Zero Punctuation: Valkyria Chronicles

[runtheplacered]

I don't understand... Valkyria Chronicles isn't a JRPG. Why is everybody calling it that? To just throw it into the "JRPG" bin makes it sound like "just another Final Fantasy clone", when it's absolutely nothing like it.

Typically I hate the stereotypical anime character, but I found the characters in this game to be fairly tame, therefore palatable.

 

[runtheplacered]

While I normally agree with Yahtzee, I have to disagree with this game being bad. The game does warn you to save before every battle. While the amount of menus can get annoying, after a few hours of playing it I don't mind it. The combat in the game is fun, and just cause they are only shooting at you doesn't mean everyone else is safe. You can run past someone on your team, and if they are shooting at you, can hit and kill that person.

If you scroll down in the R&D menu for weapons, they do branch off into different types, focusing on certain aspects, so the "singular path" part is a crock of bull for most weapons. The characters aren't the norm stereotypes, and if you read the backstory for Welkins, its not just cause of him owning a tank. He, like many youth, had to take some military training. He followed in his father's footsteps, as did his "sister" Isara, and took classes based on what he's doing now, same as her following her engineer father's footsteps.

If you decided not to get this game solely on what he has said, you are a tool, try the game out before-hand.

Who are you trying to convince? Who? Why? Honestly, the effort isn't worth it. Especially if you don't understand a key element. Taste. It's a matter of taste. What do you like? You like Valkyria Chronicles? Good. Keep liking it. Yahtzee doesn't. Move on.

You'll find that people have different tastes. Some people like chocolate, some people like Vanilla. Some people like Halo, some people like Half-Life. You can't just tell them they are wrong because you liked/hated the thing. They have every right to like whatever they want.

And you want to know the real funny thing? Yahtzee ain't telling you to like or dislike anything. All he is doing is sharing his opinion on the matter and making money while he does it. He even talked about it in the mailbag showdown. It's hilarious.

Why people have this kind of crusader mentality to defend whatever they like is beyond me. It doesn't do anything but cause great big and usually annoying arguments (although you have been well-behaved, thankfully, and courteous in your remarks; many people are not). The companies don't care and care less about the people defending them. But either way, you aren't changing the mind of the person (IE Yahtzee) or anyone that thinks like him. They are more or less set in their opinion as you are in yours.

So, in summary. Opinions are like a-holes. Everybody has one. No, no. People are different and will like different things so get use to it. The sooner you do, the more fun you'll have.

So we have to sit and listen to somebody's opinion but we're not allowed to give our own opinion? I think I'll pass on your advice, if you don't mind.

 

[NoSeraph]

But yeah, enemies should NEVER be able to shoot you when it's not their turn in a TBS. I don't think I've ever encountered that in all my TBS gaming.

I disagree - having enemies shoot at you while you move ("intercepting fire" in VC) is a great idea to move the genre forward (or revolutinise it, in this case). Intercepting fire requires a good deal more strategy and planning on the player's part, since it forces him to plan out his movements to avoid ambushes and even gives him the option to set up his own. It also negates the traditional tactic of sending one super-soldier in there and killing everyone unopposed.

The likely reason you've never encountered this is because VC is the only game that does this (at least that I can think of) and it certainly matches very well into its hybrid tactic/action gameplay. It's truly a step forward in game design, in my opinion.

 

[skitskat]

Wooo! ben referenced my home town! hurrah for swindon! (not, its actually a really bad place to be)

also, hurrah for having the same name as me!

 

[Erana]

...And in Japan, one is allowed to fall in love with adopted siblings...
(See also: Love Hina)

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

I saw nothing in his video where his points were wrong. Why don't you point them out to me?

Gladly. I'll give you some examples:
1: The Empire is not the incarnation of ultimate evil (they are still portrayed as normal human beings, which I liked) and they are not only based on Nazis, but also on Prussia and the middle ages.
2: The Federation is just as bad, as shown in one chapter.
3: Let's just say that one case early in the game showed that being a main character with much screentime doesn't make you immortal.
4: The main character is squad leader because he was trained for that, not because he has a tank.
5: The backstory of soldiers is one page, not one sentence.
6: If your sniper hits one out of ten, then "you're doin' it wrong", if you excuse the bad joke.
7: Your own units also fire at enemys while they move, so it's fair.
8: You can also crouch behind other things than just sandbags.
9: Guns can be upgraded in three ways, not in one.
10: You can skip cutscenes.
11: Most of the characters aren't really androgynus.
12: I'm not entirely sure, but I think you can save at least every turn.

