Define SRPG, here. This year has been one of the best year SRPGs/TRPGs, across regions.
The character progression system is better imo. They overhauled it in the PSP version and I'm not a fan of the changes they made. Plus the crafting system they added is not good.
Oh for sure, but that's why I prefer the PS1 version. Translation is better in the PSP version but the PS1 translation wasn't bad for the time either
Ogre Battle? but we don't own the Shrek license.
The Banner Saga: Start with the first one (the sequel is better but you'll get more out of it if you've played through the first one).
honestly, i hate the term strategy rpg, because they're not about strategy
I'm sure there are a few for which the label is accurate. But for all the most popular ones it doesn't. I guess xcom has a strategic layer
Fire Emblem does as well, the entire rating system is based around your performance across the campaign in multiple different areas.
I'm not very familiar with later Fire Emblem games, but I don't think a rating system that spans an entire campaign is enough to count as a strategic layer
It's tied to your funds, recruitment, turn count for each chapter, etc. I think it qualifies but you can think whatever you want
Funds and recruitment, to me is part of the "rpg" aspect, and wouldn't count as strategic elements in this case. That's my reasoning
According to playstation store, it's not compatible with ps tv unfortunately :/
You are misunderstanding I think, you have to have a campaign wide strategy in order to get high rankings using the ranking system. It requires pretty significant planning for the entirety of the campaign as a whole. I'm not saying the existence of funds to manage or characters to recruit alone represent a strategic layer, but rather what is required to get high rankings using those systems.
Ok, sounds like that could be apt then. Guess it's my inexperience with later fire emblem games talking
I'm really glad I bought it for like $30 because I sure never got any use out of it. I played Muramasa and that was it I think lol. Oh well, what a shame.
Always felt the opposite. Tactics' pacing is so much worse than Let Us Cling Together and the battles, both in terms of map layout and the underlying mechanics, are nowhere near as complex. It doesn't help that each version of the game has their unique, significant problems; the original suffered from dreadful localization while the PSP remake is plagued by frequent slowdown. If it wasn't for the (admittedly solid) Final Fantasy paint job, solid score and its connection to perhaps the most thoroughly explored universe of all Final Fantasy universes (between Tactics and its sequels, the Matsuno masterpiece Vagrant Story and Final Fantasy XII), I sincerely doubt Final Fantasy Tactics would be as well remembered as it currently is.
I love both.
I love TO as much as anybody, but come on. FFT was highly regarded from day one til now. It does not owe its reputation to the other Matsuno games. FFT was and is great. TO is as well, and arguably better.
A solid paint job of series staples doesn't paper over the stagnant battles and bad story pacing (and even worse original localization) but go ahead and selectively read part of my post if it helps you sleep at night.
There's...
