A Deep Seething Hatred Toward LBP : A Valkyria Chronicles Review

[CZTM]

The post-holiday season has been rather annoying for me as a gamer. Because of my younger sibling's deep obsession with Little Big Planet, I haven't had a chance to play either that or any of the other PS3 games that I've been dying to play. So I finally managed to kick her off for a day or two while she busily tore up "Disney Sing It" on my Wii.

So my newest adventure on the PS3 is none other than Valkyria Chronicles [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valkyrie_of_the_Battlefield], a game that I quickly finished in roughly two days, which will bring me to my first critique of the game...

It's too short for an RPG/RTS game. Usually, RPG games have a mountain of time to be played on. Any previous Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts Game will tell you that. Even RTS games usually have a reasonable amount of time to get through, not counting the replayability of some games like Empire Earth and Starcraft. So what happened here? Unless you just horribly suck at RTS games, and don't know the simple and subtle nuances of leveling up classes of characters RPG-style, you should get through this game in roughly a day or so [http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr271/CZTM/5.jpg], which left me angry, especially considering all the waiting I had to do in order to actually play the game!

So let's move on from my rant-induced anger, and focus on the story aspect of the game. It's the typical war-time RPG game, and doesn't deviate too much, except for a rare insert of World War II-style discrimination towards a group of people. You "play" as Welkin, a College Student who has an avid love towards nature, and will bloody well let you know it ever second of gameplay. [http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr271/CZTM/Valkyria-Chronicles-3copy.jpg] (Ironically enough, he even gets a power boost while around "nature") Welkin has returned home to Bruhl, to help escort his sister to the capital of his nation, which is under invasion by a neighboring country, which has much more firepower than they do. During this time, Welkin becomes embroiled in the war itself, becoming a Lieutenant in the Militia Army, and meeting a wide variety of characters, all fighting for the freedom of their country, and for the hopes of peace. The story doesn't deviate too often from tired and old cliche aspects that we've seen in previous games, So the plot's not going to be the real selling point of the game [and 9 out of the 10 characters, I know I've seen before. (although some scenes will bring a tear to your eye).

However, much like other RPG's, the art direction brings the game some saving grace [http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr271/CZTM/4.jpg]. The art direction in Valkyria Chronicles is interesting and unique, similar to Okami, but with a more refined taste, using colored sketching in lieu of ink. It was pretty to look at, fun to watch, and definitely well done. In much the same manner, the musical direction was also strangely "epic" (and I use this term loosely), making the battles and the cutscenes feel more powerful than they actually are. Neither are too powerful of selling points, but definitely won't take anything away from the experience.

Now on to the actual gameplay. This is where the game gets extremely hard to review, as I felt inconsistent to whether I liked it or not. The game is divided into chapters of a book, with each chapter having roughly 8-10 "boxes", where story aspects and gameplay aspects can be selected. In theory (and after getting through the game once), it's nice. Being able to select which scene you want to see, or which battle you want to re-fight in is wonderful. However, going through the game the first time round... It's annoying and frustrating. Watching 6 of the "boxes", each with a cutscene, only to be rewarded with one battle (except for one rare exception) per chapter, and then to watch a few more cutscenes? [http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr271/CZTM/valkyria-chronicles-ss.jpg] It's annoying and repetitive, which will never earn any points in my regard. I understand the necessity of plot advancement, but the entire cutscenes could have been poured into one box, and then more battles inserted.


The actual "battle" aspect of Valkyria Chronicles makes up for everything bad I just stated about the game itself. It's "new", it's "intuitive" and I've never done anything like it. Each battle contains two sides. Your side, and the enemy side. Each mission will have a requirement to win the battle, usually being to occupy the enemy's base camp. In order to obtain that requirement, you must move and use your troops to attack enemies, while pushing forward. In order to move your units, you must use a "command unit". Each turn will have a certain number of command units, being equivalent to however many militia units are on the field. Gamers are given a gigantic map of the area, with your units on the map. Select what unit you wish to use, and you will be shifted to a third person view of the area, in full control of the unit you selected. Move them forward based on how far they can move, and then allow them to attack or heal themselves, or perhaps use a special item. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6E02yQnUj0] While I dreaded actually getting to the combat (stopping for a break during one of the many many many many many cutscenes), the combat itself was fun enough to make up for it.

