Valkyria Chronicles producer interested in a sequel

Came here just to post this.

Buy this freaking game if you haven't already (or hell, even if you do have it!).

Screw the fact that it doesn't have trophies, just get it. You won't regret it.

even if you don't have a PS3, just buy it. it supports the devs and you can sell it for a hefty price in 8 years!

I just got it yesterday at gamestop for $30. Haven't played it yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

is it only $30 now? even better.

Yeah, I was a bit disappointed to hear that it didn't have trophies, but it really shouldn't matter that much. It will be nice if it gets a trophy patch, but it's not worth whining about. Right now, actually, I'm taking a break from VC to play Folklore, which is another very underrated trophy-less PS3-exclusive RPG that suffered from lack of advertising.

Ditto on Folklore...perhaps next week I'll finish Folklore AND pick up VC.

I didn't like the demo, should have started you at the beginning of the game because it was confusing/overwhelming for me.

If you thought the same, don't let it discourage you and get it anyway. I did and loved it.
(And Folklore i got for my GF, she liked the demo (i told her it was adult pokemon) but doesn't have time to play it w/ grad school but i wanted to buy it when it counted)

Ha, I was talking to someone yesterday about Folklore, and I started off saying it wasn't like Pokemon. When I was done explaining the gameplay, he was like "...so it's like Pokemon then," and I'm like, "...Yeah, actually."

Picked it up this weekend at Gamestop - thanks for the tip.

Hehehe, NO! Its ours bitches :P

WAHHHH WAHHHHHHHHHHH 360 fans want an exclusive. Why not have microsoft get another "exclusive" generic jrpg? Microsoft had their chance to get Valkyria Chronicles, but they said no thank you.

Jeez, why is it all about fanboy one-upmanship for you guys?

WiNG just said he wanted to play it on 360 or PC. Judging from the contact info in his name, he doesn't have a PS3. Does that make him somehow unworthy of the game? Do you feel that because Microsoft made a business decision, everyone who buys their console should be disallowed from experiencing fun games?

You people are awful, and your logic is worse.

Well we payed $400+ for this console we deserve this types of exclusives, thats what WE PAID FOR

haha haggard... logic doesn't work on the internet.

"Well we payed $400+ for this console we deserve this types of exclusives, thats what WE PAID FOR"

...no, you didn't pay for exclusives.
You paid for graphics that were so awe-inspiring that it HAD TO BE EXCLUSIVE.

Two different things, really.

I am what some people call a PS3 fanboy, but even then, I can not at all see what was wrong with WiNG's comment. Did he say that the PS3 doesn't deserve it? No. Did he say that it's a crappy game if it isn't ported? No. He's just saying he wants it.

To the people who responded, did you cry yourselves to sleep the night you heard that FFXIII was coming to to the 360? What about DMC4? And even though there are games like BioShock that are finally on the PS3, do you still hate them because they were originally not intended for the PS3?

I love my PS3, I've always been happy with SCE, and I'm willing to defend them, but if you're going to get pissed off at a guy just because he simply states that it would be nice to have it for other consoles as well, that's just ridiculous. There's just no need to be that rude here.

^
|

What he said

linebeginstoblur,

uh, the thing is, it doesn't really make much sense for them to port the game, to begin with, the game is full of "japanese" characters, unlikely to be welcome in the US, which is the 360's main market.

Not only that, the game is a TRPG, a niche genre that, once again, is unlikely to be welcomed in the US.

Add those 2 points with the fact that this is the first game with the CANVAS's graphical engine (meaning that we don't know whether the engine is optimized for the 360 or not), and you can see why many don't think that would make much sense for Sega to release the game for the 360.







oh, also, Sony spent a lot of money on it, at least in Japan, going as far as sponsoring the anime series with their PlayStation and Sony Music brands. So yeah, it doesn't really make much sense to ask for a 360 version, maybe the next game, but the first one? unlikely

Who cares if it will never happen, or if you think it's not possible? Without any fanboyism, he just stated that he would like it ported. I don't see what the likelihood if it happening is any reason for you to respond like he's some sort of idiot.

Seriously I just was hoping that somehow I could one day play this without having to buy another console!

Reuben,

Because its annoying to have people asking for ports so often when the likelihood of such thing happening is very slim....

Seriously, MGS4 port talks are annoying, this one that is even less likely to happen? even more annoying

Noshino, I understand that port talk can be annoying, and I can understand that exclusives are important to a console's longevity. In any case, you're right that there are a bunch of trolls who make port talk very annoying.

WiNG did not, to me, sound annoying at all.

Like he said, he simply stated that this is an awesome game and doesn't want to spend $400 just to play it. That's fair, and I appreciate his comment, and I do NOT understand why people want to spread closed-mindedness.

