You have these individual characters, yet leveling up is the opposite of a traditional tactics RPG. In traditional games, each character levels up, and that’s where part of their personality comes from, whereas in this game, unit types level up. So you give them more personal identity but also they have less functional identity, because they level up together.
RN: That’s actually an area we had a lot of discussion on. Because we have about 50 sub characters – and including the primary characters it all adds up to maybe 60 characters – if we did it the way other RPGs would do, like you said, with level-ups per character, then players are going to have their favorite characters and not use any of the other characters, and we didn’t want that.
We wanted the players to always be able to choose different varieties of characters for each of their missions. You can choose about ten characters per mission. And then in order for us to do that we thought it would be better and easier for the player to choose other characters if all the units leveled up at the same time.
This explains how the actual system itself is very harsh in Valkyria Chronicles, in the sense that if your character dies they’re gone forever for that game. Each mission, it doesn’t matter how many characters die or how many characters you kill on the enemy’s side. It’s only whether you win or lose the battle with the number of turns you take.
And all the characters, no matter how much effort you put into using one character or the other, the units with the same dimensions level up at the same time. So in terms of the system itself, it’s very harsh. It doesn’t take into consideration each of the character’s personalities or weaknesses and strengths at all.
So that’s another way for the team to present the player with this situation of which characters you choose. And in this situation, do you kill off all your characters because you still have so many more left to use, and dispose of?
See, my read of that was that they wanted you to damn the casualties and take a ruthless attitude to achieving your objectives. Now, I completely agree with ImpAtom that while that sounds good – or at least interesting – on paper, it doesn’t work at all in practice.
Ok, thanks for the elaboration, Mind! I get what you’re saying now.
I played through the original Valkyria Chronicles campaign without losing anybody, achieved many A’s and didn’t just scout rush. The later missions are more elaborate and don’t require straight running through. As I recall it, there was usually enough time to get an A or B with a more combined arms approach. Sometimes playing half the mission to scope out the field and scripted events and then restarting was necessary to get an A, though.
It’s been a while and I’d have to revisit the missions to be sure but I can’t recall that many gamey rushes necessary to get an A. Some missions, sure, but at least in the later half of the game it’s rare.
No worries! My experience with the campaign was similar to yours. I think the three-turn grace period to call in a medic for KO’d troops means there’s absolutely no need to be ruthless in the first place – VC is quite a forgiving game in that regard.
Unless they’re downed anywhere near the opposing troops, in which case you usually have to get to them immediately or the enemy will kill them off for good. I found VC quite unforgiving in that regard. :)
As for the scoring system, I understand the rationale listed above, but it would obviously be more rewarding and would encourage smart tactics if it were based on multiple factors. If there’s some reason that’s prohibited, then they should at least raise the amount of turns it takes to get an A and then 1) make the damage from enemies hurt much more, 2) put more enemies on each map, or 3) both. It is ridiculously easy in most cases to have your scout run through the direct fire of a single enemy unit and take little damage. The scout can then zig zag right up to the other soldier and shoot him in the head or breeze into an unoccupied camp for a capture.
If we have to have a speed-oriented battlefield, then making the scout more fragile would help balance that out.
… Yeah, point taken. You know, I never really thought about the in-world implications of that until now. Does that mean the Imperials finish off wounded Gallians with a bullet to the head? gulp
It seems like your guys do the same thing, to be fair. In VC2, for example, there’s a order some enemies have which revive all their downed troops, unless you get to them first. Pretty creepy when you think about it.
Sorry for folks who were hoping, but a Famitsu leak seems to confirm that Valkyria Chronicles 3 is a PSP game. The table of contents from upcoming Famitsu lists it as PSP, it seems.
Oh, another thing that would fix the overuse of one fast moving character towards the objective would be to increase the CP cost of the activation by one each time.
I didn’t pay any attention to the grades, in terms of trying to achieve a certain one. I just played to achieve the goal in whatever way worked. I don’t think I got very many A’s. Why would the fact that there are grades stop you from playing? You just…play.
I think the problem with that is that VC rewards you for doing well, and it can be really easy to feel like you’re being weakened if you get bad ratings, even if the game really isn’t that hard. I think you got fewer Royal Weapons in VC1 if you did badly in fights, for example, even ignoring the experience and money.
Personally, I love scoring systems. I find them to give me something interesting to shoot for in games, as long as they’re well designed.
Art of Valkyria Chronicles 3. Looks like it is actually set during the same time period as the first game, but following a group of criminals/prisoners turned soldiers.