Also, a small insert on my part here. Most RTS games like Fire Emblem hack me off when one of my soldiers gets killed, and then perishes forever, unless I start the mission over again. However Valkyria Chronicles gets a small star here, because if you do get a soldier shot one too many times, the game allows for three turns to get to them with another soldier, and save them from death. So Fire Emblem can suck it.

Valkyria Chronicles is hard to recommend, because so much of it was a bad experience for me. The combat was nice, and I even liked the story (as cliche as it was). But the long cutscenes summoning forth MGS4 memories, the storybook mode of selecting episodes and the sad excuses for dialog and face animation left a bad taste in my mouth.

Considering it was a Christmas Present, it was fun enough to play, and I'm sure I'll pick it up again eventually. However, I'd recommend renting, as it only takes a few days to actually complete the game, and there's not much replay value in it at all, except to play a few missions over again, and getting higher rankings.

 

[GloatingSwine]

It's the typical war-time RPG game, and doesn't deviate too much, except for a rare insert of World War II-style discrimination towards a group of people.

Actually, Valkyria Chronicles is fairly atypical when it comes to videogame war stories (particularly those from Japan, there is a reason for this, of which more later).

Most RPG war stories feature an ensemble cast of flower hugging peaceniks who somehow manage to have joined a military organisation despite having absolutely no desire or interest in fighting whatsoever, and would all much rather sit down for a picnic with the enemies. The reason for this is because it worked for Gundam, so by cracky it'll work for us too.

Valkyria Chronicles is not like this. The characters in Valkyria Chronicles take the eminently more useful route of going and getting the tank out of the garage (literally. The main character had a tank in his garage, his little sister kept it in fighting shape, you know, just in case) and busting some heads, and they don't stop busting heads until they win.

Really, they should have made everything snowier, so it felt even more like the Winter War, where a tiny nation of immense badasses (Finland) thoroughly embarassed the largest army on the planet (Russia).

In other news, the rest of your opinion is wrong as well.

 

[The Wooster]

I call shenanigans. It's taken me more than a week to get through.

It's very good but sadly far from perfect. The game's odd choice of turn based movement makes keeping your units together and/or, firing multiple times with the same unit a complete chore. Having to select a unit, fire, deselect unit, select unit again, all with two or three confirmation boxes is completely unnecessary. The AI is atrocious and not very proactive at all, often sitting squat in the middle of a map when advancing would be a much better option, which makes the game more of a puzzler than a strategy game. The game's rank system, which determines how much experience and money you earn is also deeply flawed. The only thing it takes into account is the amount of moves you've used. To score an A rank you have to play the game badly, simply by taking one unit and running like hell till you hit/complete an objective. Not fun.

But just because the AI is stupid doesn't mean the game is easy. Oh no. The AI cheats like a ************. It's constantly aware of your unit's range of counter fire and will constantly skirt around it during it's turn. When the player moves, exiting your turn brings up a confirmation menu (of which there are far too many) but the enemy can still shoot you while you're selecting an option. The AI starts and ends it's turn instantly, giving your units very little chance for counter fire.

The story misses a few opportunities as well. Galia is a land of universal conscription but the game never really addresses this issue, the fact that one of your shocktroopers is twelve years old is also ignored. The game establishes early on that the Empire is super bad, IE shooting civilians in the back for no reason bad. It's very Black/White which is a shame.

I'm ragging on the game pretty hard here but I honestly really enjoyed it. The characterization of your troops, particularly some of the random ones you recruit is brilliant. Leveling up classes unlocks various different character traits in your troops, traits which are then explained in their personnel file. This extra information about your troops makes it even more harrowing when you lose one in battle. Permanent character death was a great touch.
The combat system is generally pretty sharp too. The issues I pointed out early should (hopefully) be ironed out with a muchly deserved sequel.

Also the laser drill gun is a big pile of dick on chips and the designers are cunts for introducing it into the game. Insta-laser-death my ass.

 

[GloatingSwine]

It's very good but sadly far from perfect. The game's odd choice of turn based movement makes keeping your units together and/or, firing multiple times with the same unit a complete chore.

Why is turn based movement an "odd choice" in a turn based strategy game?

