To Arms!

I am actually kind of confused as to how this is a "tactics RPG" seeing as there is no tactical battle system.

I've also stated a number of times that this isn't what a player is looking for when they search RMN for "Tactics RPG". Seek your target audience!

I've just completed the goblin mission and I find the battles to be a lot more satisfying than in the demo, but that is probably because there are more of them, they are better balanced and things aren't on such an "epic" scale. I still wouldn't call it any more "tactical" than a game like Hero's Realm, though, because the only difference is that you have more characters available in battle.

As for non-combat related issues...

I agree with what Solitayre said about finding items when exploring. Goblins are guarding their loot and yet you're not allowed to search around for supplies? Makes no sense. Also on the topic of items, you should probably start the character off with a few of each basic item just to make sure they have something to fall back on; balance this by starting them with less cash if you really feel the need to. When buying equipment, it would be nice to see everyone's stats in the window (is there some sort of way to scroll it down that I have not been told?) and it would also be nice to have the Q/W hotkeys for switching between characters available when trying to learn skills (this is not a major issue). There are also a bunch of mapping issues that irked me, especially the fact that you can often walk to the edge of the map and yet aren't teleported anywhere/told "We should be going north!!!111one".

Oh, Iron Maiden battle music? I approve.

The second section of this game is murder although, contrary to what some other people are saying, I didn't have any problems with the section where you play as Horace and Janos alone. However, rather than this being because the game is well balanced, I think it is purely down to the development choices I have made with my characters and the fact that I stumbled across a combination of moves that "break" the game (Enfeeble + Hold The Line basically reduces damage to ridiculously small levels).

Based on my experience so far, you need to have a perfectly developed party to get through this demo. If you make a mistake in the skills you choose then you are going to have massive issues. And I don't mean a couple of mistakes, I mean a single mistake. If your whole party isn't geared towards a certain aim then you're going to fail right from the very start, before you've even worked out what a good combination is. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. Not any party combination should be able to get through the game (Solitayre is definitely wrong about that), but you shouldn't have to do everything 100% perfectly in order to win either (especially not whilst you're still learning how the game works). Both extremes are as bad as each other.

There are other problems, too;

First off, the healing spells that the priests have are fairly useless and, if you intend to keep them like that, then you really need to make the healing items better; if the player is completely unable to heal the damage they are taking, regardless of what tactics they use, then that is generally a bad thing.

The other problem would be the archers. Sometimes I could kill all three of them (in the Cutjack battle) easily, but sometimes I would get wiped out without landing a hit on them. Their agility is just that ridiculous. Luck shouldn't be playing such a massive part in my attempts to progress.

It is okay to say that your testers had no problems, but I don't want to play through the same bit of game another 5 or so times to work out perfect combinations (which your testers had a chance to, hence making it easier for them). Nor should I have to in order to enjoy the game. There is actually a well-written storyline going on in the background but I'm not going to see the end of it because I'm not playing the whole game again just to get past a single battle.

EDIT: Oh, by "problems with x battle", I mean that it is impossible for me to win that battle due to the choices I have made. I have multiple saves but, in order to go back far enough to revert my choices, I might as well start again... so I won't be playing this anymore unless a lot of things are fixed.

EDIT2: I haven't decided whether or not I will write a review yet, but to do so right now would be a bad idea. Need to let my ideas stew.

Perhaps "so I won't be playing this anymore unless a lot of things are fixed" was a little over-the-top because I am probably going to have a few more goes at getting past that battle...

Anyway.

I am fighting with two Priests (including the main-character Priest), one Knight, one Pikeman and one Archer.

Archer: I tend to have the Archer inflict poison on the enemy I am currently trying to kill in between uses of his scatter attack, although he is also used as the "item user" since he acts faster than everyone else. However, since I have far too few items at this point, having an "item user" is fairly ineffective. My lack of items coupled with the lack of chances to restock is 99% of why I am at a dead-end. Was I supposed to know I wouldn't be able to buy more items at the start of the game because, frankly, most people aren't going to expect that and are going to have to start over because of it. This is a bad thing.

