Valkyria Chronicles Spin-Off Will Expand Series by Ditching Its Best Parts

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
Oh hey, an action-RPG where you only control one character at a time and 90% of the combat runs itself automatically. What a fresh, original new direction. I've never seen that before in a game.

What a massive disappointment. Why in the blue-hell are they trying to ape Square's recent battle systems? Square hasn't made a single good game in literally a decade (except Bravely Default, apparently, but I missed that one), and every battle-system they've tried since Final Fantasy X has been absolutely awful to play.

If you're a JRPG maker nowadays, you should be trying to be as not-squareenix as you can be. But, today's conventional gaming wisdom says that turn-based strategy is dead. Nevermind all the successful turn-based games out there, or what your fans actually enjoyed the last time.
 

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
Valkyria Chronicles was probably the single freshest take on the Tactical RPG genre in years. It had its flaws, but the system was a smart new take and worked incredibly well for an entirely new style of system. The feel of the game was appropriately military and surprisingly realistic in tone for a game with such a heavy fantasy theme (that of the Valkyrur) running through it.

They bring out a cult classic in the form of Valkyria Chronicles. Then decide to shift the sequel to the PSP (where it never really sat happily) and some things were definitely lost in that shift but okay, at least it was a sequel. Then they brought a third game out which didn't even get brought across. Finally they brought it out on Steam where it apparently did well enough for a remastered version to be made.

And apparently interest was enough to bring out a new game. So as a result they've decided to turn it into the same kind of ridiculous action RPG that's infesting the Final Fantasy series.

Wait what?

This is probably the single dumbest thing I've ever seen anyone do with a game franchise.

I actually genuinely can't think of a stupider move offhand. I kinda expect this from Square Enix these days because they've not actually produced a proper Final Fantasy since X-2 and that was thirteen years ago. But Sega, what are you THINKING?

Remember the backlash against The Bureau? And the disappointment which hung over that project throughout its entire development that people weren't getting a proper XCOM game? This is worse. At least with The Bureau there was the potential for actual XCOM elements there. This is just...a mess. A third person action RPG with hack and slash gameplay combined with a third person shooter? Enemy AI looks atrocious. Outfits look more ridiculous than in previous games, they were stylised before but now despite looking 'flashier' they look even more generic JRPG.


Basically my brain is doing precisely this right now:

PunkRex said:
Oh... OH... OH NO, THAT'S COOL, YEAH, NO, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE! HAHAHA!! FINE, FINE, FINE!!!
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
MC1980 said:
Far be it from me to stop anyone from shitting on a game that seemingly deserves it, but I would like to say that the developers have made it clear that this game is a spinoff and not a full on Chronicles sequel.

There's hope yet that they'll make VC4 and never release it outside of Japan, like the last sequel. (And not much of value was lost, from what I'm hearing.)
I've decided to tweak the title a little bit to be more fair. My apologies for the inaccuracy.
 

Zio_IV

Not a Premium Member
Sep 17, 2011
178
0
0
Uhhh, I'm not completely against changes in a series over time or anything, but just like anything, there is such a thing as too much of it. I love VC1, loved VC2 and the ways it improved the job/battle mechanics, and am still super salty at Sega not wanting our money in exchange for VC3..... yet as I watched this demo that had VC in the title, I found myself having zero interest in what I saw.

I mean, I know this'll appeal to some people out there, and that's totally fine, but... I just need a moment to myself here....

Casual Shinji said:
Well, at least the original will get a remaster.
This is pretty much where I'm at as well.
 

Colt47

New member
Oct 31, 2012
1,065
0
0
I'm not sure what people expected coming from the series that gave us strong aesthetics and setting, then tossing it all to the wind with a slow creep towards cosplay outfits.
 

Kaimax

New member
Jul 25, 2012
422
0
0
It's SPIN-OFF (Man, you need these kinds of specifics cleared up first before making articles) I don't see any problem with it having drastic differences in playstles.

Imo, I feel they need to speed up the action. But seeing we haven't seen the harder levels yet. We're still unsure about the advantages and disadvantages of Shooting compared to CQC ing enemies.
 

Novus Ultimus

New member
Oct 14, 2010
11
0
0
What I find kind of sad about the evolution of the whole Valkyria Chronicles series is how it has shifted from firearm based combat to everyone swinging a sword around. This started in VC2, where they added an alternative anti-tank weapon in the form of a giant hammer, apparently in VC3 - which I have not played myself - they added even more melee options. I find it odd that in a world where there are plenty of guns, including rapid fire weapons, people are swinging swords around, whose idea was it to bring knives into a gunfight?

In the demo video we can see people with just swords running at people with guns, getting shot all the way. I can excuse the idea of melee weapons in close quarters combat situations, but why would anyone not bring a gun to the battlefield?

On top of that - and this is really my biggest complaint - in this spin off they even did away with the beautiful aesthetic of Valkyria Chronicles, switching from the illustration/watercolor style to something we see in every other game with only some vague resemblance to the previous.
 

wings012

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 7, 2011
853
305
68
Country
Malaysia
I was never a fan of VC's gameplay.

