Disgaea (Like FE on PS2!)

[Deleted]

I figured...this game is incredibly awesome. It deserves a topic, and I should spread a little of the Disgaea Love to all of you.

First though, I gotta be honest--it's not even Third Party Nintendo. This is like...fourth party, because it's not on a Nintendo console. It's a Playstation exclusive--I just didn't have anywhere else that fit better to post about it.

ANYWAY! Getting down to basics. Disgaea is easily one of the most awesome games I've played in recent times--which makes me wonder if karma (not von Karma) led me to buy this and Phoenix Wright 2 at the same time, since both are dominating my life as only Tales of Symphonia has recently done--and that was three years ago. The voice work is superb, the music ranges from catchy and charming to superb, and the characters are realistic and easy to sympathise with--once you get past the major WTF-quotient this game has to thrust on you.

The best thing I can compare it to is Advance Wars or Fire Emblem--a tactical RPG that's not as outrageously difficult. The battles aren't usually so long and drawn out, and there's a way to level-buff your weaker party members that doesn't put them in immediate danger. Also, if a party member dies on the battlefield, you can revive them for a nominal fee following the battle's conclusion--so you don't permanently lose anyone.

Also, like I mentioned earlier, the game is severely WTF. Like, this kind of WTF:



The humor in it is sort of like Deadpool-meets-South Park, only not as crude.

Aaaaand now it's way after midnight and I forgot I was in the middle of writing this like six hours ago! So yeah, that's the abridged version, and I'll expand more tomorrow if I feel like it

[Fryguy64]

It's third party

[nocturnal YL]

FE on PS2.... makes me think of Berwick Saga... (may have a spellig error...)

[Smashchu]

I think Disgaea is more along the mine of Final Fantasy Tactics then FE. But, yeah, it looks fun.

[Deleted]

I never played Final Fantasy Tactics, so I wouldn't know--but it's a lot like Fire Emblem, for sure. You can only deploy a certain amount of characters per battle, each character has a class and weapon they're strong in using, and you can only move a certain amount of spaces on the battle maps depending on how mobile the character is (mages are ploddy and don't go very far, but gunslingers and ninjas can move great distances).

[Smashchu]

sgtmajorkururu said:

I never played Final Fantasy Tactics, so I wouldn't know--but it's a lot like Fire Emblem, for sure. You can only deploy a certain amount of characters per battle, each character has a class and weapon they're strong in using, and you can only move a certain amount of spaces on the battle maps depending on how mobile the character is (mages are ploddy and don't go very far, but gunslingers and ninjas can move great distances).

Yeah, thats in most tactics games. It makes me think as FE is like the red read stepchild of the tactics games. Most work a lot like FFT. If you've played it, you'd know. If you'd like to I'll try and lay out the differencers.

[Deleted]

smashchu2 said:

If you've played it, you'd know. If you'd like to I'll try and lay out the differencers.

I try to avoid Final Fantasy as a matter of (fanboyish/bitter) principal. I only stand Kingdom Hearts for the Disney characters, natch, and even then only a select few (Jack Skellington, Jack Sparrow, Tron).

Feel free to break it down though, if you want XD

[Smashchu]

sgtmajorkururu said:

Feel free to break it down though, if you want XD

Why not, got nothing better to do.

Basiclly, FE works where you have several static characters, and you must use there set abilities and your sercumstance to pull a victory. In FFT, you have few characters you can change and mold to pull a win. As such, you have more character building in FFT. Also, it's easier(but more on that later). You also have a range of classes to chose from, but only start with two. You get more as they level up.

The other difference is that characters never dies permently(Except in the first one, where after four turns and not revived, they are kaput). This is what makes it truely easier. Also, in FE your characters have backgrounds and stories, but not so in FFT. They are only special if they're image never changes.

Those are the basic differentces. More of FFT gameplay though. You have a job(which has a set off skills) and you can add a second one from another job(or item in advance). The position of your character matters as this affects hit %(front least, back most). Also high affects movement(determined by "Jump") and attack. Archers can attck from high up well, and gunners from the ground up.

So, FE more story driven, FFT, more gameplay. Althou gh FE isn't a bad game, just a bit simplistic(but still hard).

[Wildcat]

I look at the differences between Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance like this.

Fire Emblem is certainly more character driven. FFTA had a more overbranching story that involved characters, yet you didn't really connect with them personally. FE on the other hand is very character oriented. Since FE has the anti-resurrection thing going on, you get attached to your heroes and don't want to lose any of them.

In terms of the gameplay, FE and FFTA both use a grid, but the way both games handle combat are different. FFTA has you fight on the grid, where position matters in terms of how much damage you can deliver. Also, it has skills that change up the character thanks to the job/weapon system. FE is a bit more simplistic I suppose in that the location (outside of terrain) is unimportant. When you line up against an enemy, the damage varies on what weapon both you and your opponent wield. It jumps to a separate battle screen as well. Also, skills are not the major part of the GBA games (but are included with Path of Radiance). It's more on the character's stats and on the weapons you carry. The two are very different beasts, yet being the same genre. From what I've seen of Disgaea, it's more like FFTA in terms of battle. That being said, I have been curious of the game, and now I think I'll try to hunt it down (since you and I seem to have similar likes in the RPG world). Thanks!

[Deleted]

wildcat said:

That being said, I have been curious of the game, and now I think I'll try to hunt it down (since you and I seem to have similar likes in the RPG world). Thanks!

Disgaea is pretty character-intensive, but you have the added plus of not permanently losing anyone (just be careful not to kill your own allies because that gets you the bad ending by the time you complete the game--this includes throwing your Prinnies, as tempting as it is). I didn't really care for any of the characters in the Fire Emblem game I played (Sacred Stones), but I love the Disgaea characters so far--especially Rozalin in Disgaea 2, who really develops well.



(Yes, that was partially a boob joke.)

[Wildcat]

Sacred Stones is not as good as Blazing Sword (aka Fire Emblem in the US). I didn't care for the map system too much (made moving around a bit tedious, especially when monsters got in the way), and it was fairly easy compared to the others I've played. That being said, I did like some of the characters in Sacred Stones - Joshua and Natasha in particular. But hey, to each their own.

[Wildcat]

I picked up Disgaea thanks to your recommendation. I'll be giving it a go sometime soon.

[Deleted]

Awesome! Tell me what you think about it when you've had a while to play :D

[Wildcat]

I'm still in the first chapter, but the gameplay mechanics are pretty cool. It's got its own unique feel to a basic strategy grid system, and the two characters I've met so far are likable (and have good voice actors, which is a plus!). I like the Lift/Throw option. That's pretty cool. And the Geo Panels are an interesting tweak to a somewhat typical terrain bonus/effect. I'll post more as I get deeper, but I do think I will like it a lot. ^_^