In many cases, it’s because consequence-free tactical RPGs like Valkyria (as opposed to Fire Emblem’s “permadeaths” for instance) are often challenge free if there are no strings attached to the victory. Often, VC1 dealt with that in part by assigning objectives that forced you to jump through silly hoops, but the core of their effort to induce a sense of challenge in the player was their grading system. Other games have opted to deal with this by going completely outside the box with the parallel goals (eg Disgaea’s color puzzles), but always with a grade in mind that allows you a certain level of flexibility while accomplishing the mission within reasonable parameters. The further the progression in the game, the more choice you should have about how you progress in the mission, and you should not receive inaccurate feedback as a result. Fewer turns should be one aspect of any grading scale that’s worth a damn.
Now, if that’s not of interest to you, then keep up the good work. But I don’t believe that fixing this would imperil your approach, and it would certainly help address the concern I have heard most among players that might otherwise have liked the game a lot more. Win/win.
As I alluded to earlier, VC had permadeaths (except for the lead characters) so I wouldn’t call it “consequence-free.”
But I agree with your other points, as well as what ImpAtom and others often bring up, which is that the primary reason the ranking system matters in VC is that it directly affects your progression. Get constant Ds, and you’ll never win the arms race. In fact, the system is kind of sadistic: if you play poorly, the game gets even harder by denying you upgrades, which makes you do even worse.
An “S” in Advance Wars is a bragging right. An “A” in Valkyria Chronicles is survival.
Figure I might as well add what little extra information I’ve been able to gather:
The game is set during the original conflict. The main character is Kurt, a perfectionist-genius in the Gallian army who is put in charge of The Nameless, a group of convicts/criminals/ect who are given the worst-of-the-worst jobs, like landmine disposal or corpse burying.
It looks like they’re introducing some new mechanics. One of the main characters, Layla (or something akin to that) is a Valkyria and you’ll actually be able to use her abilities in combat, although it appears to be some kind of limited ‘super mode.’
The game’s plot structure has been reworked to be more like Valkyria Chronicles 1. The game is no longer ‘mission based’ but will instead have a more linear story ala VC1. The game is still area based, but the areas are supposed to be more unique and interesting. There will also be no wireless play in this one.
Doesn’t seem like it it is going to do anything to satisfy people who were unhappy with a PSP release. They said the reason for a PSP release is that they can’t think of any ‘major changes’ that would justify a new console version of the series, and that the portability of the PSP is considered more useful considering how ‘busy’ people are.
Really? Like in regular fights as opposed to scripted moments? I don’t remember that part at all. Oh well, I guess I take that back, I just remember a game where I could replay missions without costs or even reloading so I assumed all deaths were temporary.
But I agree with your other points, as well as what ImpAtom and others often bring up, which is that the primary reason the ranking system matters in VC is that it directly affects your progression. Get constant Ds, and you’ll never win the arms race. In fact, the system is kind of sadistic: if you play poorly, the game gets even harder by denying you upgrades, which makes you do even worse.
An “S” in Advance Wars is a bragging right. An “A” in Valkyria Chronicles is survival.
Didn’t you have the ability to go back and raise your scores at any time?
I guess I’m glad I didn’t stick with it and significantly less concerned about this being PSP title.
Yes. If you don’t get to a fallen comrade within three turns or if an enemy gets to them first, they die permanently. They even have farewell lines they deliver. This is covered in the Gamasutra interview if you’d like to learn more. The main characters cannot permadie except if dictated by the script - DUN DUN.
Didn’t you have the ability to go back and raise your scores at any time?
If I recall correctly, you can only replay the bonus missions endlessly to grind money. Story missions you can access again only in New Game+.
I guess I’m glad I didn’t stick with it
I’d say you’re missing out on a great experience if you can get over your predilection for A’s. I think it is reasonably possible to finish the game while not getting straight A’s or maybe even B’s. It’s not a super-grindy Japanese RPG as far as I understand.
Maybe the solution for some people (I’m not trying to be coy, this seems to be an issue for many) could be to just play in a way they enjoy through the campaign and then get their A’s in New Game+. Win-win!
This is more likely to work than waiting for the game first to change the basic design and then to get back on PS3. But I understand not everyone likes every game and has plenty of games in their backlog anyway.
The story resolution was exceptionally satisfying in Valkyria Chronicles. It’s worth playing to get that. Very few games achieve this.
What?! I don’t need any changes! I just want a new story to get an excuse to play Valkyria Chronicles again! Although they could improve the grading, that would be justification enough.
Keep in mind that Valkyria Chronicles sold pretty badly. I think it did better in the long haul then they expected, but it didn’t sell very well. I recall reading that a big reason we even got a VC2 was because the anime was an unexpected success. So what I think they’re trying to say is that they don’t want to do something on the PS3 until they’re sure that they can add features or ideas that will attract an audience that justifies the development time and cost.
There’s not much call for turn-based tactical combat games, more’s the pity. That’s why Valkyria Chronicles should be cherished as the rare fragrant desert flower it is even with its cel-shaded leaf-hidden jagged thorns.