It was an interesting attempt and the change in perspective was novel. But once you got past the novelty, the fact that the gameplay is rather shoddy starts to rear its ugly head.

At its core, it is a tactical game. The fact you controlled the characters more directly and manually had to aim shots didn't really mean much of a thing. The only point at which reflexes come into play was just rushing your turn so the enemy could take less shots at you - which is a sort of janky thing in and of itself.

The actioney mechanics in my opinion, distracted from the gameplay. It was an imprecise platform from which to control your characters. You could translate a lot of things back to just a percentage based interface. The accuracy of your weapons were dependent on RNG/Spread for example, and functionally isn't too different than ordering a character to attack with 80% accuracy or a 40% accuracy headshot. Your own aim didn't exactly matter a whole lot. If I recall correctly, the game paused when you aimed so you were clicking on a stationary target - not really different from selecting from a menu. Once you fired, your character went ahead and fired a preset amount of shots anyway so there's no element of controlling recoil or anything.

Ultimately you just get a system where it's unclear how much you can move, odds of success are somewhat obscured which I feel overweighs any sort of novelty the perspective may bring. Also moving the tank is more aggravating than it needs to be, having it clip into the corners of things and having to use up its movement trying to get its shit together. And I vaguely recall grenades totally not doing what I wanted them to do.

I find fun in tactical games based on my choice of orders and the results of my orders. Having to wrangle with the execution of said orders is a bad thing. My characters in other tactical rpgs don't exactly trip on rocks. Controlling your characters directly maybe adds immersion? But not quite since you get janked back and forth between the tactical map anyway and you have the UI plopping up back and forth.

There's also all sorts of other issues - only sandbags functioning as cover. What's wrong with all those chest high walls? Also no flanking mechanics of any sort coupled by the fact that you are immune to headshots while in cover. I could accept such a mechanic with a bit of a stretch, fine he is in cover therefore no headshots cause game mechanics. But not even from behind?

Enemies having infinite shots at you while you take your turn, so you can't even pause to think about things. The enemy on the other hand takes and ends their turn with precise timing as to avoid most retaliatory fire. They can literally just walk into the firing sights of half your squad and immediately attack and escape any retaliation, whereas you'd be dead while pulling the menu up.

My opinion on improving VC would be to make it a proper Tactical game where moving your characters around is less of a crap shoot. Make it more like X-Com.

Or you can flip around and make a third person shooter. Except what I'm seeing is the jankiest action game I've seen. It sort of looks like its semi real time nonsense like a MMORPG, but at the same time not really? There's a ranged combat part which looks sort of like a third person shooter, then there's some melee nonsense where you're stuck within a circle and enemies float around like one of those crappy musou games. If you're going to make an action game, at least make a proper action game. Not whatever the hell this is shaping up to be.

I would've accepted anime-Call-Of-Duty with a dash of melee combat. This just looks terrible.

I suppose the saving grace is that this is some sort of spin off rather than a main title?
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,981
118
Casual Shinji said:
Worgen said:
I'm not surprised they would mess things up. After all, this was the game that gave us sudden silly boobs.

In the middle of an otherwise serious trailer, we suddenly have giant red boobs.
Her boobs were always bordering on ludicrous... This just shatters that border into a zillion pieces.
Soooo, you're saying her boobs are just like every other set of boobs created by Japanese animation? Got it.
 

burnout02urza

New member
Nov 22, 2009
51
0
0
To be completely honest, the main draw of Valkyria Chronicles was the chance to fuck Selvaria.

Missed opportunities there, folks. Missed opportunities. Why else do you think that all the love interests were also Valkyries? It's because everyone wanted to bang the Aryan girl.

All they really need to do is to make a Selvaria-lookalike romanceable, and people will flock to the game. That's really what we're all waiting for, the rest be damned.
 

Kaimax

New member
Jul 25, 2012
422
0
0
Wings012 said:
The only point at which reflexes come into play was just rushing your turn so the enemy could take less shots at you - which is a sort of janky thing in and of itself.
AKA the Alicia Bum Rush Lol. Can practically work with all levels that doesn't involve a boss or a specific objective.
 

nomotog_v1legacy

New member
Jun 21, 2013
909
0
0
Wings012 said:
I was never a fan of VC's gameplay.

It was an interesting attempt and the change in perspective was novel. But once you got past the novelty, the fact that the gameplay is rather shoddy starts to rear its ugly head.

At its core, it is a tactical game. The fact you controlled the characters more directly and manually had to aim shots didn't really mean much of a thing. The only point at which reflexes come into play was just rushing your turn so the enemy could take less shots at you - which is a sort of janky thing in and of itself.

