Gaming Rondo of Swords

[Raestloz]

I just played Rondo of Swords in my cousin's DS, he said RoS is "screwed", but since any people say it's "beautiful", I tried it.

Hack, even in my first turn, this game freaks me out, I thought it's a typical TBS game, stand next to someone, and whack 'im, never have I dreamed of seeing somebody doing hit and run in a strategy game like this.

You actually have to pass a unit, and a scene apears, your Hero draws out his blade, as cool as Samanosuke drawing his elemental katana, then he approaches the unit, slash 'im, and run away, WTH?

Really, this is a cowardly game, even though the story might be good, seeing my characters (and thus, me myself, I control them) doing it and run isn't bearable.

And so, I turned my head to my cousin, asking:
Me: "THIS..... is Rondo of Swords?"
Cousin: "Yep, hit and run, the safest method of fighting"
Me: "It's so cowardly!"
Cousin : "Yeah, and I can't bear it, too bad I have no other game, or else I must've deleted it from my R4"

Really, the timestamp shows he saved after around 8 minutes playing. At which part does Rondo of Swords become good? Can anybody tell me?

 

[Sendoh]

 

[samuraibunny]

Yes, this game IS hard, but i think once you get past the first stage/ map of the game, it gets easier (for a bit) and the story gets better.

And actually, you can level grind. If you go into a level and fight a bit, you can retreat from the level and still retain the exp you gained from it. But I guess that would be considered hit and run too.

 

[LagunaCid]

In Fire Emblem for the consoles, you can hit and run too (with mounted units), I never found that to the a terrible thing.

 

[psycoblaster]

so what you want is the same old srpg everytime?
the same old "stand next to a unit and attack"?

so you don't consider the maker's thoughts of trying to change things up a bit for originality, right?
so you'll rather stick with the same srpg that will come out anytime such as a long time ago as shining force, or new ones like fire emblem DS.
You don't want to try out something "new" like this game.

and your words are a little too extreme; you sound as if EVERYBODY likes the game and EVERYBODY says it's good. Well, no, not everybody does.

It's normal to not like this game - I mean some people likes dragon quests and final fantasies, but some doesn't.

but still don't say a game is shit because of it's gameplay. It's their own game with it's own twist - trying to create an original gameplay.

 

[silent sniper]

I just don't like this game. IMHO, a great idea poorly executed.

 

[Dylan]

terrible game

 

[Raestloz]

so what you want is the same old srpg everytime?
the same old "stand next to a unit and attack"?

so you don't consider the maker's thoughts of trying to change things up a bit for originality, right?
so you'll rather stick with the same srpg that will come out anytime such as a long time ago as shining force, or new ones like fire emblem DS.
You don't want to try out something "new" like this game.

and your words are a little too extreme; you sound as if EVERYBODY likes the game and EVERYBODY says it's good. Well, no, not everybody does.

It's normal to not like this game - I mean some people likes dragon quests and final fantasies, but some doesn't.

but still don't say a game is shit because of it's gameplay. It's their own game with it's own twist - trying to create an original gameplay.

Ever heard of Samurai? Or maybe, ever watch a war movie?

Samurais are trained for battle, they go to battle expecting and seeking death, those who are scared with death will fight poorly, and Death will come even faster to them

And, in every movie depicting war, never have I seen a commander or any unit shoots his M4 to an enemy and then run away, then he comes back, shooting another soldier, and run away. Save for a hitman or assassin, and no assassin or hitman ever participate in Open Fire

Seriously, while discretion is the better part of valor, Courage is what you need in battle. What's new in hit and run? In my elementary school, I always play tag, which is just the same as hit and run, run to any player, tag 'im/her, and run away. It's OLD, and cowardly. In any fighting style or school, no "hit-and-run" class. Kendo, Aikido, Karate, whatever you name it.

In Medieval times, Knights were praised for their fighting skills and courage, none of those ever done hit and run, they might've went away from a footman, but that's because he's charging for the units behind him(archers, commander, other soldiers, etc) not for safety, you have Armor for that

Thus, here's my point of view for points you said:

1)Originality: I gotta admit, it's original, never before I saw hit and run, only "now or never"


2)Not the same old style: Will you eat a Wormburger? Yeah, maybe you will, Worms are known to provide good vitamins and is healthy, and maybe, because it's gross, you won't, despite it's originality and "not the same chicken/beef/hamburger". It's just the same. A hit and run war game. Since it's new, some might like it, and since it's cowardly, some won't like it.