I think that were the main points.

I was saying that if you are influenced by Yahtzee's "reviews", then you shouldn't pay attention to them, since they seem to get your goat, or some such. Opinions are fine when they are based on facts. Your opinion is based on someone else's opinion...which means that it can be wrong. As I said, I saw absolutely nothing incorrect about Yahtzee's review, and I ask you to point out these mistakes to me.

I'm not influenced by his reviews, or I wouldn't play JRPGs, would I? And yes, my opinion is based on facts - namely that Yahtzee was wrong at the aforementioned points. I hope I could give you some insight in why I disagreed with him.

Yes, I can see where there is some disagreement, but I can also see his side of the criticism, as 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are all subjective based on the point of view. Ergo, his critism is valid, as is yours. He was not wrong in anything he said, maybe exaggerated, but not flat-out wrong.

 

[lleihsad]

I loved Valkyria Chronicles, but I'd have been an idiot if I thought Yahtzee would like it. I'd also have been an idiot if I took this review seriously and used it to decide whether or not I should have played this game. There's that "taste" thing, again. Great rant, but it isn't gospel.

Also, to Samurai Goomba, you must not have played many games of this type. Intercepting Fire is an old concept, it's just usually called "overwatch" or "sentry mode" or whatnot. I have especially strong memories of it in X-COM, where it was basically a form of random, arbitrary death in early game.

 

[Max-Vader]

Yes, I can see where there is some disagreement, but I can also see his side of the criticism, as 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are all subjective based on the point of view. Ergo, his critism is valid, as is yours. He was not wrong in anything he said, maybe exaggerated, but not flat-out wrong.

How is claiming that there is only one way to upgrade guns instead of three not flat out wrong?
And how are 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 subjective? His criticism was not valid, that was my only probem with his revew.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Yes, I can see where there is some disagreement, but I can also see his side of the criticism, as 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are all subjective based on the point of view. Ergo, his critism is valid, as is yours. He was not wrong in anything he said, maybe exaggerated, but not flat-out wrong.

How is claiming that there is only one way to upgrade guns instead of three not flat out wrong?

This was the exaggerated part. Once you chose power, accuracy or status effect, there is no other "trees". It's just a straight line on down, with no actual thought behind it. What he was saying that instead of going and choosing them, it could have been automatic.

And how are 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 subjective? His criticism was not valid, that was my only probem with his revew.

Alright:

4: The main character is squad leader because he was trained for that, not because he has a tank.

They gave him the leadership slot because of who his father was. The fact that he can drive a tank was a convenience. He's aluding to the tank being arbitrary. It's how they did it, not what they did.

5: The backstory of soldiers is one page, not one sentence.

Or one sentence within the game story itself. If you want to get the "backstory" of the characters, you have to unlock it by playing the characters, and then read it secondary to the game itself.

6: If your sniper hits one out of ten, then "you're doin' it wrong", if you excuse the bad joke.

Unless he chose the status effect bonus, or upgrading his other classes rather than his snipers...

7: Your own units also fire at enemys while they move, so it's fair.

Fair is semantics. He felt it had no place in a turn-based system, which is opinion, and I can see his arguement.

9: Guns can be upgraded in three ways, not in one.

The way it was set up, there was no reason for it. They split it up into 3 choices, but there was no point in having the choices.

10: You can skip cutscenes.

Unless you wanted the story, and then you had to choose each separately. It was a very clumsy system, and one that I hope they fix in a future game.

 

[Triple G]

I saw nothing in his video where his points were wrong. Why don't you point them out to me?

Gladly. I'll give you some examples:
1: The Empire is not the incarnation of ultimate evil (they are still portrayed as normal human beings, which I liked) and they are not only based on Nazis, but also on Prussia and the middle ages.
2: The Federation is just as bad, as shown in one chapter.
3: Let's just say that one case early in the game showed that being a main character with much screentime doesn't make you immortal.
4: The main character is squad leader because he was trained for that, not because he has a tank.
5: The backstory of soldiers is one page, not one sentence.
6: If your sniper hits one out of ten, then "you're doin' it wrong", if you excuse the bad joke.
7: Your own units also fire at enemys while they move, so it's fair.
8: You can also crouch behind other things than just sandbags.
9: Guns can be upgraded in three ways, not in one.
10: You can skip cutscenes.
11: Most of the characters aren't really androgynus.
12: I'm not entirely sure, but I think you can save at least every turn.

