Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Best Strategy RPGs Of All Time Rated

Posted by simoniker on from the new-rock-and-roll dept.

Thanks to eToychest for its round-up of the favorite console strategy RPGs of all time. The piece argues: "a strategy RPG is (generally) a console game in which battles take place over a grid", and highlights include Vandal Hearts ("This is where everyone interested in the genre should start"), the Tactics Ogre series ("the replay value here is unmatched, due to multiple endings in each game"), and Disgaea/La Pucelle Tactics both on the top spot ("If you don't know why these two titles are sharing number 1, go play them.")

3 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. No shining force? by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can you have such a chart with no shining force? Espically considering the recent re-release of the first one on the GBA. One really nice feature of this game is it keeps getting harder each time you finish it, seemingly without limit. I can't do runthrough 8 :(

    Also, I'm suprised to see Final Fantasy Tactics Advance in there. They note it's a poor game. I would say it's main flaws are it is almost impossible to die, and it feels cheap (almost no sprite isn't used multiple times with different colour schemes, including the main character).

    Disgaea: Hour of Darkness and La Pucelle: Tactics (I don't really know why these got merged, other than they recently came out and were made by the same people) are both great. I would say they are the first RPGs (strategy or otherwise) I've seen in a long time that I've really enjoyed, and also the only games in a long time I've laughed out loud at :)

    --
    Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
    1. Re:No shining force? by Paolomania · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. It is actually painful to see FFT so high on the list with no Shining Force at all. Sure FFT has prettier graphics and greater mechanical compliexity, but I found it lacking with respect to the original SF in two very important regards:

      First, the characters in FFT have no character. The class system makes everyone's abilities so fluid that the characters are merely putty to be molded into the perfect fighting machines. I prefer the Shining Force system of being given a selection of soldiers, each with their unique blend of abilities, strengths and weaknesses, and finding a combination of these unique talents that works for your strategy.

      Second, group formation and positioning is far less meaningful in FFT. With a group size of only five, you can't make much in the way of formations. With SF's twelve characters per group, you have a much wider diversity of tactical formations - even multi-group tactics, such as sending a small force behind the enemy front line to take out their healers, are possible. Also, because of the range and spread of spells in FFT, you cannot effectively create a formation that has any integrity against melee attacks without being absurdly vulnerable to magical attacks. In SF, making a formation that is slightly looser or tighter (for instance, shoulder-to-shoulder vs. "checkerboard") can subtly change how well your formation does against melee or magic based attacks.

      Certainly FFT has something going for it in the more complicated use of terrain, the complex plot, the complex game mechanics, and the beautiful spell graphics. However I always felt like it didn't quite have enough tactical substance as it could have. Over the years I have revisited Shining Force far more often than FFT - mostly because of the memorable characters and the interesting shapes of the battles that unfold.

  2. Get tactics and strategy straight, please by thrash242 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tactis are used in battles. They are specific to the time period, level of technology and terrain in which a battle is being fought. It is the art of using soldiers to win a battle. Strategy is large-scale; it deals in whole armies, divisions, countries, and the like (from a military perspective). It is using battles to win a war.

    Ever wonder why strategic classics like Sun Tzu's Art of War are still read today? Good strategic principles, being abstract and relatively timeless, can be applied to almost any area of one's life or any pursuit. On the other hand a book, no matter how detailed or well-written, about tactics would probably not be read 100 years later except by historians.

    Almost every "real-time strategy" game I've seen should instead be called "real-time tactics". The only strategic element in games like Warcraft and C&C is the resource economy and decisions about what to build next. All the combat is at the tactical level. An example of actual real-time strategy is Europa Universalis (technically it is real-time, although you can change the speed and pause).

    I've never played any of these RPGs, but unless your character is a general and you're leading whole armies, divisions, or the like, the combat at least is tactical, not strategic. Strategic elements common in RPGs are deciding how to develop and equip your character(s).

    I know some of you may think I'm nitpicking, but it is a pretty big distinction if you think about it. They are two different skills/sciences/arts and it is easy to be good at one while bad at the other.

    So please get it right, people. Thanks for your attention. We now return to your regularly scheduled Slashdot silliness.