Shadows of Valentia Reviews

[Tolvir]

1 hour ago, Harvey said:

@Tolvir Entertainment in general is a subjective matter that's a given. And its true that people can't like what you like and vice versa. Its also true that some people would be more opinion based than some others. 

Unfortunately, we're talking about people paid to do this kind of thing and IGN is one who just has absolutely no idea how to review games. As I said earlier, they are fully aware of Fire Emblem, heck they did a retrospective of it(which is torn now so don't bother searching) So knowing that Fire Emblem isn't about marriage and then saying that its what makes FE special is hypocritical.

 

Its IGN though, I dont think anyone has taken a review of theirs seriously within the last 5 years. Maybe for reference and comparisons to others, but IGN has been a joke among the gaming community for years. I would really just take what they say with a grain of salt, as pretty much anyone else who knows anything about IGN reviews do.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Tolvir

[TheWill]

22 minutes ago, Slumber said:

"Too much water" is actually a legitimate complaint about how much water composes Hoenn, how much it sucks to get around because of it, and how many water-type Pokémon you encounter compared to every other type. 

The problem is how the issue was projected, rather than the issue itself. 

Either way, traversing Hoenn wasn't bad. The only time you had to go through water was after Lilycove. It was more of an issue of pacing the water, as the water was required to be traversed to Mosdeep, Sotopolis, Rayquaza's tower and the Elite 4 (thus, pretty much one after the other). Whilst from the start of the game to Lilycove, there was no surfing required at all.

[Slumber]

10 minutes ago, Tolvir said:

Its IGN though, I dont think anyone has taken a review of theirs seriously within the last 5 years. Maybe for reference and comparisons to others, but IGN has been a joke among the gaming community for years. I would really just take what they say with a grain of salt, as pretty much anyone else who knows anything about IGN reviews do.

IGN's been a joke for well over 5 years. 

Look back at their Godhand or Dead Space 2 reviews if you want to see how little credibility they had prior to 5 years ago. 

[Harvey]

51 minutes ago, Slumber said:

"Too much water" is actually a legitimate complaint

No its not. Since the game is inspired from a real life place within Japan. Even so, you don't need to progress through water until near lategame. Its not a legit because the world is based around water. Its like criticizing a Zelda game for having too much grass when you don't need to dig/cut grass until some point of time within the games.

 

[Tolvir]

2 hours ago, Slumber said:

IGN's been a joke for well over 5 years. 

Look back at their Godhand or Dead Space 2 reviews if you want to see how little credibility they had prior to 5 years ago. 

True, they haven't exactly been the most reliable in a long time. Gameinformer isn't much better either. Games completely panned by fans get 8-9/10 reviews. It's clear they get paid off a lot.

[Thinks Their Own Way]

As long as no one is receiving death threats (I remember the days of The Dark Knight Rises); I find it funny that people always say that reviews don't matter; but act all butt hurt when one disagrees with their preconceived notions.

[Dandee Leone]

IGN hates every Nintendo franchise except Zelda, which for some reason they are slaves to, since Zelda HAS to for some reason get 9.5-10s all the time (see Skyward Sword).

[Slumber]

2 hours ago, Harvey said:

No its not. Since the game is inspired from a real life place within Japan. Even so, you don't need to progress through water until near lategame. Its not a legit because the world is based around water. Its like criticizing a Zelda game for having too much grass when you don't need to dig/cut grass until some point of time within the games.

 

There's absolutely no comparison here.

You don't need 1/3 of your main resources dedicated to running through parts of the grass in Zelda, and you're not seeing roughly 100 of the same type of enemy purely because you're running through grass in Zelda.

