Google+   Facebook button  Twitter button 
3DS | DS | PS3 | PS4 | PSP | VITA | WII | WIIU | X360 | XB1 | All

foe_en_s4_b22.jpg

Forums > Submission Feedback > disco's Pokťmon Conquest review

This thread is in response to a review for Pokťmon Conquest on the DS. You are encouraged to view the review in a new window before reading this thread.

Add a new post within this thread...

board icon
Author: Roto13 (Mod)
Posted: July 02, 2012 (10:25 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Things like this lead me to believe you haven't played beyond the opening tutorial story:

The AI is so passive that you shouldnít have trouble conquering everything. Adversaries tend to ignore strategic options in favor of direct brawls

In The Legend of Ransei, kingdoms are pretty passive. For the other 90 hours of the game, they're much, much more aggressive. You'll probably be invaded multiple times per month, as opposed to one or twice ever in the opening.

Stuff like this doesn't help, either:

The stronger the link, the deadlier the Pokemon becomes. At least, thatís what the game says. Like several other features, the linking mechanic and its effects on the gameplay are never fully explained; youíre just given a meaningless percentage and told to keep fighting. A little better conveyance would have worked wonders.

Link % is just another word for level. It's pretty simple. The higher your link % with a Pokemon, the higher their stats, and some Pokemon evolve once they reach a certain link %.


---


board icon
Author: zippdementia
Posted: July 04, 2012 (01:02 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Harsh words, Roto! I can actually see where Disco's coming from. I was surprised to see the game get a 5 when most every other review has praised it highly for being innovative and fun. But comparing Disco's experience to those described by others and gameplay videos doesn't reveal so much a skewed opinion as an opinion not enamored with the basic concept which, admittedly, is the main innovation of the title. The combat hasn't looked to be particularly life-changing or genre-challenging. It's a fairly straightforward tactics title, with some of the more esoteric elements edited out.

Not that I would probably give it such a low score myself (though, all things considered, it's not that low a score); the game looks fun to me. But I can totally understand how someone could easily come away with Disco's opinion.


Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."


board icon
Author: Roto13 (Mod)
Posted: July 04, 2012 (05:06 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

I don't see how anyone could come away with those factual inaccuracies and misunderstanding of basic concepts of the game, though. Basically saying "It's so simple and shallow and I don't understand it."


---


board icon
Author: holdthephone
Posted: July 04, 2012 (10:26 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Maybe he's just really good at the game?


Mobius 1, engage...


board icon
Author: zippdementia
Posted: July 04, 2012 (09:34 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

I suppose, unless Disco never comes along to defend himself, we'll never really know!


Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."


board icon
Author: disco
Posted: July 06, 2012 (03:53 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Whoa. I shouldíve checked back sooner.

Actually, Iíll be passing the 30 hour mark later today. Iím currently playing through Ieyasuís campaign, and Iím still fuming over how I lost my Glaceon and the rest of my unstoppable army. I had little interest in continuing, but Iíve received enough complaints to make me reconsider. Iíve got nothing new to play until The Last Story arrives, so this should keep me occupied.

Okay, first thing: Iíll admit that my phrasing was too ambiguous. The part about the passive AI isnít about the invasions, but during combat itself. Letís take some examples from my own playthrough:

*Spoilers Ahoy!*

I reached Dragnor and finally faced Nobunaga. I had acquired Glaceon just to counter him, but I had done very little additional leveling. I approached the battle as a kind of test as to see what Nobunaga could do, and change my strategy accordingly. The battle took place in this long hallway lined with colored statues that dished out elemental damage and status ailments to whoever stood in the squares next to them. Rather than using clever unit placement and attempting to force my troops into hazards or corners, the AI simply went for whatever opponent happened to be closest. Youíd think it would focus on my Glaceon, given how it posed the greatest threat. Rather than doing any of that, however, Nobunaga commanded his Zekrom into a hazard, let it become paralyzed, and watched helplessly as I quickly slaughtered it and the rest of his party. Thatís right, the supposedly fearsome tactician fell into his own level trap without me having to manipulate him whatsoever.

It was both the funniest and saddest moment in the game.

