So, I kept hearing great things about Shining Force, so when I got my Wii, I downloaded it last week to see what the big deal was. You're gonna hate me for this, Obright, but it seemed a bit (a lot) lacking so far.
As I see it, Shining Force was THE strategy-rpg for the Sega Genesis, and Ogre Battle had that honor for the SNES. That being so, I'd like to hear from proponents of both games exactly what made your game of choice so special.
Granted, I've not played that far into it, and granted, the next few in the series were probably better, but I really do not see the big hubbub over Shining Force. From the opening credits alone, it's a clichéd "Darkness is overtaking the land, and only a plucky youngster can defeat it with the power of good and light," scenario. Thus far, I've only played the first battle, and then the next one on the world map to be able to get to the town and save my game, but the strategy, character customization, story, and gameplay seem a bit shallow.
Granted, I'm playing this game for the first time after having played FFTA, Tactics Ogre, Disgaea, Gladius, et al, which all of course took their main gameplay ideas from Shining Force. So I'll give the game that, that it's like the birthplace of all tactical RPGs as we know them today. But to directly compare Ogre Battle to Shining Force, even taking into account how old they now are, it's easy to see which is the superior game.
First, the obvious. Graphically, Ogre Battle overpowers Shining Force. Also, it melds RTS elements (before that genre was even invented) with RPG elements. The character customization was unlike anything that had ever come before, with the ungodly amount of branching paths for the human characters, each dependent on alignment, charisma, level, and/or a certain rare item. The story was more about political intrigue rather than "Let's save the world guys!" There also seemed to be a lot more strategy involved in terms of how you set your units up, in terms of character placement within each unit (different abilities were accessible depending on front or rear placement), and in which characters you placed together within a unit. If you wanted to drag the alignment of a wizard down so he could advance to a better class, you'd put him in a unit with skeletons (for an example) and fight weak enemies. But if you continually shifted your characters around, any cohesion they might have had was now lost.
The strategy also involved liberating towns, and preventing the enemy units from re-occupying them. So unit placement on the map was also important. You would not necessarily want the unit that liberated a town to be the one to defend it. The game was also choice-based to an extent, famously evident in your decision to forgive or kill Deneb. Each choice gave you an advantage and a disadvantage, and depending on how you wished to play the game, the choice was yours. Each character and unit also had an alignment, which determined if they fought better at night or during the day, and determined what happened to your overall reputation level when fighting enemies or liberating towns.
And yes, your entire army had an overall reputation level you always needed to consider, which had a direct bearing on which characters were willing to join you, and which of the twelve endings you got. There are probably a lot more details that I'm forgetting, but suffice it to say that Ogre Battle seems to have a ton more depth, both in strategic thinking and planning, and just in the overall gameplay.
Shining Force seems to be based on, "Move your strong characters to the front, and hold your weaker characters back to unleash spells, arrows, or healing magic." Ho hum. Been there, done that.
So, all you Shining Force proponents, PLEASE tell me why this game is as revered as it is. And I'm sorry, Obright. Don't get p***ed at me.
As I see it, Shining Force was THE strategy-rpg for the Sega Genesis, and Ogre Battle had that honor for the SNES. That being so, I'd like to hear from proponents of both games exactly what made your game of choice so special.
Granted, I've not played that far into it, and granted, the next few in the series were probably better, but I really do not see the big hubbub over Shining Force. From the opening credits alone, it's a clichéd "Darkness is overtaking the land, and only a plucky youngster can defeat it with the power of good and light," scenario. Thus far, I've only played the first battle, and then the next one on the world map to be able to get to the town and save my game, but the strategy, character customization, story, and gameplay seem a bit shallow.
Granted, I'm playing this game for the first time after having played FFTA, Tactics Ogre, Disgaea, Gladius, et al, which all of course took their main gameplay ideas from Shining Force. So I'll give the game that, that it's like the birthplace of all tactical RPGs as we know them today. But to directly compare Ogre Battle to Shining Force, even taking into account how old they now are, it's easy to see which is the superior game.
First, the obvious. Graphically, Ogre Battle overpowers Shining Force. Also, it melds RTS elements (before that genre was even invented) with RPG elements. The character customization was unlike anything that had ever come before, with the ungodly amount of branching paths for the human characters, each dependent on alignment, charisma, level, and/or a certain rare item. The story was more about political intrigue rather than "Let's save the world guys!" There also seemed to be a lot more strategy involved in terms of how you set your units up, in terms of character placement within each unit (different abilities were accessible depending on front or rear placement), and in which characters you placed together within a unit. If you wanted to drag the alignment of a wizard down so he could advance to a better class, you'd put him in a unit with skeletons (for an example) and fight weak enemies. But if you continually shifted your characters around, any cohesion they might have had was now lost.
The strategy also involved liberating towns, and preventing the enemy units from re-occupying them. So unit placement on the map was also important. You would not necessarily want the unit that liberated a town to be the one to defend it. The game was also choice-based to an extent, famously evident in your decision to forgive or kill Deneb. Each choice gave you an advantage and a disadvantage, and depending on how you wished to play the game, the choice was yours. Each character and unit also had an alignment, which determined if they fought better at night or during the day, and determined what happened to your overall reputation level when fighting enemies or liberating towns.
And yes, your entire army had an overall reputation level you always needed to consider, which had a direct bearing on which characters were willing to join you, and which of the twelve endings you got. There are probably a lot more details that I'm forgetting, but suffice it to say that Ogre Battle seems to have a ton more depth, both in strategic thinking and planning, and just in the overall gameplay.
Shining Force seems to be based on, "Move your strong characters to the front, and hold your weaker characters back to unleash spells, arrows, or healing magic." Ho hum. Been there, done that.
So, all you Shining Force proponents, PLEASE tell me why this game is as revered as it is. And I'm sorry, Obright. Don't get p***ed at me.
Comment