Doesn't matter if the place is inspired by a place in the real world. The place they chose to emulate was a bad design choice for a video game structured like ORAS. They modeled Alola in roughly the same way, but thanks to smarter design choices, pulled it off with much greater success than Hoenn.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Slumber

[Ivy Wife Supremacy]

On 5/16/2017 at 11:48 AM, Armagon said:

Here are some of the review scores i found

• GameXplain: "Liked-a-Lot" 
• IGN: 7.8/10
• Destructoid: 7.5/10
• GameSpot: 9/10
• Fansided: 8/10
• Gaming Nexus: 9.5/10

 

Oh....great-eh expected this for certain reviewers.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Blade Lord Lyn

[Harvey]

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

You don't need 1/3 of your main resources dedicated to running through parts of the grass in Zelda, and you're not seeing roughly 100 of the same type of enemy purely because you're running through grass in Zelda.

I said either cut OR dig underground to get some secrets and yes, there are main items that require you to cut some grasses here and there.

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

oesn't matter if the place is inspired by a place in the real world. The place they chose to emulate was a bad design choice for a video game structured like ORAS. They modeled Alola in roughly the same way, but thanks to smarter design choices, pulled it off with much greater success than Hoenn.

That just makes that meme all the more confusing to begin with since again, there's tons of sections where you have to cross through with water.

Also no, this doesn't defend IGN's poor poor negative about ORAS at all regardless since again, by your logic, the original didn't get the same meme so why this one?

 

[Yula]

On 5/17/2017 at 2:10 PM, Harvey said:

Also no, this doesn't defend IGN's poor poor negative about ORAS at all regardless since again, by your logic, the original didn't get the same meme so why this one?

Most people I knew had Dial-up still back when Ruby and Sapphire were released, so information spread a lot slower. By the time most of the people I knew got DSL, Fire Red and Leaf Green were the new hotness.

[Slumber]

On 5/17/2017 at 1:10 PM, Harvey said:

I said either cut OR dig underground to get some secrets and yes, there are main items that require you to cut some grasses here and there.

That just makes that meme all the more confusing to begin with since again, there's tons of sections where you have to cross through with water.

Also no, this doesn't defend IGN's poor poor negative about ORAS at all regardless since again, by your logic, the original didn't get the same meme so why this one?

 

Items in Zelda are ALWAYS with you. You don't need to run to a PokeCenter to swap out your items so that you can make progress. The same cannot be said about the latter half of ORAS, where you DO need to swap out your resources often to progress. And again, this doesn't address the issue that you're running into the same 5 fucking encounters every 4 seconds in Zelda like you are in Pokemon when you're on water. 

I don't know what you're referring to in the second part. In Sun/Moon? In Sun/Moon, you don't have to cripple your team just to move across a bunch of the map, and the times you NEED Surf are very short. Most of moving across the islands in Sun/Moon happens via ships, where there are no constant encounters. 

In 2002, the internet wasn't a hivemind that needed something to be pissed off about all the time. The same exact complaints IGN had for ORAS were the same complaints every other reviewer had with the original R/S games, because ORAS did very little to address the problems the original had. And one of those big complaints could be easily summed up as "Too much water". 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Slumber

[Raybrand]

Polygon gave it a 6.5, what gives?

[Slumber]

8 minutes ago, Raybrand said:

Polygon gave it a 6.5, what gives?

They have a pretty reasonable review. Amazing, considering it's Polygon.

Basically, they're saying the by sticking too close to the original, it hurts the game on many fundamental levels, like how barren and flat the maps are, how not implementing the weapon triangle made fights more about just comparing raw stats that could make the game seem arbitrary at times, how little variety there was in your party,  and basically just a ton of stuff people have been saying about Gaiden for decades. 

They also say some dumb stuff, but all in all, Polygon's review managed to pick up on the sentiments that everybody who wasn't already a fan of Gaiden already had. Basically it's Shadow Dragon 2.0.

I think the score's a bit harsh. I think looking at Echoes as more of a JRPG than a SRPG would help make the game easier to swallow. 

