Valkyria Chronicles

[Cigol]

Ouch. So I just tried the demo for this and I have to say I'm really genuinely impressed, not to mention giddy with excitement as to how the full version holds up. For those that haven't tried it the game is a turn-based strategy title with pseudo-real-time segments for when you control your units directly. I don't know anything about the story, or the setting but at a glance I'd say it's a super good guys vs super bad guys type of affair.

You start off deploying your chosen characters on the battlefield using an overhead map, and once everyone is in place you use up your limited, and precious command points to then take control of them individually, one at a time. It's at this point the action switches to a third person viewpoint in what I guess you could call pseudo-real-time, and where you can run around freely, get into position for a better shot, take cover, fire your weapon or use special items (like healing comrades or repairing vehicles). The only time you'll be interrupted in this mode by the enemy is when you enter their line of sight (which means you'll be shot at) or you shoot at someone and they get a courteous moment to return fire.

It's all very simple and straightforward, and the interface and controls are too, so there's no barrier to enjoying it like most games of this nature. The characters appear nicely fleshed out with appropriately cute skills and deficiencies that come into play during battles - and the opening skit is suggestive of a strong singleplayer storyline. I'm not sure about multiplayer, but it seems suited to that sort of thing so hopefully that's covered too.

I love the stylistic approach they've taken, especially in regards to the amazing graphics. Whilst it might not be a technological juggernaut like, say, the less attractive Crysis, it looks and moves fucking great nonetheless. The aesthetics are spot on, and won me over straight away - sort of like Team Fortress 2 in that respect. I just hope the full game lives up to the potential the demo hints at.

[Chris]

"Whilst it might not be a technological juggernaut like, say, the less attractive Crysis"

Oh give me a break. Can the Class of Discerning Gamers please stop indiscriminately shitting on Crysis every two seconds for attempting a particular kind of high graphical fidelity? Who are you informing with that comparison?

(Meanwhile, once again, TF2--indeed a fantastic-looking game--gets another basically unnecessary shoutout. Is all of gaming visuals now just a spectrum with Crysis on the shit end and TF2 on the holy grail end and everything else somewhere in between?)

Crysis is a fucking great looking game with goals that are 100% completely different to the visual goals of this game. Even if you don't think it looks good, what does it have to do with this at all? God, if I were one of the visual designers of that game I'd be so depressed by reading gaming forums and seeing this kind of crap everywhere.

[Cigol]

In discussing a game which takes a similar approach to 'Team Fortress 2' in both aesthetics and style I compared and contrasted it to the technological tour de force / de facto best graphics / can-your-pc-run-it Crysis. I didn't realise I had to pick games out of a hat in order to avoid people nitpicking - so as a PC gamer I simply picked the most pertinent and obvious games that came to mind demonstrating this. The significance is in my appreciation of the graphics in spite of their technological inferiority. So I apologise if I've offended any of it's creators by drawing allusions to aesthetics trumping technology, but I fail to see the problem here at all.

[Chris]

In discussing a game which takes a similar approach to 'Team Fortress 2' in both aesthetics and style I compared and contrasted it to the technological tour de force / de facto best graphics / can-your-pc-run-it Crysis. I didn't realise I had to pick games out of a hat in order to avoid people nitpicking - so as a PC gamer I simply picked the most pertinent and obvious games that came to mind demonstrating this. The significance is in my appreciation of the graphics in spite of their technological inferiority. So I apologise if I've offended any of it's creators by drawing allusions to aesthetics trumping technology, but I fail to see the problem here at all.

Why does this matter? Why can't you just prefer how one game looks? Your implication is that somehow graphical capability is inherently crass. It's like some kind of badge of honor--"Don't worry guys, I know Crysis is less attractive, I'm not suckered in!" I see this attitude among certain gamers all the time. Valkyria undoubtedly has to do a whole lot of technical whizbangery in order to achieve its look--and yet, since it's not photorealistic, it becomes the nontechnical underdog with heart against big dumb realistic Crysis.