Miscellanous:
3)My words are extreme: because, up to the time I posted this topic, all posts I saw said RoS is good, no wonder I think so

4)About DQ and FF: You never know why they dislike the game, if it's because they don't like RPG in general, no wonder they dislike those games, and that's a different point from this little chat we have here

5)Gameplay's not everything: A game consists of 4 parts: Gameplay, story, graphics, and music. Gameplay holds 45%, Story holds 35%% of the game, graphics 15%, and music 5%

Gameplay 45%, Why?

Example: Worms Series. Obviously, the first Worms doesn't have good graphics like today, and there's no story in Worms, what story can you see in campaign?

Yet, Worms: Space Oddity was released, indicating the game is so good, what's good about the game? The Gameplay

Story 25%, Why?
Example: FFVII series. Final Fantasy VII for PSX offers the standard gameplay for RPG. Level up, equip godly equipments, and masacre bosses. So, why does FFVII series has Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus, Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core, and Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children at it's disposal? Because the story is good. You can't rely on graphics for original FFVII, as FFVIII, and obviously, FFX has better graphics.

Graphics 15%, Why?
Example: New Super Mario Bros. The existence of this game proves my point. New Super Mario Bros has nothing new to offer in terms of Gameplay and Story. Flat Goombas, kick shells, spit bouncing fireballs, and rescue the beloved Princess who never thought of learning a fighting skill to just choke anybody who wants to kidnap her. The only difference between Super Mario Bros released around 90's and New Super Mario Bros is the graphics, and that's that

Music 5%, Why?
Example: Grand Theft Auto Series. The fact that the radio system is included in GTA series provs the point. Hearing a DJ speaking on the background won't make your car invincible, but without it, the game is just boring, aside the fact that the Gameplay, Graphics, and Story is good. Even more, have you ever bought a game because a review says "The Music is Just Excellent"?

Gameplay affects 45% of a game, so since (to me) RoS's fighting style (a.k.a. the Gameplay) is shit, the music doesn't help, and the graphic is just standard (or maybe below, since it's almost top-down, today Tactical game features 3D landscape view, even Age of Empires) it's no wonder I say the game is bad

 

[LagunaCid]

Example: New Super Mario Bros. The existence of this game proves my point. New Super Mario Bros has nothing new to offer in terms of Gameplay and Story. Flat Goombas, kick shells, spit bouncing fireballs, and rescue the beloved Princess who never thought of learning a fighting skill to just choke anybody who wants to kidnap her. The only difference between Super Mario Bros released around 90's and New Super Mario Bros is the graphics, and that's that

And wallkicks, and coins, and new powerups, and triple jump, and... ah, you get it.


Also ITT:
"MY TASTES ARE SUPERIOR TO YOURS"

 

[Ruri]

Ever heard of Samurai? Or maybe, ever watch a war movie?

Samurais are trained for battle, they go to battle expecting and seeking death, those who are scared with death will fight poorly, and Death will come even faster to them

And, in every movie depicting war, never have I seen a commander or any unit shoots his M4 to an enemy and then run away, then he comes back, shooting another soldier, and run away. Save for a hitman or assassin, and no assassin or hitman ever participate in Open Fire.You misunderstand how the game works; if you'd played it longer, you'd have gotten it.

You're not 'running away'. You're charging entire lines of enemies at once. In fact, in the actual game, running away is rarely good option -- hitting large numbers of enemies at once is much more effective.

Rondo of Swords is the opposite of the sort of game you think it is. Most strategy-RPGs are extremely static -- you stay in one place and fire things from a distance, you lure enemies over one by one and gang up on them without ever really getting into the thick of battle.

In order to beat Rondo of Swords, though, you have to be willing to charge directly through (or across) enemy lines. You can't "turtle" the way you do in other strategy-RPGs, because the combat system means the enemy can dash right through your defenses if you try to play too defensively.

