Dear Internet,
Can you
guess what I am talking about today? If
you said a Godzilla film, you need to start paying attention.
It is
too soon to go back and talk about gameplay concerning "Valkyria
Chronicles?" I do not think so,
especially considering that it is foremost a videogame, and games need gameplay
at their core. Otherwise, they are just
interactive stories at best or books at worst.
Not that there is anything wrong with books, but if the interactivity
with the medium is at the absolute minimum, then the creator of the work should
reexamine how to get across what they are trying to say. "Valkyria Chronicles" can get a bit
lengthy when it shifts into story mode.
Sometimes, there are multiple cinematics that add up to close to ten minutes
before the next mission can be attempted.
However, it does this with a purpose.
The story is used to create different types of battles and give a reason
for the range of objectives that make each mission unique.
Let me
take one of the mid-game missions. A
certain individual is kidnapped and is placed in an armored car. I will not use names in case you want to find
out for yourself, but it probably will not be that big of shock when it
occurs. I surely was not all that
surprised, but I have seen enough set-ups like this to at least wonder if it is
going to occur. Anyway, the person is
riding in an armored vehicle with a mounted machine gun. Because of this, the game prevents you from
using explosive weapons on the vehicle in case it could harm the kidnapped
person. This completely changes the
common strategy that gets used. Instead
of pitting tank against tank or sending in anti-tank personnel, the player has
to send shocktroopers in and issue a status boosting order. This is made even more complicated by the
fact that the mission takes place in a large lot which dictates the tank to be
used as a roadblock rather than as an offensive tool. Nearly all the standards of battle are turned
upside down with a single change in format.
Trying to keep a non-combatant alive proves to be much more complex than
the average trench warfare.
This
change in the status quo is not unique to this single mission. It comes right off the tail end of sneaking
mission. The player gets put behind
enemy lines and must make their way out without being spotted. If they are, then they must vacate the
location before the enemy mortar shell is launched. It allows the game to introduce a new
mechanic within a smaller scale. Before,
the only time that mortar shells could be launched was from mobile tanks. With the introduction of long-range enemies,
the game creates a new dynamic that the player has to deal with. As the game continues, the player even gets
the chance to take out one of these far-shooting dangers. This acts more as an opportunity get back at
the same artillery that had pinned you down the night before than a chance to
act strategically. However, a later
mission takes the mechanic of spotlights to another level. Instead of avoiding the spotlights with well
timed movements, the player has to move the tank through areas that will
undoubtedly trigger an incoming shell.
With this in mind, the answer is to trigger the mortar as soon as
possible in the turn and spend the remaining amount of the turn scurrying the
tank as far as possible. The way the
game can make the player both avoid an obstacle and plunge head-on to it is a testament
to what makes good gameplay.
I do
not want to make it seem like the game is constantly changing the status quo. Most missions are still primarily based
around either capturing the enemy's camp or eradicating the opposing force. What do change are the mission
decorations. Sometimes you have a special
enemy tank that needs to be taken apart piece by piece. Other times, you have access to mining carts
that can transport you halfway across the map.
The core mechanics do not change, just the objectives. I am reminded of how "Brutal
Legend" handled mixing up the formula for its battles. "Brutal Legend" had its share of
status quo changers, but it handled things very differently. Short of one mission, "Valkyria
Chronicles" tells you exactly what kind of obstacles you can expect before
each mission begins. The only one that
comes out of a blind-spot was the curve ball that the enemy had an ancient weapon
at their disposal. The purpose of this
was to make the player fell as helpless as the characters they are
controlling. "Brutal Legend"
constantly was interjecting elements late into matches that required either
advance knowledge or excessive preparedness to overcome. New types of enemies or terrain challenges
were introduced sporadically and usually at the endgame of each battle. Constantly
doing this does not make the game have dynamic twists and turns. It makes the player have to needlessly repeat
levels because there was no way they could have seen it coming. When I fail a mission in "Valkyria
Chronicles," I do not feel cheated.
I failed because I stopped looking for landmines. I failed because I pushed my tank too far
ahead and allowed an enemy to get behind me.
I failed because I threw my troops too far ahead without thinking about
scouting ahead. I fail in "Valkyria
Chronicles" because I forgot the rules and techniques that the game had
already introduced. The one time that a game
chooses to introduce an unbreakable wall is supposed to be the exception, not
the rule.
 |
| The bane of my time. |
"Valkyria
Chronicles" continues to amuse me with its shifting gameplay while
remaining true to its strong foundation.
Yours in digital,
BeepBoop
No comments:
Post a Comment