Best tatical rpgs on steam?

[0y4sum1]

I really love disgaea and this game, and i want to find more games like this for pc.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

You are back to using accusations of pedantry as a shield to avoid having to actually back your statements when someone calls them out. Only makes it more and more obvious you have no leg to stand on in your claims.

I have at no point here been pedantic. I have not been focusing on minor details, I've been focused on MAJOR things when it comes to defining genre.

then stop being pedantic. They are the same games. One is fantasy vs one is sci fi

Again, you don't know what pedantic means. They are not the same game. You are now trying to make strawmen. I've never said anything about 'fantasy vs sci-fi' or ever acted like that is a remote distinction in determining what is a tactical rpg and what isn't. I've been focused on mechanics and overall gameplay design. In which there are notable distinctions between Shadowrun Returns and ToEE/P:K. Those distinctions are what label one as being a tactical rpg, while the others are standard CRPG.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

Again, you don't know what pedantic means. They are not the same game. You are now trying to make strawmen. I've never said anything about 'fantasy vs sci-fi' or ever acted like that is a remote distinction in determining what is a tactical rpg and what isn't. I've been focused on mechanics and overall gameplay design. In which there are notable distinctions between Shadowrun Returns and ToEE/P:K. Those distinctions are what label one as being a tactical rpg, while the others are standard CRPG.

It means you are looking at small finite details as if they matter. The differences between the games are too insignificant. Shadowrun is both CRPG and tactical RPG just like P:K and ToEE

'small finite details'? I dunno, major differences in game design are pretty large. Especially in the context of discussing what genre games fit in.
P:K and ToEE are not tactical rpgs. I linked you to lists of games that qualify, meanwhile you just continue to repeat yourself with no actual argument to back your statements.

I back my statements in logic and link sources, meanwhile you insist that sources say things they don't, and attempt argument by assertion, while trying to dismiss others based on false accusations of pedantry and extremely arbitrary declarations (that don't match up with basic logic) of what is important and what isn't, still with no sort of valid argument to back your claims.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

'small finite details'? I dunno, major differences in game design are pretty large. Especially in the context of discussing what genre games fit in.
P:K and ToEE are not tactical rpgs. I linked you to lists of games that qualify, meanwhile you just continue to repeat yourself with no actual argument to back your statements.

I back my statements in logic and link sources, meanwhile you insist that sources say things they don't, and attempt argument by assertion, while trying to dismiss others based on false accusations of pedantry and extremely arbitrary declarations (that don't match up with basic logic) of what is important and what isn't, still with no sort of valid argument to back your claims.

They are both tactical, and they are both RPG's, hence tactical RPG. If shadowrun is a tactical RPG then so are both of them.

Nope. I linked you the wikipedia page, try reading it. Tactical RPG is a defined subgenre with certain mechanics and design trends. Things that ToEE and P:K don't have, and as such aren't tactical rpgs. Superficial similarities mean nothing when the underlying functions are different.
Or are you going to try to argue that Yu-gi-oh and the Pokemon TCG are the same thing now? That's effectively what you are doing right now.

Again, you are arguing by assertion with no sort of factual or even logical backing.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

Things that ToEE and P:K don't have

Like?

Terrain and positioning having a major impact on the combat calculations, AP point systems, flat turn-based systems. I already gave examples earlier in this thread. A focus on small unit tactics where tactics (positioning and terrain, namely) are more important than raw stats.
Quotes from the wikipedia article I linked, which you refuse to read:
'combines core elements of traditional role-playing video games with that of tactical games'
'Principally refers to games which incorporate elements from strategy video games as an alternative to traditional role-playing game (RPG) systems'
'A distinct difference between tactical RPGs and traditional RPGs is the lack of exploration'
'instead of exploration, there is an emphasis on battle strategy'

ToEE and P:K are typical classic CRPG designs through and through, designed to adapt an existing PnP system directly.
Shadowrun returns takes more leeway and is designed to play like Xcom, which is the genre definer for tactical rpgs.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

sitioning having a major impact on the combat calculations

The terrain has importance in P:K

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

AP point systems

Well it looks like Final Fantasy Tactics is not a tactical RPG then. It does not use AP system.

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

turn-based systems.

You said earlier that was not needed. That also means that Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun is not a tactics game. so... wrong.