The game is not supposed to be a series of one-on-one duels. You're supposed to dash through or across the entire enemy formation at once; you don't stop to do a plodding, silly duel with the first guy you run into because you also have to get a cut in on each of his seven friends.


...also, read the Thirty-Six Stratagems, which are one of the foundations of modern military strategy. Out of all of them the most important is the 36th stratagem:
QUOTEIf it becomes obvious that your current course of action will lead to defeat, then retreat and regroup. When your side is losing, there are only three choices remaining: surrender, compromise, or escape. Surrender is complete defeat, compromise is half defeat, but escape is not defeat. As long as you are not defeated, you still have a chance.

There are many places throughout history where a stubborn refusal to stage a short-term retreat has lead to a pointless and unnecessary loss. For instance, the German loss of Africa in World War II (which contributed to their loss of the entire war) was, to a great extent, due to Hitler's refusal to allow Rommel to retreat from Tunisia until it was far to late. That delay cost them massive numbers of tanks (which could have turned the war elsewhere) to no gains at all, long after Rommel had realized that it was completely pointless.

Likewise, the Athenians won the battle of Marathon -- defeating the greatest superpower their world had ever known -- by abandoning the city of Athens, their homes and everything they owned so they could retreat out to sea and fight the Persians at a time and place of their choosing. The Spartans stubbornly refused to give an inch of ground, and were able to hold off the Persians for a week before being utterly crushed; the Athenians retreated and were able to halt them forever. I think that out of the two, the Athenian strategy -- which involved sacrificing their city and everything they owned for the sake of victory -- was far more difficult and heroic.

The American Revolution, incidentally, was fought largely in the way you described with disgust -- shooting at the British from the bushes, then running off to do it again. Washington was able to cross the Delaware only because of countless orderly retreats and careful strikes that had laid the groundwork for him to do so. And of course that was the right way to fight; would it have been more 'heroic' to meet the vastly larger, better-armed British force face to face, dooming the country to be a British colony forever?

No army can win every single engagement. Knowing when and how to cut your losses and maximize your victories is a vital part of military strategy; knowing when to fight is every bit as important as knowing how to fight.

Pointlessly sacrificing soldiers and resources in an encounter you have already lost is neither intelligent nor heroic.

 

[PanzerWF]

Um, it's just a game?

Maybe you guys are taking things too seriously. I mean come on, if you don't like it, don't play it =/

 

[Raestloz]

Um, it's just a game?

Maybe you guys are taking things too seriously. I mean come on, if you don't like it, don't play it =/
Well, I'm looking for a reason to play this game, so some pointless debating has to be done, just like when the election time comes, each president candidate debate another for their mission and not even 50% of their promises will be realized.

hitting large numbers of enemies at once is much more effective.
And a large number of enemies will hit you once your turn ends

the combat system means the enemy can dash right through your defenses if you try to play too defensively
That said, you can dash right through their defenses and slaughter them too, not static, but quick and boring

QUOTEwould it have been more 'heroic' to meet the vastly larger, better-armed British force face to face, dooming the country to be a British colony forever?

True, I support American Revolution, but the fact that our heroes are better trained and armed, only outnumbered (and not that outnumbered to be doomed to obscurity, like American to British) doesn't require them to run, although I can't really say whether they're better armed or not, I resetted after my first strike, and I didn't see carefully all unit's info

QUOTE

The Spartans stubbornly refused to give an inch of ground, and were able to hold off the Persians for a week before being utterly crushed

Are you talking about the events in 300? I heard it was based on true historical event. If you're talking about the Bottleneck Battle, then it's not surprising they got utterly crushed. The enemy was flowing like a river, while every battles in RoS have a limited amount of enemies you have to face

Should I find a reason to play this game that I can't refuse, I'll stop this pointless debate (or if nobody replies me and this topic is closed)

 

[Ruri]

hitting large numbers of enemies at once is much more effective.
And a large number of enemies will hit you once your turn ends

the combat system means the enemy can dash right through your defenses if you try to play too defensively
That said, you can dash right through their defenses and slaughter them too, not static, but quick and boring

would it have been more 'heroic' to meet the vastly larger, better-armed British force face to face, dooming the country to be a British colony forever?

