but for anyone who enjoyed the first looking for a game that contains a lifetime and a half of solid (but not stellar) gameplay, FFTA2 would definitely be worth looking into.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Judge not, lest ye be judged
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Saying that FE characters have "depth" can only be said in completely relative terms because I still find FE plotlines and stories pretty laughable. And let's face it, characters in FFTA are tools, because it's extremely hard to lose them permanently (I don't think there even is a way in FFTA2).
I actually liked FFTA's story, but you are correct in that FFTA2's is extremely shallow and unrewarding.
FYI, I didn't mean "tools" in the pejorative sense, because that would imply they had any depth; I just meant it in the they're the equivalent of a screwdriver, hammer, etc.
It is all relative, true. But in Fire Emblem - especially in the Gamecube and Wii games - the characters are given much more life and meaning than in either FFTA or FFTA2. This includes both playable characters and bad guys. Shadow Dragon is a story from an 8-bit era so I'm not exactly expecting it to win awards, but most original/new versions of the game are very well done. Something doesn't have to be as long winded and confusing as a Hideo Kojima game to be 'good'.
To be absolutely clear, I *also* meant tool as in hammer. Didn't even think of it coming across in the other manner, heh.
Post a Comment