I think that were the main points.

I was saying that if you are influenced by Yahtzee's "reviews", then you shouldn't pay attention to them, since they seem to get your goat, or some such. Opinions are fine when they are based on facts. Your opinion is based on someone else's opinion...which means that it can be wrong. As I said, I saw absolutely nothing incorrect about Yahtzee's review, and I ask you to point out these mistakes to me.

I'm not influenced by his reviews, or I wouldn't play JRPGs, would I? And yes, my opinion is based on facts - namely that Yahtzee was wrong at the aforementioned points. I hope I could give you some insight in why I disagreed with him.

Sorry to like interrupt your discussion, but freakin' cry me a river. STOP spoiling people's fun and defending JRPGs. Do you try to be serious in a comedy club and spoiling the comedians jokes, too? This was like the best review in a month. Also Yathzee has some really valid points in his review, e.g. the "we rename real countries to evade historical accuracy" thing. Also as I understood the USSR was left out in this game.

What the hell? The USSR had like 80% of the war and has beaten the Germans almost singlehandetly, the so called "allies" dropped in after Germany already lost the key battles(Moscow, Stalingrad & Kursk).

There were only 2 real battles on the "western front".
1. D-Day, where the so called "Allies" had terrifying losses.
2. German offensive in the Ardennes in the Spring of 1944. This was like the only time the Germans really fought back on the western front after D-Day and the so called "Allies" almost got pushed back to the Atlantic Ocean. And you know what stopped the Germans? They run out of gas.

Besides that the so called "Allies" alomst didn't fight real soldiers at all. They fought 14-year old children and old men from the "Volkssturm" who had just old stuff because all the REAL stuff had to be moved to fight the USSR.

 

[SmithyTheDrummerBoy]

Yeh good review fella! I know exactly what he means with JRPGs, all the characters are just sooo..... ugh, infuriating! But there is something enthralling about them. Perhaps im just Obsessive compulsive

 

[Max-Vader]

This was the exaggerated part. Once you chose power, accuracy or status effect, there is no other "trees". It's just a straight line on down, with no actual thought behind it.

Doesn't matter. It's still three instead of one.

They gave him the leadership slot because of who his father was.

If that was the only factor, he would be useless. His training before was also important.

Or one sentence within the game story itself. If you want to get the "backstory" of the characters, you have to unlock it by playing the characters, and then read it secondary to the game itself.

Or play their sidequests. Still, it's more than one sentence.

Unless he chose the status effect bonus, or upgrading his other classes rather than his snipers...

Then he has even less reason to complain - he can't play (J)RPGs if this is the case.

Fair is semantics. He felt it had no place in a turn-based system, which is opinion, and I can see his arguement.

But why did he make it sound like only you are affected by it?

The way it was set up, there was no reason for it. They split it up into 3 choices, but there was no point in having the choices.

It isn't that critical, but it makes a difference.

Unless you wanted the story, and then you had to choose each separately. It was a very clumsy system, and one that I hope they fix in a future game.

Yes, it is a bad system. But Yahtzee didn't care about the story anyway, he could have skipped it.

Sorry to like interrupt your discussion, but freakin' cry me a river. STOP spoiling people's fun and defending JRPGs. Do you try to be serious in a comedy club and spoiling the comedians jokes, too? This was like the best review in a month.

How do I spoil your fun if I don't like it? Are you that sensitive that you throw fits when someone disagrees with your opinion?

Also Yathzee has some really valid points in his review, e.g. the "we rename real countries to evade historical accuracy" thing.

How is that a valid point? If the game get's more interesting or fun, then screw historical accuracy. I don't think evading it was what they were going for. Maybe they wanted to try a new spin on the endlessly retold World War 2.

 

[Commander Jack Rankin]

Yahtzee has done it again. I really loved the tank cannonballing into the pool.

 

[mokey91]

I hate jRPGs. So, I can sympathize with poor Mr. Croshaw.

This also marks the return of another gag: Chest High Walls!