"It looks and moves fucking great nonetheless," you say--the implication there is that it's simply assumed by everyone that we're still in an era where the most pixels win, except you and your fellow discerning gamers know that Team Fortress 2 and Valkyria Chronicles look better than that over-technical, lowest-common-demoninator trash. Why "nonetheless" why not just "It looks and moves fucking great"?

It's just the overarching narrative about TF2 vs. Crysis that really gets me. It pops up all the time. Your post reads like it's self-evident that graphics that are exaggerated or that use unusual color palettes are simply better than those that don't, and that was the extent of your comments on the graphics.

You didn't say a single thing you like about how this game looks. All you said is that it looks better than Crysis and is similar to TF2, and you said it's "stylistic." EVERYBODY KNOWS this isn't what Crysis does. Crysis, believe it or not, does have a style, it's just not this one.

Personally, I love the pencil-hatch overlays and almost watercolor-like smoke effect I see in one of those shots. I don't like what appears to be painfully typical huge-eyes anime character design, at least as seen in the second screenshot in your post. There's my quick take, no TF2 or Crysis comparisons needed.

[n0wak]

I'm very curious about this game, it's one of my most anticipated, but I worry that the whole strategic element is going to be simpler than it could be. I worry that it'd fall into the whole Japanese SRPG routine of leveling up, buying gear until you can overpower everyone -- which undermines the whole unit placement and flanking and strategic elements that the game seems to have. Any thoughts about how the game feels in that regard?

[toblix]

Not to interrupt or anything, but what platform is this on?

[n0wak]

Not to interrupt or anything, but what platform is this on?

PS3.

[DanJW]

Chris, it's a backlash against the years of tyranny that processor-intensive high-end graphics had over the elegance of good art built on mid-range engines. Payback's a bitch.

Is this podcast-crew-have-a-tantrum-and-shout-at-forumites day or something?

[Chris]

Chris, it's a backlash against the years of tyranny that processor-intensive high-end graphics had over the elegance of good art built on mid-range engines. Payback's a bitch.

God I hope you're being facetious.

Is this podcast-crew-have-a-tantrum-and-shout-at-forumites day or something?

[Cigol]

Huh? I came back from playing the demo and had one goal in mind when discussing the graphics and that was to illustrate how 'wow, gee-whiz-bang, amazing' they were. I didn't want people to come away thinking they were technologically amazing in that way Crysis is, but to understand they are amazing in the way Team Fortress 2's graphics are, first and foremost; stylistically, aesthetically and in accentuating the underlying mechanics of the game itself.

As I've pointed out, the games I picked to illustrate this were arbitrary and I resent the accusation I'm calling out Crysis as part of some wishy-washy internet meme as I genuinely think it's a lifeless husk, and I did from day one.

Your post reads like it's self-evident that graphics that are exaggerated or that use unusual color palettes are simply better than those that don't

This thread isn't about Crysis so I didn't see the need to bother justifying the comment with other more realistic, better looking and far more atmospheric games like STALKER.

Crysis, believe it or not, does have a style, it's just not this one.

Indeed. Just not a particularly arresting one.

Personally, I love the pencil-hatch overlays and almost watercolor-like smoke effect I see in one of those shots. I don't like what appears to be painfully typical huge-eyes anime character design, at least as seen in the second screenshot in your post. There's my quick take, no TF2 or Crysis comparisons needed.

Congratulations? I'm just a two-bit gamer. I don't have an English degree, I'm not a journalist or an aspiring writer - my post wasn't written for the adulation of millions - it was a jump off point to discuss a game I quite enjoyed playing. So you'll understand if I find the nitpicking & deconstruction of my posts to be rather needless acts themselves.

... ...

[Cigol]

I'm very curious about this game, it's one of my most anticipated, but I worry that the whole strategic element is going to be simpler than it could be. I worry that it'd fall into the whole Japanese SRPG routine of leveling up, buying gear until you can overpower everyone -- which undermines the whole unit placement and flanking and strategic elements that the game seems to have. Any thoughts about how the game feels in that regard?

