BoneIdol @ Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:13 am) wrote:Actually, SF2 has 4 difficulty settings as well; Normal, Hard, Super and Ouch!.
Yeah, I had this post ready to be submitted awhile ago, but lost it do to a power failure. So instead of typing it again I said fudge it.
But now I guess I'll make a shorter post reply of what I said/remeber instead + some other things entering my head.
How did I make this mistake? Easy. I though I read someone ask for the extra difficulty level, not levels. Hence why I mentioned I wasn't sure too (and I shouldn't of been lazy, just like not retyping this post
, and looked it up).
Though now that I know it has 4 just like SF3, I'm really excited to know that this trend goes as far back as SF2, and it didn't start from SF CD. I'm also looking forward to trying them all one day + for SF CD too.
Too bad SF1 does not have it (though I could be wrong again, lol. Though this time I gave it a search and couldn't find anything, unlike the search I just got for SF2). And if it doesn't, this is one major factor in the SF1 VS 2 debate, that's for sure.
BoneIdol @ Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:13 am) wrote:As for me, I'd say SF3, for similar reasons to Sinful Force; there's more in depth systems like the weapons level up system that adds an extra degree of strategy. Not to mention that the plot was a lot more grown up and involved a lot of politics and a bit more moral ambiguity (especially in scenario 2) - whereas in SF2 you are always the heroes who save the day.
However, one thing in SF3 that I think was awesome, but not done to its full potential, is the friendship system. If there was a few little tweaks to it, it could add a whole extra degree of strategy to the game, namely how to position and move your army for best effect.
What would be the best way to add this extra degree of strategy? Negative friendships. If certain characters didn't get along (and provided penalties to each others' stats if they were close by) then you'd suddenly have to position your army in such a way as to avoid these particular headaches. It would also add extra strategy in that it would sometimes be worth breaking formation and making characters that didn't like each other work together to bring down a particularly troublesome enemy (with the added bonus of making them hate each other less), but with the potential to be disastrous if you misjudge it.
Now that would add a lot more strategy on top of "gang up and kill stuff and try not to get killed".
Hmm? I wasn't as let down by the firendship system as you, nor did I expect that much more from it (though some very interesting insight you brought up there). The only thing that upset me about it was that death affaected it, and at first I wasn't sure how much of it (like all of it or a level like it is), so I never proceeded with a death.
And I think the only thing extra the friendship system did better was; to acknowledge the fact that some characters like Dantares and Synbios or Cambel and Medion are really close and that they should have a much easier time getting Soulmates (simular to how males and females have an easier time) to gauranteed Soulmates.
But after playing the game for awhile, I don't care anymore as I like to keep the game from getting to easy/broken and I love how well balanced this game is in many areas if just played as is. So a whole team Soulmated is out of the question for a person like me. Nor have I at anytime had more than something like 4 Soulmates in a playthrough.
So yeah, I think the game is fine just the way it is, because I'm a stickler for keeping the game balanced, and I think Camelot has done an amasing job with this game (SF3 in particular). And making this game too complex/comlicated tha it is would of only made it harder for Camelot to keep up with keeping the game so balanced.
I think SF3 has just the right amount a complexity and stil fall within very simple game mechanics/gameplay/game. So much so that I'm noticing how badly unlbalanced other (S)RPG games are (like FF7/Tactics/Square games). And the main cullprite behind it is that it's excessively complex to the point that it's impossible to balance the game out within a game's total development time + testing, therefore = an unbalanced mess or total brokeness.
I'm not too familiar with SF2 and how well balanced it is, but it's much better than SF1 (though, SF1 is still better balanced than most RPGs), and it seems fairly balanced from the one playthrough I've had through SF2. So no complaints against SF2 there either, though I'd like to think Camelot got it done better for SF3 and with each passing Scenario, the fact that it's a tad more complex makes it a bit harder to maintain. So these should cancel themselfs out?