Ye Olde Blah => Shining Force World => Topic started by: Elvenfyre on June 16, 2008, 11:06:50 pm

Title: The differences of shining force.
Post by: Elvenfyre on June 16, 2008, 11:06:50 pm
So I was reading yet another small game review hoping I'd see some shining inspiration in the gameplay section.
What are the things that make shining force games what they are?

Obviously the turn based battle system is key, but what else?
The square grid in battle(rather than hex) sets it apart from a lot of other turn based games. 
The stats system being "inbetween" - some games don't give you any idea on strength or defense or equipping items, while others give you a load more various stats which effect each other that you have to set, (d&d types for example).

One major thing I overlooked until today however was that quests don't give you experience.  It certainly isn't unique to shining force, but it's definitely one of those characteristics that make it different to the multitude of those being produced today.

I've gotta go, anyone think of anything else?

Title: Re: The differences of shining force.
Post by: Ty on June 18, 2008, 03:26:26 pm
Even though there's a lot of depth in the game, the actual game is very easy to pick up and play. You don't need to worry about all of the statistics to enjoy the experience. The menu system was tailored to the system, and there weren't tons of options to get lost in. A small example of this is the weapon seller. It lets you know if the character can equip the item, and what difference it will make. Once purchased, you can automatically equip it and sell your old weapon. It's nothing earth-shattering, but I always find having to manually do all of that quite annoying.

I also found the battles much more rewarding because of the strategy involved. I've always found Final Fantasy style battles to be a bit simple and uninteresting, but things like the refugee fight from SF3 and the (horrible) Prism Flower battle from SFII have stuck with me.

Title: Re: The differences of shining force.
Post by: Maestro on September 30, 2008, 02:33:34 am
I think it is a bit deeper then that though. There are many games like Shining Force and, not to my suprise, many of those games are poorly made, too complicated, or just go off on a tangent like it was made by someone with FAR too much time on their hands and takes themselves WAY to seriously.

What made Shining Force the game it was, was mainly its ability to seem complex in its own respect, but using a system far less complicated and complex then the other and combine it with an above average story line. Another prime example is many games in their sequals and prequals tend to go on tangents with NEW battle this and New that. Many game developers loose the essence of what made their game good in the first place you pick up the next release and BOOM, you forgot what series your playing. Shining Force never lost that focus and if anything, kept the momentum up slowly and introduced minute changes here and there.

The series, as strong as it was, pioneered the tactical gaming world and the fans that now rule it. The series died at the hands of new designers who wanted to be the same type of pioneers that old makers were, but that is not really an answer. They just wanted to be on that same high horse and in the end, ruined it for the fans.

The series now trying to resurrect itself with a new SF game for Nintendo DS (suppose to be 3000 years after SF3), who knows where it will end up and at this point I wouldnt be suprised if it hurt the series reputation even more.