The demo is limited with no campaign mode, and only a short single tutorial and skirmish mode on the same map, so there's no way of knowing. I've not played a lot of these type of games on the console either so I have no experience with them to draw from but I'd say your concerns are pretty relevant from what I've played. Time will tell I guess.

[Chris]

Huh? I came back from playing the demo and had one goal in mind when discussing the graphics and that was to illustrate how 'wow, gee-whiz-bang, amazing' they were. I didn't want people to come away thinking they were technologically amazing in that way Crysis is, but to understand they are amazing in the way Team Fortress 2's graphics are, first and foremost; stylistically, aesthetically and in accentuating the underlying mechanics of the game itself.

You didn't mention ANYTHING about the style except that there is one. I don't even understand what the technical side has to do with it AT ALL. This is a PlayStation 3 game, not a PC game, so what difference does it make? It's not like as a result of the lack of technical wizardry (which is total conjecture on your part) has any relevance. What difference does it make what's underneath, especially when none of us know?

As I've pointed out, the games I picked to illustrate this were arbitrary and I resent the accusation I'm calling out Crysis as part of some wishy-washy internet meme as I genuinely think it's a lifeless husk, and I did from day one.

They obviously weren't "arbitrary," as demonstrated by the second half of this quoted sentence.

This thread isn't about Crysis so I didn't see the need to bother justifying the comment with other more realistic, better looking and far more atmospheric games like STALKER.

Indeed. Just not a particularly arresting one.

I don't understand your point here. If Crysis is "a lifeless husk" and if it's just some shitty-looking game, and it has no atmosphere, then why compare it to a game that you think looks "fucking great"? That's hardly strong praise is it? "I think Crysis looks like dogshit, but at least this game looks better than that."

Congratulations? I'm just a two-bit gamer. I don't have an English degree, I'm not a journalist or an aspiring writer - my post wasn't written for the adulation of millions - it was a jump off point to discuss a game I quite enjoyed playing. So you'll understand if I find the nitpicking & deconstruction of my posts to be rather needless acts themselves.

I don't have an English degree either, and my head would explode if I were to learn that millions of people visited the Idle Thumbs forums.

... ...

Okay?

[DanJW]

I don't see what you're still arguing about Chris. Cigol said Crysis looks fine. He was just using a compare and contrast; the approach to graphical style is similar to TF2. It is different to Crysis. That's all. No value judgments.

Although I'm interested why you're is suddenly the Defender of Crysis. Are Crytek friends of yours or something? Are you backlashing against the general backlash? Backlash.

Backlash.

[Cigol]

Well, I would have thought the style is pretty evident from the screenshots, and I was doing well to write what I did in the first place. My apologies if I wasn't detailed enough for you.

They obviously weren't "arbitrary," as demonstrated by the second half of this quoted sentence.

No, they were arbitrary, my opinions on Crysis (prompted by your needless praise) are merely coincidental and complimentary, not overriding. If I wanted I could have picked another game but Crysis is an obvious frontrunner.

I don't understand your point here. If Crysis is "a lifeless husk" and if it's just some shitty-looking game, and it has no atmosphere, then why compare it to a game that you think looks "fucking great"? That's hardly strong praise is it? "I think Crysis looks like dogshit, but at least this game looks better than that."

Haha - but that's not what I said! Before you started nitpicking, and derailing the thread my point (I thought) was rather clearly, if poorly put.

As a gamer you know the difference between TECHNOLOGICALLY AMAZING, that feeling of something new and exciting, and VISUALLY AMAZING something that pushes the boundaries of existing technology. It's this distinction I wanted to draw attention to. It's a tenuous argument to begin with I guess - and it's presumptuous on the part of technology - but I thought it spoke to the gamer and I tried my best to get it across.