True, I support American Revolution, but the fact that our heroes are better trained and armed, only outnumbered (and not that outnumbered to be doomed to obscurity, like American to British) doesn't require them to run, although I can't really say whether they're better armed or not, I resetted after my first strike, and I didn't see carefully all unit's info

Um. If you'd been paying more attention, you'd have noticed that yes, the overall enemy force is massively better-armed and trained than you, and massively outnumbers you (the number of enemies you see on the screen when you first turn on the first battle is probably the smallest you'll ever see, at least at the start of a battle; and that's only because you're seeing their scouts, while the enemy's main force is only going to arrive in the next few turns, since it's still sort of an introductory level.) Did you pay attention to the plot?

No, you can't just dash through their defenses and slaughter them mindlessly, because if you charge recklessly through the enemy's ranks without a plan you'll get brutally slaughtered. As others have said, it is a hard game, one of the harder strategy-RPGs on the system (the only one that comes close is Hoshigami on its harder difficulty levels, which has issues.)

As far as that goes, the "large number of enemies hit you when your turn ends" bit is true; it's very easy to get brutally slaughtered when playing Rondo of Swords. You're usually outnumbered and facing high-level enemies, and the AI is very intelligent, so it will cheerfully slaughter you if you give it an opening. But the goal is to plan ahead and use strategy to ensure that you're doing more damage to the enemy than they're doing to you.

QUOTE

Should I find a reason to play this game that I can't refuse, I'll stop this pointless debate (or if nobody replies me and this topic is closed)

But your reasons for not playing it are purely emotional, not logical. You don't care about the gameplay (which, you admit, you never saw, since you turned it off after one attack); you don't care about the plot (since you didn't even know how dire your side's situation was); all you care about is the attack animations, which offend your sensibilities because you feel that hit-and-run tactics are immoral... which is bollocks, regardless of anything RoS has to offer. Do you really think your charging Paladin should politely stop his horse and give the people he's trying to kill a chance to hit him back? Do you feel your dashing swordsman should pause and let every member of the giant army of evil get a swing at him?

What kind of idiot would politely walk up to the enemy lines and ask to trade blow-for-blow? That kind of military fighting died two hundred years ago; even then, it's mostly an invention of operas and fiction, not something any sane person would actually do. Nowadays, everything is about cover and mobility, hitting the enemy hard and then rapidly retreating to somewhere else.

 

[psycoblaster]

Ever heard of Samurai? Or maybe, ever watch a war movie?

Samurais are trained for battle, they go to battle expecting and seeking death, those who are scared with death will fight poorly, and Death will come even faster to them

And, in every movie depicting war, never have I seen a commander or any unit shoots his M4 to an enemy and then run away, then he comes back, shooting another soldier, and run away. Save for a hitman or assassin, and no assassin or hitman ever participate in Open Fire

Seriously, while discretion is the better part of valor, Courage is what you need in battle. What's new in hit and run? In my elementary school, I always play tag, which is just the same as hit and run, run to any player, tag 'im/her, and run away. It's OLD, and cowardly. In any fighting style or school, no "hit-and-run" class. Kendo, Aikido, Karate, whatever you name it.

In Medieval times, Knights were praised for their fighting skills and courage, none of those ever done hit and run, they might've went away from a footman, but that's because he's charging for the units behind him(archers, commander, other soldiers, etc) not for safety, you have Armor for that

Thus, here's my point of view for points you said:

1)Originality: I gotta admit, it's original, never before I saw hit and run, only "now or never"


2)Not the same old style: Will you eat a Wormburger? Yeah, maybe you will, Worms are known to provide good vitamins and is healthy, and maybe, because it's gross, you won't, despite it's originality and "not the same chicken/beef/hamburger". It's just the same. A hit and run war game. Since it's new, some might like it, and since it's cowardly, some won't like it.

Miscellanous:
3)My words are extreme: because, up to the time I posted this topic, all posts I saw said RoS is good, no wonder I think so

4)About DQ and FF: You never know why they dislike the game, if it's because they don't like RPG in general, no wonder they dislike those games, and that's a different point from this little chat we have here

5)Gameplay's not everything: A game consists of 4 parts: Gameplay, story, graphics, and music. Gameplay holds 45%, Story holds 35%% of the game, graphics 15%, and music 5%

Gameplay 45%, Why?