Like I said, the longevity of consoles can be important, but that's for Sony Computer Entertainment to decide. If this gets ported, that's for Sega to decide. Don't take it personally. Because that's stupid.

Sounds like the polar opposite of Fire Emblem...

but see, the thing is, you grow attached to your teammates, so you're less likely to let them get killed. and you're not supposed to kill every enemy. gallia is fighting a war against a way bigger enemy and they're much less well-equiped. you're supposed to be saving resources. so instead of killing all enemies, taking objectives quickly is much more important.

so if you think about it like that, the game does what its supposed to do perfectly.

"Kill 0 enemy units, lose all but the mission critical units, and touch a flag within 3 turns? S rank."

...technically that's impossible to kill 0 enemies... since you have to kill the enemies that are surrounding the flag.

"If you kill every enemy on-screen, lose no units, and finish in 11 turns, you'll get a D."
....and? You can just do a skirmish later.
Hardcore pros can get an S in a normal mission, since most of us aren't, that's what we have skirmishes for.
Hell, if skirmish wasn't there, then I'd be supporting you.

But since it is, you have to look at it from the game's point of view.
Which is more important: Getting an S rank through risking the lives of your soldiers, or having a slow and steady battle making sure all your soldiers make it?

...and WHY WOULDN'T they award you with an S rank if you finished the mission in record time? Hell, tons of armies out there wish their troops could accomplish that.
And hell, in real war it's hardly ever about killing the most amount of enemies, it's about capturing key points and resources, and THEN they worry about imprisoning or killing off the soldiers.

And the game IS about teamwork. You can have a "superstar" all ya' want, but to risk them charging in there head first could very well mean they die - permanently.
In the first missions (all the way up to when you first meet the Valkyrer), that hardly seems the case since most enemies don't finish off downed teammates.

...... but after meeting the Valkyrer, your soldiers are like fish in a barrel if they're split too wide apart. Soldiers WILL start intentionally finishing off your units, and then you feel like a horrible commander for trying to get that stupid S rank.

The rank doesn't matter.



"Sounds like the polar opposite of Fire Emblem..."

And in a way, that's good. Why is it in Fire Emblem that you could uber-level single soldiers - making some soldiers never see the light of day due to their low levels, and encourage the idea that you have to kill everyone in the screen to heighten your level - when there's actually a point in some missions where either the enemy retreats or surrenders?

As much as I loved my strong soldiers, I really wish I could've used all of them without having to start a new game.

And in Valkyria, they give you just that.

I hate games that take the extremes on either side. A lot of games are the opposite, where the objective doesn't really matter because it's easier to just kill everyone.

Why WOULDN'T they give you an S-Rank for that? Because you got your entire bloody squad killed and there's no way in hell you can hold that point! (And you DON'T have to kill the enemies around the flag once you get the smoke grenades. Which makes it even dumber. TAG! I capture Berlin!)

I'm not saying speed shouldn't be rewarded, but having it as the SOLE determinant of whether or not you did a good job is absolutely asinine.

All the factors of war; the amount of damage you did to the opposing forces, the amount of time you did it in, the losses you took, etc, ALL of that should be factored into your grade/reward at the end.

Valkyria is by no means an awful game, but as an SRPG it's quite poor. I'd go so far as to say that it's probably the worst SRPG on all current gen consoles. (Not like that means much, there's like a grand total of 5.) I do like some of the characters, and the fact that they bothered to record voice and give side-stories to all the bit characters...

But that's all undermined by the homogenization of them in combat. If they just developed the strategy better, you'd have everything you love about the game, and the game would make sense. I don't see why this is a problem to some of the hardcore fans of this game.

Did you seriously just declare that the "entire combat/strategy portion of the game" (in other words, pretty much the entire game) is crap based on the ranking method, of all things?

I won't argue that there weren't better ways to evaluate the player's performance. But your rank is an utterly irrelevant statistic. It shows up at the end of the battle and you never have to think of it again. There are no rewards for getting a higher rank besides extra EXP and cash, which aren't important and which you can collect on your own time anyway.

The only reason anyone would base their entire judgment of a game on something so trivial is if they were completely unable to find enjoyment in an activity without some authority figure telling them they did a good job. Set your own goals and find your own rewards in each battle.

PLAY THE GAME CUZ IT'S FUN, NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT RANK YOU ARE ABLE TO ACHIEVE.

Bluebrake: Do you have problems tying one thing to the next?

If the ranking system of the game is built to grade your performance, the game has to be specifically programmed to challenge you do based on the ranking system.

The game's set to measure how fast you do things. So trying to approach the problem from ANY OTHER angle is going to be ridiculously lopsided, because NOBODY programming it cares about you playing it any other way. If you don't care about your rank, and just want to kill everyone on-screen, the game is REALLY EASY. If you know what you're doing, and you just want to run and get your rank, you can do that, too.

