Ogre Battle 64: Person of Lordly Caliber [2000] ANALYSIS

11 thoughts on “Ogre Battle 64: Person of Lordly Caliber [2000] ANALYSIS”

  1. Obviously you didn’t play the game to it’s full potential. Learn all there is to learn about the game before you go knocking it. Also, it’s all about taste. Perhaps some people enjoy the extreme sub-system detail? Perhaps the alternate endings aren’t as difficult to achieve to another person as they obviously are to you? Perhaps some people enjoyed putting hours and days of hard labour into the game, and didn’t find it a waste of time come the conclusion? It’s all about the taste of the gamer, and if one doesn’t like the aspects of choosing your own results, controlling every aspect of every tiny character, or any other part of this thorough entertainment, one should go elsewhere for their entertainment and leave those who enjoy the game to enjoy it.

    Like

  2. and yes, there WERE Ogres in Ogre Battle 64, obviously. The first Ogre encounter is at Dardunnelles. Pay attention next time.

    Like

    1. Re: The two comments above.

      Play What You Like is not about making nicey-nice. It is entertaining analysis from someone with many years of real world game design experience. I have no doubt that just about any game, no matter how flawed will be liked by someone. This game was ambitious and succeeded in creating a huge, rich system. However that does not make it a broad success. (The lack of which cannot be entirely blamed on its N64 platform.)

      I think I put in far too many hours into this game trying to find its redemptive qualities. I do not have to understand every bolt in a car when I test drive it to know whether or not it is for me or a quality piece. I understand (too many of) Ogre Battle 64’s bolts. The game and systems had such potential too.

      If this game is your taste, and apparently it is, go ahead and enjoy it. Some can despite its flaws (and depressing, prozac inducing ending). Thanks for the spirited comments.

      Additionally, as you probably know, the “Ogre Battle” and “Tactics Ogre” series titled games do not really revolve around ogres.

      As common as ogres in Ogre Battle 64

      Like

  3. Just one line was sufficient for the flaws you appointed: The game is too difficulty to me and I cant see the beauty of poetical downer endings.

    Like

    1. There were multiple endings set up in a way we found flawed.

      We can appreciate the poignancy of an alternative ending. Maybe you got one of those. But the crudtastical one we got was unworthy of this game and our invested time.

      Like

  4. I agree about the alignment only partially. I prefer alignments be able to change rapidly and I’m happy that once you have your “final” class, your alignment doesn’t influence building strategy anymore(except for capture/liberate strongholds). The key problems with classes were the restrictions, which for me was equipment and not stats or alignment.

    I was a little sad there wasn’t a good “Bad” ending… I tend to think an “evil” character could have children who also ruled with an iron fist, but the game creators must have not wanted to promote dictatorship at all. They seemed to think royal families in reality are all good?, but then why not have an option to save Yumil(seemed like a good guy) and actually be his knight? Was Yumil’s royal heritage(or Progenitor’s pact) such a fatal flaw? That’s what made me sad. You could be such a “good” guy, but never actually save Yumil.

    Like

    1. You are definitely knowledgeable about the game. Your points are well taken. Thanks for bringing them.

      Getting to the final class was more difficult, in our opinion, because of the opaque nature of alignment. The idea in the raw has potential… maybe, if done right.

      The Matsuno family of games are not set up to reward despotism. I can see why there was no positive bad-guy ending. It does not fit the Matsuno mold. (Although happy endings often do fit that mold either.)

      Since the ages of chivalry and magic, in which most of these games take place, are often ruled by monarchies, it is not surprising to see so much interaction in and around royal families (and displaced princes/princesses.)

      You bring forth an interesting take on the endings we had not considered. It makes for interesting story and plot discussions, but still does not save the game from giving many, perhaps most players that reach the end, an unnecessarily, somewhat unsatisfying ending. (For us it was a lot more than unsatisfying.)

      Like

  5. People can write a history to be ideal. Or we can write the way it would have really happened if it was a real history. Say a game have to end happily because the player put up a lot of effort is narrow your vision.

    Like

    1. If we wanted total realism every moment of life, we would probably not be playing a video game. They are played for entertainment, and when we are done we are supposed to feel better for the time having been spent. Not depressed. Poignancy is not depression, either. You can have a poignant ending that is fitting, or you can have multiple horrid endings that most people are going to get and not enjoy at all.

      If you want something approaching realism and often depressing, you can watch the news for free. But for those of use who invest our time into saving the world in a video game, it is sad to watch the globe explode because we did not buy a daisy from the flower girl on level four.

      Like

  6. Not liking a game just because all the endings are depressing is limit only you can remove from yourself.
    About the news comparison, i could suggest you to only watch care bears cartoons. But i am not trying to say depressing is better, i am just saying Poignancy can be so good as happy endings.

    Like

    1. This game has a lot of dedicated followers. Although I do not think it was Matsuno’s best, it is certainly a well crafted and quality game. Hey, few are bigger fans of the man’s talent than I. But fan does not mean saying everything he did was good.

      Poignancy is fine, but implies a certain resonance and symmetry to a story. “All the endings being bad” is just misguided judgment, and a poor choice for a game. It is not poignancy. An SRPG of this nature is not an 8 hour experience. Those who played over a 100 hours, like I, obviously enjoyed the gameplay. But with little or no possibility for a positive ending, or even a reasonably positive ending… It tarnishes its own greatness.

      I do not limit myself in SRPGs, but I do call them with the experience of a developer. This game undoubtedly would have been stronger with a better ending structure. Thanks for commenting, I appreciate your point of view on this complex subject.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s