 

[The Wooster]

It's very good but sadly far from perfect. The game's odd choice of turn based movement makes keeping your units together and/or, firing multiple times with the same unit a complete chore.

Why is turn based movement an "odd choice" in a turn based strategy game?

It's not the fact it's turn based. It's the way the turn based system is implemented. You have to reselect a character each time you to fire and there's nothing really to stop you from using all your control points on the same character. Take for example the fight against Batomys. Lining your trenches with Lancers would seem like a sound strategy but because the way the system works one lancer alone is just as effective. This is especially true on classes with infinite ammo. Why bother sending in two scouts to cover a position when you can just use two turns on one unit and have him run all the way around to the back of the enemy position and shoot them in the face. It's not a game killer but it sucks a lot of the strategy out of the game. The fact some characters will join in during an attack is handy, but not enough to rule out the whole 'point blank headshot' technique.

Oh and the fact sandbags provide cover even when the enemy is crouched in front of them is pretty aggrivating as well. Especially when it seems to make lancers bulletproof.

 

[GloatingSwine]

You have to reselect a character each time you to fire and there's nothing really to stop you from using all your control points on the same character.

Those are inherent features of a command point/activations style system. Valkyria Chronicles isn't the only game I've played like this.

It does encourage re-using the same character multiple times, though the effectiveness of that as a strategy in VC is a specific issue of balance, especially in AP recovery. (I would actually have AP not recover at all, but you can continue spending CP to fire in place). Backing out and reselecting the character helps to ensure that you don't accidentally spend an extra CP to reactivate a character.

Why bother sending in two scouts to cover a position when you can just use two turns on one unit and have him run all the way around to the back of the enemy position and shoot them in the face. It's not a game killer but it sucks a lot of the strategy out of the game.

This is more a problem with the way turns alternate rather than alternating CP. If you alternated spending CP, ending your turn in cover would be much more important, so running up and leaving yourself exposed in order to get an easier headshot would be less desirable, as would rushing multiple units with a single one.

Oh and the fact sandbags provide cover even when the enemy is crouched in front of them is pretty aggrivating as well. Especially when it seems to make lancers bulletproof.

That's an abstraction issue. I think it's about right, because if cover was simple line of sight, it would be useless in the late game, because snipers and scouts would simply ignore it, as they're all accurate enough to hit around cover at long range.

 

[The Wooster]

That's an abstraction issue. I think it's about right, because if cover was simple line of sight, it would be useless in the late game, because snipers and scouts would simply ignore it, as they're all accurate enough to hit around cover at long range.

I don't think it should be a simple matter of line of sight (although that is an in game issue, the AI will occasionally unload clip after clip into trees) but more that the cover bonus shouldn't be applied (Which is a bit OTT in my opinion) if there isn't any actual cover between the two units. I also don't think the cover system should affect sniper fire since that's what snipers were traditionally used for. Simply driving your tank over a units cover and headshotting them with the main cannon gets old fairly quickly. It'd be nice if units could take cover behind any structure as well. It'd make urban combat loads more fun.

Like I said they're not deal breakers. Just things I'd like to see fixed if/when there is a sequel.

 

[The Wooster]

Isn't the whole point of flamethrowers and the Shamrock's flame attachment to deal with units crouching behind cover? You can one-shot every infantry unit in the game (including Lancers) with the default flamethrower.

Snipers would be far too powerful if they could ignore cover with every shot. They're arguably overpowered as it is, although you could just as easily beat the game without ever using one.

One of the weirdest things about the game for me is that Largo & Rosie become essentially useless when you unlock their relevant classes' final potentials. You'd think the main story characters would always be the most useful.

I found the snipers generally worthless. Very few maps featured extreme enough ranges to make them more reliable than just moving a scout into range and unloading. Add that to the fact that Galia insists on hiring only the finest cripples and you have a class that's more trouble than it's worth. It'd be nice if they could use defensive fire reliably as well. Cutting off infantry routes with a well positioned sniper would make urban combat more thrilling.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Snipers can be situationally very powerful. If you can get them to a position where they have a clear line of sight they can dominate a battlefield.

They are constrained a bit by low AP though, and scouts are overpowered anyway in the later game, so they're not always useful.