Knowing that the ABSOLUTE ONLY thing that matters for your rank is speed will tell a strat-RPG player everything they need to know. Obviously, they know going slow and steady will make the game super easy because the game doesn't care how defensible the place is, they just wanted to make going through the quickest path in 3 turns a challenge.

I could just point out the other obvious flaws in the gameplay (the ridiculously bad "customization" system, the moronic AI, the way a tank running over someone does 1pt. of damage, etc.) but why bother? Anyone who plays strategy games and enjoys the STRATEGY is going to know they won't enjoy this one.

Kudos to Sega for fleshing out all the fluff, but that's not $30 worth of fluff, and it certainly wasn't $59.99 worth of fluff. I need a game whose idea of challenging isn't "inserting an invincible enemy to spice things up".

If you had a heart, then by the time you got to Level 5 then you would have fallen in love with the characters and played the levels to make sure every one of them survives.

I finished the game without losing anyone on my roster (if anyone was shot down, I saved them with a medic), and I still got good rankings in many missions. I made effective use of cover, setup crossfire so my guys would kill many enemies during defense where it doesn't cost CP, so the two goals (be quick and leave no man behind) are not completely incompatible. However I think the game should have given massive score penalties for losing anyone.

There are a few of things to consider about the rating system in this game.

First, you're NOT going to be scout rushing the flags and finishing each mission in 1-3 turns on your first time playing the game. Your troops simply won't be strong enough to do that beyond the first few levels (which are basically just tutorials). Even if you spend hours grinding skirmishes to get them strong enough, you won't have the right Orders to get it done.

Second, the only way to finish the missions that quickly on your first try is to level grind and then read a FAQ and find out where all the enemies are and what the mission variables are. If you're doing that, you clearly don't care about the strategic elements anyway, and are just trying to breeze through the game.

Third, you get money and experience for each enemy you kill. So you do get bonuses if you clear all enemies on the map.

Fourth, its a freaking ranking system. It has nothing to do with the gameplay other than a minor bonus at the end of the mission.

Bottom line, stop complaining.

I'd think they'd go multiplatform to create moar sales, but it would be hard to introduce a game as a sequel to a new platform. But then again, I'd love to see this on DS/Wii/360

PSTRIPLE ONLY BITCHES!!!!!!

Don't care if I get downvoted:

I'd love to see a 2D version on the DS.

I wouldn't care if they just straight up copied Advance Wars for the DS version. As long as they keep the art style (even if its only for still animations on the top screen) I'd buy 10 copies.

moptimus, at this point, multiplatform would make them lose a lot more. the engine was fine-tailored for ps3. if they make a sequel, they could use the same engine, and they would have a better chance of making a profit. the wii and ds wouldn't be able to handle this at all. and the costs of making the engine work on 360 would nullify any potential profits they would make from its sales on 360.

"the wii and ds wouldn't be able to handle this at all."

I believe we were stating that it didn't have to be the same exact graphics and gameplay... it's obvious the Wii and DS couldn't handle it.

But what I'm stating is that I just would like it on the DS. If it were 2D, I wouldn't mind at all. They could even make it LOOK like the same style, but obviously not. I'd be happy with it.

I just like the style of the graphics and the style of the gameplay. A "dumbed down" version would still make me happy.
...and if it were on the DS, it'd sell like wildfire seeing how almost every RPG that touches that thing becomes an instant classic.

how is it a bad idea? The DS is the king of consoles in Japan, Valkyria Chronicles is a franchise that spans many mediums (not to mention a RPG). SEGA is kind of a big deal. The game is destined to cover any costs to make the game and then some

The Wii might be more challenging if only due to scaling back (or creating a new) the engine. But Battalion Wars II did well, it didn't break the top 10 (if I recall) but it stayed in the top 20 or so for a while and its in a similar genre (only with more of a focus on action/troop management then actual RPG elements). And again, with the huge install base the sales would probably justify development costs.

The 360 is a different story. It doesn't have the install base necessary and games don't seem to hang around as long on the charts, so I can see not porting it the console.

@ SoshiKitai

exactly. what makes VC so good is the graphics and gameplay. if the wii and ds can't handle that, they can't handle VC. the original is what matters.

Actually it was kinda successful in Japan. It spawned an anime series which thankfully kept the art style intact. The story is pretty much a match for events in the game.

The first episode of the anime is available with soft subs if you look around. It seems like they're going to really drag it out though; the first episode covers the first 2 chapters of the game (maybe just the first chapter) and runs about 30 minutes.

Also note that Sony studios released the anime. There are even Playstation logos at the end of the episodes. Sega and Sony must have a special relationship on this one.