And once more, the ending was the best part of the whole review, though I don't think anything will top the Halo Wars Panda ending.

 

[captain awesome 12]

Is it just me or does Yahtzee really like saying "androgynous"? I mean he said it like 6 times in that review.

 

[Grayjack]

Is it just me or does Yahtzee really like saying "androgynous"? I mean he said it like 6 times in that review.

The word does roll of the tongue.

 

[Therumancer]

I think he's at a loss for finding any better way to describe a lot of JRPG characters, it's actually a pretty fair term (Androgynous).

Other wise, one of these days Yahtzee will find an RPG game he loves, of couse chances are when that happens he won't review it, and will secretly play it in his basement so nobody finds out that he has become one of "us". >

That said Valkyria Chronicles is one of those games I want to play, but had so many others I want to try first. Maybe I'll find a copy in a budget bin in a few months or something (since it's already been out a while).

>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[captain awesome 12]

Is it just me or does Yahtzee really like saying "androgynous"? I mean he said it like 6 times in that review.

The word does roll of the tongue.

An astute observation. I guess that's why it stood out to me. Or maybe because the sentence was "standing there like an androgynous wooden duck!"

 

[Break]

Also Yathzee has some really valid points in his review, e.g. the "we rename real countries to evade historical accuracy" thing. Also as I understood the USSR was left out in this game.

Wait, no, what? That's not even... Being near identical to real-world countries was the point. It was... The whole premise was WWII in an alternate universe with fantasy elements. Saying that they did it to avoid historical accuracy, makes as much sense as accusing a tribute band of plagiarism. You've got the order mixed up.

This was the exaggerated part. Once you chose power, accuracy or status effect, there is no other "trees". It's just a straight line on down, with no actual thought behind it. What he was saying that instead of going and choosing them, it could have been automatic.

Except that, y'know, that's not at all true. Sure, the difference between accuracy, firepower, and clip size in the machine guns is relatively minor, but the ability to have some of your units use the weak status-ailment guns for support was a useful addition. Moreover, you simply can't say that the difference between anti-tank rockets and anti-personnel grenade launchers is nothing.

It could've been automatic, yes. Instead, they had the player take management of their army into their own hands, so they could control the exact growth and development of their forces, trying to mold an army that most suits the player's style, using the available gold and EXP. This is a strategy game, why is it considered a flaw when the player is able to influence the minute details of their units?

Or one sentence within the game story itself. If you want to get the "backstory" of the characters, you have to unlock it by playing the characters, and then read it secondary to the game itself.

What are you even saying? How does that make a difference? "Within the game story itself", the buggers don't exist! This isn't Fire Emblem, where all your unit aquisitions are from personally talking to a character and persuading them to join you. Until you make the effort to use them, they're just faceless grunts. I don't understand how you're taking a full page of entirely optional biography that's unlocked by simply using the unit (in a strategy game, a genre populated by characters who get a short line to introduce themselves, and are promptly forgotten) and you're trying to turn it into a flaw! What are you even... How do you... It's just not... I don't know what to say to this. It's just... Geh.

Unless he chose the status effect bonus, or upgrading his other classes rather than his snipers...

Oh my lord! A glass cannon class that becomes stupendously powerful later on is hard to use in the beginning! What kind of game is this? How dare they try to balance out your characters! What the hell was Sega thinking. Everyone knows sniping in games should be a twitch-shoot affair that utterly dominates everything at any kind of range. Tch.

Look, there are... Many, many flaws, in VC. The clunky menu system, the pointless cutscene segmenting, the gap in which you're open to enemy fire when you're trying to end your turn, the indecisive nature of the cover system, to name a bare minimum. But a lot of the ones you're trying to maintain, are just... Not realistic complaints to make.

Ugh, the longest post I've made in quite some time, and it's countering a Yahtzee fan in a ZP comments thread. I feel sick.

 

[zenoaugustus]

pretty good except for that republican joke because it's not true, if he meant Dick Cheney and compasion then i might let that slide and why not say that instead of pointing of a huge group of people. Even a Democrats and Republicans comparison would be better. Oh well, still one of my favorite ZP's.

You can't come to the defense of Republicans everytime someone takes a crack at them. I mean, I don't care if people insult Democrats. Whatever, it's just a joke. Was it funny, well in this case I thought his Republican joke was, so why care?