[Yula]

12 minutes ago, Slumber said:

how not implementing the weapon triangle made fights more about just comparing raw stats that could make the game seem arbitrary at times

When has the weapon triangle had any significant impact on combat at all. You can get +15% hit and +1 damage all you want, negative numbers have always been counted as zero in the formula as far as I remember, the problem is that a negative number plus one is not going to equal one. Stats have *always* been the first and foremost most important part of Fire Emblem. If a unit has 150 Hit and another unit has 35 avoid, and the attacker has weapon triangle disadvantage, 150-15 is 135, 135-35 is 100%.

 

15 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I think looking at Echoes as more of a JRPG than a SRPG would help make the game easier to swallow. 

Yes, Fire Emblem is and always has been  a Role Playing Game, with Tactical Elements. Not saying that it's a bad thing, but as far as SRPGs go, it's quite light on the Tactics and Strategy side of things, while the RPG elements are more the front and center of the game. 

[Slumber]

18 minutes ago, Thran Starcrod said:

When has the weapon triangle had any significant impact on combat at all. You can get +15% hit and +1 damage all you want, negative numbers have always been counted as zero in the formula as far as I remember, the problem is that a negative number plus one is not going to equal one. Stats have *always* been the first and foremost most important part of Fire Emblem. If a unit has 150 Hit and another unit has 35 avoid, and the attacker has weapon triangle disadvantage, 150-15 is 135, 135-35 is 100%.

 

Yes, Fire Emblem is and always has been  a Role Playing Game, with Tactical Elements. Not saying that it's a bad thing, but as far as SRPGs go, it's quite light on the Tactics and Strategy side of things, while the RPG elements are more the front and center of the game. 

Stats have always been a big part of the games, but tossing a level 10 axe wielder versus a level 10 myrmidon has always been something you would avoid without proper prep like a reaver weapon. 

I can't say for certain, but I'm going to out on a limb and say that you're lying if you said the weapon triangle didn't play into how you play Fire Emblem. It's been a major part of the gameplay since its introduction. Removing it turns the series into more of a raw stat game. 

And wut? Fire Emblem's the OG Japanese strategy RPG. If you mean like, with strategy games in general, yeah. Fire Emblem isn't anywhere near like, Star Craft or anything when it comes to strategy. But in terms of the specific genre of Strategy RPGs? Fire Emblem's only real modern competition is Xcom and Disgaea. It definitely isn't as tactical as Xcom, but it's miles ahead of Disgaea. 

And what I was getting at, was that Gaiden/Echoes has more standard JRPG elements than the other games in the franchise, and it less about the strategic elements. You get equipment, you learn spells and skills as you level up, you go fight monsters in dungeons, and you grind. A bunch. 

Which I'm not saying is bad by any means, and I'm not saying Echoes is devoid of any strategy. I'm saying it's just different from the usual FE fare. I think people who go into Echoes wanting more of the standard strategic mechanics of the franchise (Like Polygon) will be a bit disappointed, while people who want more of a grid-based Turn-based JRPG will get a lot more out of Echoes, and a shift in this kind of mentality can help. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Slumber

[BrightBow]

3 hours ago, Slumber said:

Stats have always been a big part of the games, but tossing a level 10 axe wielder versus a level 10 myrmidon has always been something you would avoid without proper prep like a reaver weapon. 

I can't say for certain, but I'm going to out on a limb and say that you're lying if you said the weapon triangle didn't play into how you play Fire Emblem. It's been a major part of the gameplay since its introduction. Removing it turns the series into more of a raw stat game.

In return the lv10 Myrmidon would probably die in two shots though, so this goes both ways. This has nothing to do with the weapon triangle but with sending a low accuracy unit against a high avoid target or a low durability unit against a high power target.

What the Polygon review does show is that as little as the weapon triangle might matter in terms of mechanics, some people seem to rely on systems like the weapon triangle to give them directions because they don't understand what the actual numbers mean or simply don't bother with them. At least that's the conclusion I draw from this genuinely fascinating passage.