The actioney mechanics in my opinion, distracted from the gameplay. It was an imprecise platform from which to control your characters. You could translate a lot of things back to just a percentage based interface. The accuracy of your weapons were dependent on RNG/Spread for example, and functionally isn't too different than ordering a character to attack with 80% accuracy or a 40% accuracy headshot. Your own aim didn't exactly matter a whole lot. If I recall correctly, the game paused when you aimed so you were clicking on a stationary target - not really different from selecting from a menu. Once you fired, your character went ahead and fired a preset amount of shots anyway so there's no element of controlling recoil or anything.

Ultimately you just get a system where it's unclear how much you can move, odds of success are somewhat obscured which I feel overweighs any sort of novelty the perspective may bring. Also moving the tank is more aggravating than it needs to be, having it clip into the corners of things and having to use up its movement trying to get its shit together. And I vaguely recall grenades totally not doing what I wanted them to do.

I find fun in tactical games based on my choice of orders and the results of my orders. Having to wrangle with the execution of said orders is a bad thing. My characters in other tactical rpgs don't exactly trip on rocks. Controlling your characters directly maybe adds immersion? But not quite since you get janked back and forth between the tactical map anyway and you have the UI plopping up back and forth.

There's also all sorts of other issues - only sandbags functioning as cover. What's wrong with all those chest high walls? Also no flanking mechanics of any sort coupled by the fact that you are immune to headshots while in cover. I could accept such a mechanic with a bit of a stretch, fine he is in cover therefore no headshots cause game mechanics. But not even from behind?

Enemies having infinite shots at you while you take your turn, so you can't even pause to think about things. The enemy on the other hand takes and ends their turn with precise timing as to avoid most retaliatory fire. They can literally just walk into the firing sights of half your squad and immediately attack and escape any retaliation, whereas you'd be dead while pulling the menu up.

My opinion on improving VC would be to make it a proper Tactical game where moving your characters around is less of a crap shoot. Make it more like X-Com.

Or you can flip around and make a third person shooter. Except what I'm seeing is the jankiest action game I've seen. It sort of looks like its semi real time nonsense like a MMORPG, but at the same time not really? There's a ranged combat part which looks sort of like a third person shooter, then there's some melee nonsense where you're stuck within a circle and enemies float around like one of those crappy musou games. If you're going to make an action game, at least make a proper action game. Not whatever the hell this is shaping up to be.

I would've accepted anime-Call-Of-Duty with a dash of melee combat. This just looks terrible.

I suppose the saving grace is that this is some sort of spin off rather than a main title?
If you make it more like xcom, then do you take away what makes it unique?

I rather liked how close you got to the characters. It's kind of a weird simplicity to making shots in third person. A lot of complex elements become very simple elements. Take shooting threw cover Xcom doesn't calculate how much the cover in between you and your target will mess up your shot. (If it did, then you wouldn't.) But because of VC's up close play style the game and the player just figure it out because they can see all the in between rocks and feel out your odds of hitting based on the size of your circle and what is in the way.
 

otakon17

New member
Jun 21, 2010
1,338
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Yeah, I don't know how much I'll like this. Could be good, but it just seems like the standard JRPG fare now, when the original's gameplay was tense and high stakes. You had to plan ahead, take risks, and combatants could actually die. This is like if XCOM turned into Mass Effect.

...

Well, at least the original will get a remaster.
You bring that up, can we get an XCOM-like Mass Effect game? That would be awesome, it could work damn well. Anyway...have some faith folks.
 

3asytarg3t

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2010
118
0
21
This is what happens when you're clueless about why the game you made has such wide appeal in spite of the fact everyone told you.

The remasters is the good news, so I'm fine with them ruining future iterations.
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Dec 6, 2010
5,655
24
13
Well that sounds fucking awesome and looks awesome. Consider me interested and now paying attention to development.
 

Kaimax

New member
Jul 25, 2012
422
0
0
Wow this thread is like seeing people "shit-on" Mario RPG for not being a jumping side scrolling game.
 

CyanCat47_v1legacy

New member
Nov 26, 2014
495
0
0
a lot of things annoyed me about valkyria chronicles. the tank was slightly harder to control thana pair of severed buttocks on a unisycle and the kooky anime tropes only got in the way of a pretty decent ww2 story. but the www2 element was actually really good whenever it got to be serious. how many ww2 games actually talk about the holocaust, hell how many JRPGs do. now they are basically just taking all the things that didn't work in a narrative and aesthetic sense and making a final fantasy game with it. i ddidn't use the adjective crappy because these days the phrase "final fantasy game" is an insult in itself
 

CyanCat47_v1legacy

New member
Nov 26, 2014
495
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Worgen said:
I'm not surprised they would mess things up. After all, this was the game that gave us sudden silly boobs.

In the middle of an otherwise serious trailer, we suddenly have giant red boobs.
Her boobs were always bordering on ludicrous... This just shatters that border into a zillion pieces.
I think those are actually supposed to be grenade pouches based on the fact that they are a pair of ANATOMICAL FREAKING IMPOSSIBILITIES. Japanese hetrosexual men need therapy. All of them and all of the therapy