Knight: Ranks using honourguard and attacks afterwards. I taught him Wyrmkiller in error and screwed up his damage dealing capabilities quite a bit as a result, but that shouldn't have such a profound effect (if it does, something is wrong)

Priests: One of the Priests boosts the Knight's health and then focuses on healing him throughout. The other Priest boosts the Pikeman's and Knight's attack and then focuses on healing the person who needs it most at the end of each turn. However, because their healing skill is so ineffective (and yet still causes stun; what the fuck?) their use as healers is very limited. They only just allow me to hang on.

Pikeman: Main damage-dealer (strangely enough). Either attacks or uses his spear-throw skill to deal damage to the current target. He also has trip, but I've not had this skill work once throughout the entire demo (or the notification it gives when it does work is totally inadequate, which would also be a problem).

Generally, I can take out the archers before I get into serious trouble. However, how alarmingly different the results can be - even when using the exact same tactics - is what eventually made me give up. Sometimes I can kill all the archers in 4-5 turns, but sometimes I am wiped out without landing a hit on them (this actually happened, it is not an exagerration). Their evasion is ridiculous. Basically, like I said after the original demo, and like Solitayre said in the review, there is too much luck involved and that makes me want to stop playing. If it is meant to be tactical then make luck a lot less prevelant.

Anyway, whether I kill the archers or not, I am pretty much screwed once my healing items dry up because the Priests do not heal enough damage (having such an ineffective spell cause a stun status is just ridiculous in the first place). Perhaps I didn't purchase enough healing items at the start but, since I can't take that back now I am pretty scewed (the player really shouldn't have to buy items for the whole of a game at the start when they are still learning how to play and have no idea what the damage dealing capabilities of enemies are - this is just fucked up. And the healing items themselves are just as ineffective as the Priest's healing abilities are anyway - equally fucked up). You should really consider having more lootable areas and perhaps the group of minstrels/entertainers you save could offer to give you some items/sell you some items once you finish saving them?

Despite my reservations after the original demo, this battle-system actually works quite well, but you're going so far with the difficulty that most people aren't going to get to the end of the second section (or even the first if they are unlucky enough to buy too few items at the start of the game). At its worst, this game currently feels like you are punishing new players for not having played the game before (you do you see how stupid that is, right?) In all honesty, I think I should've abandonned the idea of outfitting my party properly and just bought a shit-tonne of healing items instead; I don't think the armour and weapons I bought actually made that much difference.

I'm going to give this a few more tries (a couple of different parties) before writing a review so I can test a few things, but as it stands I believe this game is far too difficult for most players (and especially for new players). You are relying too much on the player making perfect choices at a point when they don't even know how the system works. Sure, when I play it again then I will probably make it through a lot easier, but a new player isn't going to have the benefit of understanding the system as well as your testers did. It is just plain frustrating to have to play something once, work out what works, and then start again just to get through the first couple of areas.

Bottom line: If you are too stubborn to do anything about these problems then you're going to have real problems maintaining a fan-base for this series. For example, I had to lower the difficulty of several sections of Sore Losers after the first couple of demos, even though me and my testers found them easy. If a lot of people are all telling you the same thing then it is a good chance that they are right and you are wrong.

(FTR: Starseed: Bloodmachine suffered from the same problem - your stubborness. You didn't have to stop making it, you just had to accept that people were having problems and lower the difficulty a little. The mechanics themselves weren't terrible, you just hadn't taken developer/tester difficulty into account properly. Happens to everyone).

EDIT: A more relevant example: After I released the demo for Sore Losers: Riot Grrrl, a lot of people made a lot of detailed comments about what they'd like to see more of, what they'd like to see less of, that the difficulty was maybe a bit too high at first, the graphics etc. I took nearly all these on board despite thinking the original demo was pretty good. Why? Because it would ultimately make the game better for people who played it. Perhaps ironically, quite a lot of these suggestions were one's you either made or echoed.

I thought about writing a (rather) lengthy review, but I don't want to suffer through To Arms! a minute longer. You had a great concept, To Arms! prototype, and you've transformed it into something unapproachable by an average gamer. Good job.

The silly thing is that, although it would be very easy to fix this release, Max might have driven a lot of people away (as they will feel disenchanted with the game and might not play further releases) due to this stubborness.

Ok, I've played the game. Here's my experiences with it.