No, it doesn't have importance in P:K, not in the way I'm referring to.

Final Fantasy Tactics is a tactical RPG, it's just an eastern one, not a western one.

Shadow tactics is not a tactical rpg. It's a stealth game.

Valkyria chronicles is a tactical rpg tho, and it has real time segments. The underlying frameworks are, however, still turn-based, and still relies on the general design principles of the genre.

Again, read the wikipedia page, and compare the games listed in the lists of tactical rpgs that is available via wikipedia. You should very quickly see where the defining mechanics are.

Of course, given your posts thus far, you will just keep playing dumb as you have been.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

'combines core elements of traditional role-playing video games with that of tactical games'

check for P:K

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

'Principally refers to games which incorporate elements from strategy video games as an alternative to traditional role-playing game (RPG) systems'

check for P:K

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

'A distinct difference between tactical RPGs and traditional RPGs is the lack of exploration'
'instead of exploration, there is an emphasis on battle strategy'

check for P:K

soo....?

Nope. Not check for P:K on ANY of them. P:K is a straight adaptation of a PnP system into a RPG. It's a CRPG, not a tactical rpg.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

No, it doesn't have importance in P:K, not in the way I'm referring to.

caugh caugh pedantic caugh caugh. Terrain and positioning is extremely important in P:K

Care to point me to one good point you made about P:K not being a tactical RPG? All I see is you claiming Shadow Tactics is not a tactics game lol. I am just going to repeat everything I said until you give me at least one decent rebuttal.

Back to accusing of pedantry again? Terrain and positioning in P:K don't have the massive effects on hit rate and damage output that they do in a tactical rpg. Terrain and positioning can be effectively completely ignored, rather than being complete game-changers. Terrain doesn't have set effects like concealment, it doesn't drastically alter ability. Elevation is not emphasized, nor is multi-character use properly setup.

P:K is also real-time with pause rather than giving the level of depth and control that proper turn-based does. It's designed and balanced around that real-time with pause, and has a lot of encounters that rely on raw numbers of weak opponents rather then every opponent being an actual threat.

As for Shadow Tactics? I didn't say it isn't a game that uses tactics. I said it's not a tactical rpg. Which it isn't, by way of the established mechanics of the genre.


You keep asserting that P:K is basically perfect and fits in a genre it doesn't. Blind fanboyism has no place here. Again, go check the lists I linked. There is a common thread in how the games that are on that list play out.


"I'll keep repeating myself until you agree with me"
That being your final statement is very telling.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Soooo... should I keep waiting for a good rebuttal? If you are not going to give one just say so now.

I just gave one. You dismissing it out of hand with no basis is just super telling about your goals.

Maybe I should clarify that by terrain I mean things like hiding in grass, behind rocks, using cover, etc. Terrain in the environment, not tileset.

[0y4sum1]

Why you guys still arguing about that?

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

I just gave one. You dismissing it out of hand with no basis is just super telling about your goals.

Maybe I should clarify that by terrain I mean things like hiding in grass, behind rocks, using cover, etc. Terrain in the environment, not tileset.

I am sorry but don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. We are not comparing word counts. You have yet to respond to any of the things I mentioned in post 81 and 82 with anything of value.

You are not the arbitrator of value of arguments. I did respond with things of value, you just refuse to participate in actual discussion.

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di Oyasumi°Bumbum:

Why you guys still arguing about that?

I am curious how long this person will go until they let me have the final word. The argument has evolved into nonsense lol.

'let me have the final word'? So in other words, you are outright admitting to trolling and having no intention of actual discussion? Neat.

'evolved into nonsense'? Only from your end.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

'let me have the final word'? So in other words, you are outright admitting to trolling and having no intention of actual discussion?

If only you were able to make strong points.

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

You are not the arbitrator of value of arguments. I did respond with things of value, you just refuse to participate in actual discussion.

I am not going to dismiss something because you make something up lol.

"The terrain and position has major importance in P:K"
It obviously does. You responded with "not in the way it matters" which just sounds like you are drooling

"Well it looks like Final Fantasy Tactics is not a tactical RPG then. It does not use an AP system."
According to your "must use AP system" rule, FFT is not a tactical RPG

"You said earlier that Turn Based was not needed. That also means that Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun is not a tactics game. so... wrong."
If Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun is not a tactical RTS then nothing that ever existed is. Just nonsense.