The second time I faced Nobunaga, he had that this awesome black Rayquaza and a bunch of his most powerful warlords. There were a few instances in which he had an easy chance to kill some of my units, but he inexplicably backed off. That bit him in the ass shortly afterward when I rallied the troops and took him down. Similar things still happen even in post-game. Those missions that involve capturing the banners have been particularly easy because the enemies waste too much time fighting me instead of completing the objective. The AI doesnít utilize the battlefield hazards well, either; a few decisive victories ended with me throwing logs and rolling boulders at enemies too stupid to avoid them. Oichi just made almost the identical mistake as her brother. Unit placement in general seems to be an issue as well. Controlling bottlenecks, cornering foes with push-back attacks, and type-based teamwork have yet to be used to their logical extent. Iím hoping that things drastically improve in the last few chapters. Iím still waiting for this game to surprise me.

Oh, and invasions are indeed more frequent in the post-game, but theyíre only problematic if your kingdoms are not defended well. Iíve noticed how the enemy teams have more randomized types, so I spend a lot of time organizing my troops into multi-type teams and leaving them to level up in kingdoms adjacent to enemy nations. Since much of the combat mechanics rely on the elemental type weaknesses of the Pokemon games, Iíve yet to run into any serious issues. In fact, I intentionally let one of my kingdoms get captured Ė I left only an Abra and a Magikarp as its only defense Ė just to see what would happen. Maybe I missed something, but there doesnít seem to be any lasting consequences aside from having to battle to reclaim it. Try comparing that with the Fire Emblem series; now *those* games know how to make you feel guilty for screwing up. They give you a chance to learn more about the individual units and incorporate them into your strategies as effectively as possible. They feel relevant and necessary on your team, which makes losing them hurt that much more. HereÖwell, not so much.

Second thing: Okay, I phrased that whole Link section poorly. Thatís entirely my fault for writing half asleep and rushing just to get the review finished in one sitting. Itíll be edited this weekend. I get that the higher the percentage represents the Pokemonís overall level and attack strength, but what I meant to say was that there are some unanswered questions or features that could have better implemented. So:

-Does the Link percentage *only* affect a Pokemonís overall attack strength and chances of inflicting status ailments? If so, then why is it limited to those two aspects and not the rest of the Pokemonís stats? If not, is there any way to manipulate a Pokemonís stats to round out their capabilities? The main Pokemon games let you keep close track of each individual monsterís growth in every aspect, thus giving you tons of leeway with how to develop them. What if I want to balance my team beyond just the type advantages? Itís fine having a 80%+ Link Pokemon that can one-shot everything, but what if I want it to specialize in speed and evasion, or more resistant to status effects? Are these things limited to equipment and items, and if so, why? Shouldnít the Link have a more direct impact on those stats?

-After every battle, the Pokemon are awarded percentage points that add to their overall Link rating. How are those points calculated and distributed? How does a Pokemonís performance in battle impact it? Is it determined by the elemental types of enemies being fought? The number of kills or links with wild Pokemon? The amount of spaces, turns, or super effective attacks used? Surviving status effects? What makes the difference? Iím asking this because Iíve had several battles where the percentage points are rewarded in unlikely ways; one Pokemon who spent the entire time stuck on the sidelines got more reward than the Pokemon who dealt the killing blow to the last enemy and ended the battle. So, what are the criteria, and how can I use them to best develop my forces?

These kinds of things are important to me. If thereís so much emphasis placed on these link percentages, then why donít they impact the game in more complex ways? Maybe itís something obvious, and Iím just blindly dominating this game out of sheer luck. Maybe I just overlooked a menu option or skipped something in the tutorial. Maybe Iím just overthinking things, but I like knowing the ins and outs of how everything works. The more you know, the better you can control your army. If I can get nothing else from this game, a little more insight all I want.

Anyway, sorry if we didnít agree. Iíd rather not have this topic turn into some long debate, so I wonít bother posting again. I just wanted to like Pokemon Conquest and get the most out of it. I still do. So, Iíll keep playing and hope it improves.


Is there another word for synonym?


board icon
Author: zippdementia
Posted: July 08, 2012 (03:33 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Good response, Disco. I'm glad you dropped by to clarify!


Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."


Info | Help | Privacy Policy | Contact | Advertise | Links

eXTReMe Tracker
© 1998-2014 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Pokťmon Conquest is a registered trademark of its copyright holder. This site makes no claim to Pokťmon Conquest, its characters, screenshots, artwork, music, or any intellectual property contained within. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors.