kylelabriola

blogging (ashamedly)

Hello! I'm an artist, writer, and game developer. I work for @7thBeatGames on "A Dance of Fire and Ice" and "Rhythm Doctor."

--

I run @IndieGamesofCohost where I share screenshots and spotlights of indie games. I also interview devs here on Cohost.


I'm having fun with Tactical Breach Wizards, it's really good. But it also reminds me of that really wide spectrum of game under the "tactics game" or "tactics RPG" umbrella term.

There's probably technical game design terms for these but for me it always feels like a spectrum from the word "Tactics" to "RPG."

So on the "Tactics" end of the spectrum it's stuff like Tactical Breach Wizards, Steamworld Heist II, and Into the Breach. Every single turn counts, you have to be really careful about what you're doing. They're very "swingy" to me, as in the tide of battle can swing in the opposite direction very quickly on a misplay. Usually, to make this all happen, the game is designed with really low max HP numbers.

And then the other side of the spectrum is the "RPG" end with stuff like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea. Where battles are long, HP gauges are large, and you kind of chip away at each other. You also usually have more character customization and party customization, spread out over a longer time. Maybe even Baldur's Gate 3 is in this category?

Both ends of the spectrum have the potential to kind of lose my interest sadly. The idea of having to be perfectly tactical with every single move can be a bit exhausting and disheartening (maybe I should be putting on Easy modes when available) and feel a little bit left-brained. Especially if your own character can be KO'd in one turn. But the other end, when the RPG battles are sooooooo long and slow, is also exhausting in a different way.


In terms of things meeting in a happy middle...I've come to appreciate that maybe Fire Emblem is halfway between these extremes. I used to consider it much more on the swingy side, because of how much more quickly a Fire Emblem character can die than a FFT character, but now that I know a little bit better how to play...they kind of mix up the pace in a generous way. Battles against equally-matched units can be the slow, drag-out, chip-away-at-their-HP fights But battles where one unit is super effective against the other are more drastic and swingy.

And from Sacred Stones onward, they've gravitated over letting you have more control over your character's eventual "build."

This is why I really really wish Fire Emblem Heroes was better about having some sort of non-gacha mode, or roguelike modes, or more modes with rental units (I know there is a recurring limited time event that does this) because the way they shrunk down the maps and army sizes I think is really appealing. But sadly, because it's a gacha live service game, the character progression is this endlessly stretched out treadmill where you characters can always have better stats and you can't judge if anything is a matter of skill or a matter of grinding.

Triangle Strategy is closer to the "RPG" side, but they streamline the character progression and character customization to make it much simpler and faster than FF Tactics, which I can respect.

Some other games that I feel kinda meet in the middle are Kingsvein, Dream Tactics, and Marvel's Midnight Suns. Maybe I should go back and beat those one of these days...


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @kylelabriola's post:

fire emblem is kinda not great at the tactics or the rpg side of things but i think it’s always blended them into something that’s greater than the sum of their parts. you’re granted lots of rpg, and there’s (usually) not very many hp sponges (looking at you three houses) and permadeath adds a good twist on tactics, since the focus isn’t just on how to most efficiently consume your limited units.

Yeah it's funny, I agree that they're not really that great at satisfying either end of the spectrum. The best way to get the most out of FE I feel like is to be there for the whole package, including the character designs, the writing, etc.

Although I have a lot of crits about the game as well, I was really interested in Fire Emblem Engage using the "Emblem Rings" as a way to make RPG-style character builds that can easily be equipped, unequipped, swapped around to other units in the roster. I feel like that's an interesting concept that both tactics games and RPGs could take advantage of, instead of relying on stat growths or skill trees.

I was talking to a friend about stuff related to this recently. Something in the water?

I'm torn on games you're describing as closer to "Tactics" on this hypothetical spectrum because I find them to be closer to, say, doing "chess puzzles" that have an optimal intended solution rather than "playing chess" which has a back-and-forth flow over a larger period of time. The "tactics" are so much more abstracted out into these bite-size chunks that they have a fundamentally different appeal to me.

Like I know it can be really frustrating to have a choice you made 20 turns or even battles ago put you in a bad situation, but I also feel like dealing with the consequences of your own actions clashing up against the consequences of the enemy's actions is part of what "tactics" is on a conceptual level. Or maybe that's getting into "strategy" territory?

When you say "torn on" do you mean conflicted about whether you enjoy playing them, or conflicted that they should count as tactics RPGs?

I'm not far into Tactical Breach Wizards but even out of the three I listed, I feel like TBW feels the most like a puzzle game with intended solutions so far.

I'm a fan of Into the Breach but mostly in theory, I haven't gone back to play that many runs of it. For better or worse I just find myself wishing you could customize those mechs more so that I could get more emotionally attached.

I'm in the TTRPG side of things more than the video game side (which has its own Takes on tactical vs rpg), so the mechanical identity of "RPG" here kinda blindsided me. Not in a bad way, just becoming aware of a different perspective

I really really wish there was a quick-and-easy term to refer to "games that mechanically function like Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Shin Megami Tensei, etc." Sometimes I say "turn-based party RPG" and hope that, within the context of video games specifically, people will get what I mean. But even that's way too loose.

no it's totally okay, it's like "fighting game," a label for a category that's more historical than literal. But it's reminding me that I can't say "video game RPG" and assume that people are looking at them with a similar lens as TTRPGs. honing my blade of language

I've been thinking about these definitions recently, especially in the wake of TBW, a well regarded entry in a subgenre of tactics games that I frankly don't care much for. I think for me at the end of the day, I need tactics games to be some kind of approximation or abstraction of actual war, where victory is decided through a combination of field tactics, recruiting, logistics, and campaign level decision making. Even something as fluffy as FE does a better job of this than many of these tactic puzzle games coming up in the indie scene. I don't want to say they shouldn't be called tactics games but they're so different from the ones that I regard as core to the genre's experience that I can't help but feel like a bit of a grognard seeing these new games become the new definition.

I'm legitimately surprised to see folks here in the comments who also don't click with this subgenre, because I thought I was in the minority. To me, the subgenre feels very "game designer's dream", because it's designed carefully like clockwork. I imagine we'll continue to see more of them going forward.

But yeah, if TBW didn't let you assign perk points between battles to slightly customize your party's build, I don't even know what genre I would call it.