So now you are back to arbitrary dismissals, snide comments, and putting words in other's mouths?

Terrain and position don't matter in the same way as they do in a proper tactical rpg. I even went in and clarified what I meant by 'terrain and position'. You just like to ignore things you can't make an argument against.

I never said 'must use AP', I gave it as an example of mechanical difference between P:K, ToEE, and Shadowrun, which you were claiming was 'the same game'. It's also typical of the genre when it comes to western tactical rpgs. Again, if you had bothered with reading the sources I linked, you would have a clue. Putting words in other's mouths is really not a good look for you.

I never said that Shadow tactics was not a tactics game, I said it was stealth focused and not a tactical rpg. Tactical RTS is a whole different thing, and much more fitting of a genre to call it.



Again, arbitrary dismissals, snide comments, inserting words into other's mouths, and admittance to outright trolling earlier, constant 'I said so' argument by assertion.

Meanwhile I'm trying to actually discuss matters, linking sources, and using logic to back my statements. Pretty easy to see who is 'make something up lol' here.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

So now you are back to arbitrary dismissals

Back to complaining about the nonsense you type being recognized as nonsense?

So, sourced arguments are nonsense now? Logically backed statements using the defining traits and mechanics of the genre are nonsense?
But you repeating yourself like a broken record is somehow not nonsense?

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

So now you are back to arbitrary dismissals

Back to complaining about the nonsense you type being recognized as nonsense?

In P:K terrain and positioning matter.

AP is 100% not necessary in any way shape or form for a tactical RPG to be tactical

Turn based is 100% not necessary for a tactical RPG to be tactical (despite P:K having turn based anyways)

Be wonderful if you stop doing that silly 'I'll go back and edit what I said significantly, less than a minute after hitting post' ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

I never said an AP system was necessary for a game to be a tactical rpg. I said that it is a typical mechanic in the genre.
Turn based is necessary for a game to fit in the tactical rpg genre. By all means, find a single game that is widely acknowledged to fit in the 'tactical rpg' genre that doesn't rely on turn-based systems that wasn't an extremely early experiment prior to the establishment of the genre. I'll wait.

Oh, and again ignoring that I explained what I meant by terrain and positioning in favor of arbitrary dismissal.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

So, sourced arguments are nonsense now?

Your linked source is wikipedia, and it even enforces my claims. No part of the requirements of a tactical RPG has omitted P:K from it.

No, wikipedia does not 'enforce your claims' it does the exact opposite, by P:K not being listed as a game in the genre, despite being relatively popular. In fact, the games it is most similar to, those being the older Bioware rpgs, are not listed either, neither is ToEE.

You keep arguing by assertion and claiming the source says/does something it doesn't.

'no part of the requirements of a tactical rpg has omitted'? Yeah, actually, the turn-based part has.
So does the emphasis on combat maps that are separated out from the dialogue and the general narrow focus more toward combat in gameplay mechanics, with limited to no options for non-violent actions. So does the general lack of story agency that is typical of tactical rpgs.

* combat encounters divided into discrete maps that are taken on as a whole -- it's generally not possible to retreat from battle mid-map and come back to fight the enemies you didn't get the first time

* heavy emphasis on movement and positioning, with factors such as careful consideration of terrain and movement/attack ranges being important to victory

* limited in-combat healing and revival. Each map is a battle of attrition: if you charge into battle your healers generally won't be able to keep characters healed faster than they get hurt, at least in the long run. A character defeated in combat is usually out for the rest of the map and sometimes on a more permanent basis

* experience almost always awarded on an individual basis rather than a party basis: if you want a character to gain levels, you have to actively use them in battle, not just have them hang around

See also:
https://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/FMMC0282/Tactical_RPG

Grid based and 'enemy moves, then I move' is pretty important definers of the genre.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Sider:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

Oh, and again ignoring that I explained what I meant by terrain and positioning in favor of arbitrary dismissal.

Because
1) its not required
2) P:K has both

It has been like 100 posts and you have yet to give me one thing about P:K that would exclude it from being tactical

1) Yes, it is.
2) no it doesn't, not in the manner I meant, which I later clarified.

I have never said P:K isn't 'tactical' I've said it's not part of the tactical rpg genre.