[Chris]

I don't see what you're still arguing about Chris. Cigol said Crysis looks fine. He was just using a compare and contrast; the approach to graphical style is similar to TF2. It is different to Crysis. That's all. No value judgments.

Although I'm interested why you're is suddenly the Defender of Crysis™. Are Crytek friends of yours or something? Are you backlashing against the general backlash? Backlash.

Backlash.

I'm not defending Crysis. Think whatever you like about Crysis. Think it's the ugliest shit that's ever been shat. Feel free. My issue is what I see all the time on internet forums--using it as the default go-to game to dismiss, in comparison to the True Path embodied by TF2 or whatever game happens to be in question.

I mean, this is a PS3 game. It uses the goddamn Cell and its seven SPUs. It's hardly pulling off a WoW-like feat of succeeding visually on sub-par hardware. Crysis is surely more demanding, but so what? Are the graphics good because they're less technically demanding than Crysis, or are they good because they're actually good?

Obviously, Cigol believes the answer is the latter, but the initial claim to me reads less like actual praise of one game, and more like snarky backhanding of another--I don't take issue with liking this game or disliking Crysis, I take issue with the false and frankly gratuitous comparison.

[Cigol]

I can see why you're jumping to conclusions. It's the 'less attractive' part of my post isn't it? The bit which in retrospect might sound snarky to someone like yourself - who stands in opposition to the 'backlash' and criticism directed at Crysis - but was in fact just an instinctual and matter-of-fact statement I made at the time. To me; Crysis is less attractive, and ignoring how 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', if I'd removed that comment what would you be complaining about?

I don't take issue with liking this game or disliking Crysis, I take issue with the false and frankly gratuitous comparison

I thought I'd already demonstrated why the comparison is justified at least two times already - you're just so in love with Crysis you can't see it.

In future I'll be sure to omit any personal inference from my posts. Get them fact checked, ring up developers to see how technologically advanced their games are in detail, and then filter out any references to Crysis & Fallout 2 before finally sending my draft to you for personal vetting... because seriously, I've already said sorry to the developers, what more do you want. Blood? Because that brings me to the interesting part about Valkryia Chronicles, it has no blood!

[Chris]

I can see why you're jumping to conclusions. It's the 'less attractive' part of my post isn't it? The bit which in retrospect might sound snarky to someone like yourself - who stands in opposition to the 'backlash' and criticism directed at Crysis - but was in fact just an instinctual and matter-of-fact statement I made at the time. To me; Crysis is less attractive, and ignoring how 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', if I'd removed that comment what would you be complaining about?

I thought I'd already demonstrated why the comparison is justified at least two times already - you're just so in love with Crysis you can't see it.

In future I'll be sure to omit any personal inference from my posts. Get them fact checked, ring up developers to see how technologically advanced their games are in detail, and then filter out any references to Crysis & Fallout 2 before finally sending my draft to you for personal vetting... because seriously, I've already said sorry to the developers, what more do you want. Blood? Because that brings me to the interesting part about Valkryia Chronicles, it has no blood!

Cool, I appreciate it.

[Marek]

Is this podcast-crew-have-a-tantrum-and-shout-at-forumites day or something?

Yeah I guess it is...

[Spaff]

sandy vagina hour?

[vimes]

.. sorry, Yufster

[Chris]

In retrospect, I kicked off this discussion bitchfest in a ridiculous way that clearly could only have ended in tears, so I apologize for that--truce?

[Cigol]

[Salka]

.. sorry, Yufster

What?

[vimes]

AHah, my bait worked.

Now, that you're here, entertain us. It's been a while.

[Cigol]

So, just going back to the game. I know I know, I'll be quick! It already has downloadable content available in Japan that allows you to play the same storyline from the perspective of the bad guys. At first I thought 'that sounds great' but the more I got to thinking about it the more I realised how that potentially undermines the complexity of the existing storyline. Maybe, maybe not... but it's released at the end of the month in Europe, so not long to wait to find out.

It's a bit overwhelming, I'm used to playing one game at a time on the PS3... but now there's two?