Example: Worms Series. Obviously, the first Worms doesn't have good graphics like today, and there's no story in Worms, what story can you see in campaign?

Yet, Worms: Space Oddity was released, indicating the game is so good, what's good about the game? The Gameplay

Story 25%, Why?
Example: FFVII series. Final Fantasy VII for PSX offers the standard gameplay for RPG. Level up, equip godly equipments, and masacre bosses. So, why does FFVII series has Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus, Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core, and Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children at it's disposal? Because the story is good. You can't rely on graphics for original FFVII, as FFVIII, and obviously, FFX has better graphics.

Graphics 15%, Why?
Example: New Super Mario Bros. The existence of this game proves my point. New Super Mario Bros has nothing new to offer in terms of Gameplay and Story. Flat Goombas, kick shells, spit bouncing fireballs, and rescue the beloved Princess who never thought of learning a fighting skill to just choke anybody who wants to kidnap her. The only difference between Super Mario Bros released around 90's and New Super Mario Bros is the graphics, and that's that

Music 5%, Why?
Example: Grand Theft Auto Series. The fact that the radio system is included in GTA series provs the point. Hearing a DJ speaking on the background won't make your car invincible, but without it, the game is just boring, aside the fact that the Gameplay, Graphics, and Story is good. Even more, have you ever bought a game because a review says "The Music is Just Excellent"?

Gameplay affects 45% of a game, so since (to me) RoS's fighting style (a.k.a. the Gameplay) is shit, the music doesn't help, and the graphic is just standard (or maybe below, since it's almost top-down, today Tactical game features 3D landscape view, even Age of Empires) it's no wonder I say the game is bad

you really don't get what I mean, don't you?
first of all, if you only wish to seek games that corresponds to human life and use the elements that we can only see in the past wars or modern warfare, then well there goes bye bye to all of your fucking "srpgs" that you wish to play.

so what if they didn't use hit and away in old war?

well of course they didn't just wait for a whole turn to just get attacked, didn't they. They wouldn't have "manners" to take turns attacking. Well then you have just contradicted yourself right there.


hmm...... what seems to be a better war technique...?
go strait right next to an enemy, attack, and now wait for them to attack you
or attack and run away?

i'll choose choice #2



3)My words are extreme: because, up to the time I posted this topic, all posts I saw said RoS is good, no wonder I think so
well you have not done enough reading and did not spent time looking and reading other topics before you posted

4)About DQ and FF: You never know why they dislike the game, if it's because they don't like RPG in general, no wonder they dislike those games, and that's a different point from this little chat we have here
there was a topic with a guy that liked every RPGs exept final fantasy.
some people likes rpgs but not turn based.
some people likes rpgs that are aimed toward more older people.
well..?
are you trying to say anybody that likes rpgs needs to like dq or ff?


5)Gameplay's not everything: A game consists of 4 parts: Gameplay, story, graphics, and music. Gameplay holds 45%, Story holds 35%% of the game, graphics 15%, and music 5%
no, your percentages are wrong. each and every game are balanced differently.
gameplay holds 90%, story holds 9.99%, and the graphics and musics hold about 0.001%.

why?
first of all, the gameplay is the REASON. look at the metal slug series. made a big hit because of the gameplay.
story - well it's weighed very low, because do you think every gamer actually reads the story? well probably not. many people tend to skip the story (especially in trauma center) and go strait to the "levels". even though the story can be exciting or not, if the gameplay is good, there you go.
an example can be... many fps games. MANY fps games.
and why are the graphics and musics ... 0.001%?
i'll say this very clearly:
many games from the period before the N64 and the PSX (when the hardware limitations were the problems) are actually WAY better than the ones from today.

why is that?
my theory is that because of hardware limitations, the developers did not take too long for it to look "good," but actually took their time thinking about the gameplay, the story, etc.

it's like missile command from the atari 2600 (I think)
graphics = shit, music = no music at all, only shitty sound effects, but the gameplay was GODLY. i mean HEAVENLY.
one of the most attracting game EVER CREATED.

well i think that's enough for rightnow.