Gameplay:

Chose an Archer, Pikeman, Alchemist, and Engineer. Please note that I chose the Alchemist and bought copious amounts of salves because I knew I was going to need them based on prior comments. Turns out this was the right choice. I had no problems in the first mission, save Horace dying while still outside and no ability to revive him (didn't think about buying a restore item). I was also mislead by the fact that you were healed before the first mission and after the battle traveling to the town. No such luck during the first mission, but whatever, I didn't need Horace that much it turns out, at least before he was able to get revived.

Now, here's my experience with the luck factor. Like I said, I didn't have much problem at this point, including misses and evades. They came up, but never turned into a problem with the full party. I don't think that's luck. What I DO think is luck, however, came after Horace died. When he died, I had resigned to start the mission over from the save, because I was only one or maybe two battles in. So, I chose attack for all characters until the battle concluded. I won. I believe this to be good luck. People don't typically complain when they win, but I had noticed it after a few unfair attacks had landed on Horace and killed him.

I did not observe any threat mechanic at all in this game. In fact, I completely ignored it as far as builds go and forgot it was a mechanic until reviewing certain skills to purchase. I don't see why it should exist. I was just happy playing the game as I would any other DQ game; let the hits fall random and spot heal when you need to. I realize this is dependent on build, so I just happened to pick an incredibly good one.

Skill building was easy and logical. Once I saw the engineer could toss pitch at the enemies, I learned fire-based abilities with Horace, the Archer, and bought Grenn's str buff for his own attacks which does fire damage (although I don't think it stacked with Janos's "Let Them Have It!" which I also bought). Got Trip with the Pikeman since I figured I would want a little utility for boss fights. By the time I had 7 characters, nothing really became a threat. I made it through the first mission with relative ease, but by ease, I mean that I kept on top of healing when I needed to, removed statuses when it was safe to do so, and gave buffs when I could. It certainly doesn't need to be harder.

Second mission/event. Forced-loss to Aemon, forced-win to Cutjack/Rhea (after killing two archers I think), no biggie. Then, it happened; the moment I knew was going to come but didn't know exactly when.

Two Storm Crow Pikeman (I think), the first battle you fight with Janos and Horace on the way to the Castellan. First time I was stupid, hadn't healed before, so I took the first round to heal both characters. After the first round, both were back down to where they were when they started, or worse. A few more rounds, no headway to begin my offensive. Horace dies. Use an item to bring him up. Janos dies. Another round or two of trading heals with blows, and it's all over. Second attempt: both characters healed. Pop guard-mode with Janos, cast spell with Horace. Horace is two-shot, dead, from full health. Janos lasts a few rounds before going down. Third attempt, more healing against a brutal offensive under which I could make no headway. I lose again. I quit playing.

The same thing happened in the latter part of the Starseed demo. I'm secretly glad I never made it to the Cutjack/Rhea fight, or the boss at the end, as I didn't want to have to go through that again. The difficulty jump between mission one and mission two is too great. I don't have enough abilities to deal with the change in enemy strength, and splitting the party made that point moot anyway, at least for Janos/Horace.

And now...

Plot/Setting/Story/Characters/Everything Else

Whoa. Really, Max? I'm actually a little stunned. But let me start from the beginning.

Going in, I knew that the setting and tone of the game were greatly influenced by ASOIAF. This was evident pretty much as soon as I started watching the intro as well. The game's intro starts with the training of the Duke's son in armed combat. At this point I felt right at home in the Westeros universe, bringing back memories of Winterfell's own courtyard and the training of Bran Stark with blunted training swords.

Terms familiar in the universe were thrown around quite frequently, like ser, coz, seven hells, etc. It would also seem a good number of names in the game were lifted right from the series as well, as blue period noted. In particular, the random names for both males and females included major plot characters and more from the books.

I can understand all of this. It's a great, rich world created by GRRM, and it deserves homage. I'd say it fits right in with what you were wanting to do with To Arms!, but I think it's more likely that his universe actually inspired To Arms!' creation, including characters, setting, and tone.

But the story, too? After finishing my first foray into typical RPG-land, clearing goblins out of a sacked village, I traveled back to Ryn..something, and was met by a bard or some such along the way. I was literally mouth-opened aghast to hear what had happened to the Duke. Not because it was unexpected and a really crappy thing to have happened, but because it was a carbon copy of a major plot point in A Game of Thrones!

