Forums > Submission Feedback > disco's Pokémon Conquest review

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

The AI is so passive that you shouldn’t 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, that’s what the game says. Like several other features, the linking mechanic and its effects on the gameplay are never fully explained; you’re 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 %.

---

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."

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."

---

Maybe he's just really good at the game?

Mobius 1, engage...

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."

Whoa. I should’ve checked back sooner.

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

Okay, first thing: I’ll admit that my phrasing was too ambiguous. The part about the passive AI isn’t about the invasions, but during combat itself. Let’s 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. You’d 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. That’s 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 doesn’t 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. I’m hoping that things drastically improve in the last few chapters. I’m still waiting for this game to surprise me.

Oh, and invasions are indeed more frequent in the post-game, but they’re only problematic if your kingdoms are not defended well. I’ve 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, I’ve yet to run into any serious issues. In fact, I intentionally let one of my kingdoms get captured – I left only an Abra and a Magikarp as its only defense – just to see what would happen. Maybe I missed something, but there doesn’t 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. Here…well, not so much.

Second thing: Okay, I phrased that whole Link section poorly. That’s entirely my fault for writing half asleep and rushing just to get the review finished in one sitting. It’ll be edited this weekend. I get that the higher the percentage represents the Pokemon’s 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 Pokemon’s 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 Pokemon’s stats? If not, is there any way to manipulate a Pokemon’s stats to round out their capabilities? The main Pokemon games let you keep close track of each individual monster’s 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? It’s 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? Shouldn’t 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 Pokemon’s 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? I’m asking this because I’ve 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 there’s so much emphasis placed on these link percentages, then why don’t they impact the game in more complex ways? Maybe it’s something obvious, and I’m just blindly dominating this game out of sheer luck. Maybe I just overlooked a menu option or skipped something in the tutorial. Maybe I’m 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 didn’t agree. I’d rather not have this topic turn into some long debate, so I won’t bother posting again. I just wanted to like Pokemon Conquest and get the most out of it. I still do. So, I’ll keep playing and hope it improves.

Is there another word for synonym?

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."