Quote

I often looked to characters' basic attack stats and how far they could move across a map during each turn to predict how they'd fare in battle, which isn't the most reliable system. More often than not, I crossed my fingers and hoped for the best when I sent characters up against foes.

(The context of that passage is how less refined the mechanics of the game are compared to the other moderns games and occurs right after lamenting the lack of the weapon triangle and how the reviewer now doesn't know what units are effective against who. That entire part is worth reading but I didn't want to quote like half the review. So here is the link if you want to take a look at the context yourself. https://www.polygon.com/2017/5/18/15654094/fire-emblem-echoes-shadows-of-valentia-review)

I mean, what could be more "reliable" then the stats? The weapon triangle just means that the formula to translate these numbers to actual combat parameters is more complicated but that doesn't change that it's ultimately these numbers that define how a battle will turn out. In this game it's actually easier to predict how a battle goes because there are less factors at play that define those numbers. 10 attack actually means 10 attack and not 8-12 depending on the opponent's weapon. Unless... well, you don't actually pay attention to those numbers at all and never learned just how little the weapon triangle contributed to a battle's outcome.

Maybe that does explain why so many people lament the absence of the magic triangle of all things.

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by BrightBow

[Tryhard]

8 hours ago, Slumber said:

Stats have always been a big part of the games, but tossing a level 10 axe wielder versus a level 10 myrmidon has always been something you would avoid without proper prep like a reaver weapon. 

I can't say for certain, but I'm going to out on a limb and say that you're lying if you said the weapon triangle didn't play into how you play Fire Emblem. It's been a major part of the gameplay since its introduction. Removing it turns the series into more of a raw stat game. 

I agree with them, the weapon triangle matters little outside the early game - and outside of early game I've rarely cared about it (nevermind FE5 in where it is especially pointless). Boiling the series down to just 'rock-paper-scissors' is pretty insulting.

If they wanted to make it more like the Heroes triangle bonuses, then maybe I would agree.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

In many games, the weapon triangle does matter for bosses through all of the game, on higher difficulties.

like, good luck killing Lloyd with an axe that isn't the axereaver or Kotaro with a sword.

if anything, it makes you pick your bosskillers more carefully.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Nobody

[Armagon]

On the subject of reviews, Nintendo uploaded an Echoes trailer that had the review scores the game got

LMAO, they didn't show IGN.

Also, there were scenes shown here that were a bit spoileish.

[JoeyW001]

Great vid, really get the vibes going

Just picked up my LE and amiibo without preordering. The day preorders went live, i was told be retailers in my area (Toronto) have already been oversold. As much as some vets here hate the new age players "started with awakening and fates", they are the only real reason why retailers are stocking up on these items. #fuckscalpers

[Tryhard]

6 hours ago, Nobody said:

In many games, the weapon triangle does matter for bosses through all of the game, on higher difficulties.

like, good luck killing Lloyd with an axe that isn't the axereaver or Kotaro with a sword.

if anything, it makes you pick your bosskillers more carefully.

that seems more an unfortunate aspect of the fact that axes just get dick for accuracy to begin with, never mind they tend to have less impressive skill and the swordies they are usually up against have high avoid on higher difficulties which makes their sub 50 hit rates problematic in 2RNG

i've never had a problem fighting a lance user with a sword or an axe user with a lance outside of the "breaker" skills, and in some of the games, the weapon triangle is almost meaningless (good old FE5 with it's +/- 5 hit)

it's not as if i would be opposed to utilising it and I usually do when I can, because why not for the bonuses, but it's not a big deal either (i'll give fe11 and 12 a break since it is more significant scaling with weapon rank)

Edited May 19, 2017 by Tryhard

[iavasechui]

I'm the weirdo who weakens that one jerk boss with Wil then gambles the entire freaking chapter to have Florina defeat him weapon triangle be damned.