As I encountered this band of deserters, I already knew the Duke was dead. I was 100% sure of it. The goblin leader's "foreshadowing" had pretty much prophesied the future of the Blackthorne brothers. Basically, as soon as he said it, I knew it was truth, I was just counting down the time. So yeah, the Duke's dead. But really? Died in a hunting accident? Presumably by a wild boar? I groaned, and pressed on the the next cutscene, but it only got worse.

The Duke lays dying on his bed. He knows his wife poisoned him.. The Duchess refers to him as a fat drunk. The sisters give him milk of the poppy. He dies, as the Duchess planned. I felt like I was watching scenes from the book. After that, other events started to come into place, but have yet to be confirmed in the scope of this episode. I realized then why the Duchess wouldn't let the Duke have his way with her. I'm now suspicious of little Timmy's origins, and while I'm not sure that Kevan would have bedded the Duchess, I now have no choice but to believe that some other Morrigen had.

What happened between the prototype and this? The prototype's synopsis talked about the merciless Blackthorne Company and how they were hired to purge a necromancer from a town. What was wrong with that? If that's still the case, why add this prologue episode? This episode is a fan game. What I don't know is what happens in future episodes. If it continues to parallel the events of the A Song of Ice and Fire series, that's fine, wear it on your sleeve. It's a great series. But if your plan for the future is for this to be viewed as an original effort, this episode needs a significant rewrite, or to be axed completely, as I would be too distracted to accept the story by its own merit (that is to say, I'd be too busy looking for parallels to ASOIAF, if they weren't as obvious as this major scenario).

I don't know how far into characters/dialogue I should go. To most (people that are happy that it's written in understandable, grammatically-correct English), it probably comes off as nitpicks. However, you pride yourself with your accomplishments, and it wouldn't do not to hold you to that. The characters had their distinctive quirks, making them recognizable. I can't agree with a lot of the choices for dialogue though. Stylistically, you chose to give Horace the colorization a random boss or comical sidekick might have. He likes his fireballs, and he works them into his conversation, like an otaku might end a sentence with "desu ka?" This is fairly common in jRPG's, and is to this degree an archetypical character quirk. But did you really intend for this to be the case in a Westerosi universe?

"Wakey waky, eggs and bakey!" Enough said there. I appreciate the interjection of humor, but Janos Blackthorne? Moving on.

The talk of cursing has been done to death, and I've given my own opinions already. Having experienced the game now, I do find a number of the curses forced. A practical example: Janos is summoned to Mandon and gives him a greeting one typically would give a Duke. Mandon responds, "Dispense with the f---king formalities, Janos. I'm not in the mood," maybe not verbatim, but close to it. Let's dissect.

Why is he not in the mood? He just found out goblins are assembled and ready to sack one of his villages. Distressing news, to be sure. He then summons Janos to confer on the situation. If he summoned Janos, why we he react that way to seeing him? He's had a chance to be angry before Janos arrived, then the arrival of Janos might actually serve to improve his mood because Janos is the first step in getting some asses kicked. Furthermore, is this the same kind of mood one would be "effing" about? If someone makes you angry, like goblins, and you have the capability to completely crush them, then what you are feeling might be wrath. If someone makes you angry, like your wife, and you can't do anything meaningful about it, then you might not be in the effing mood.

Note that the above is stupid and subject to infinite levels of interpretation. Point is, it didn't feel like a natural response to the situation, and out of flow. To the contrary, a curse that seemed more appropriate came from Horace, talking to Aemon. "Where are your men?" "Taking turns plowing your mother's c--t." A harsh word, to be sure, but it flows much better, and more naturally given the situation and Horace's personality.

Too much nitpick. I'll just say that for an ASOIAF-themed game, the dialogue seems to fall into the jRPG trap of token humor and archetypical extremism. Sorry if that sounds negative. When I'm playing a game and I'm not immersed by the dialogue (like Xenogears perhaps), then I fall back on the story to keep me interested, and I've been over that already.

"It's not plagiarism - I'm recycling words, as any good environmentally conscious writer would do."

~ Uniek Swain Max McGee

hey did you just spill my pint

right that's it *breaks pool cue*