Gladius - LucasArts Goes FF Tactics?

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to the GameSpy preview of LucasArts' Gladius, a PS2/GameCube/Xbox "epic tactical RPG that'll have you building an army of gladiators, one axe swing at a time." There's also a new Gladius preview at RPGamer giving a combat overview: ".. [it] takes place on a standard, tactical-RPG square grid, but the graphics do a good job of hiding it... combat is turn-based, but.. using certain attacks on a foe necessitates the use of several action/arcade elements, such as combo attacks strung together by timed button-presses." They also comment on the unexpected genre choice: "American-developed as it may be, Gladius is a tactical RPG that takes its cue from the old favorites, while at the same time trying to expand the genre." Might this title improve on LucasArts' recent efforts?

Re:Look of Gladius?

[analog_line]

Well, I wouldn't say that they NEVER do anything but praise games. One quick look through IGN, Gamespot, or even Gamespy will show you several games that didn't make the reviewer's grade. However, the problem is that it appears how big the marketing blitz for a game is directly affects the ratings these games are given. I present this as an example of what I mean:

bad game + huge marketing blitz= mediocre rating
same bad game + medium marketing = good rating
same bad game + no or little marketing = Worst Game Ever
mediocre game + huge marketing blitz = Best Game So Far This Year
mediocre game + medium marketing = good rating
mediocre game + no or little marketing = mediocre rating
good game + huge marketing blitz = Game of the Year Candidate
good game + medium marketing = Don't ignore this one
good game + no or little marketing = Sleeper Hit

What this all boils down to is that I don't believe the game review business has degenerated to the point that you cannot get a good review unless you've paid for one. I can't think of more than a handful of instances where I've seen an unambiguously good game get a poor review where the reviewer actually played the game. What appears to be the case so far is that you can improve your game's rating by spending a lot of money "on the reviewers". Interviews, junkets, free games, hell maybe actual cash for an improved rating. All part of the marketing blitz, I would imagine. Try to market the game so people look past the flaws they wouldn't look past otherwise. Like, say, the major flaws in SWG which everyone passes off as minor, I can only imagine because they've had so much marketing money spent on them.

Re:Look of Gladius?

[PainKilleR-CE]

I don't think people see it as a problem is a good game gets a good rating, regardless of it's marketing (although people might have a problem with the 'Sleeper Hits' never being 'Game of the Year Candidates' (ie great games never getting huge recognition because they didn't get the overhype-budget). The problem is that horrid games can get good or mediocre reviews if enough money is thrown at marketing.

People say they read reviews because they want to find out if a game is good. What they really mean, though, is that they want to find out if they're going to waste their money on a steaming turd. Any game that ranks from mediocre to good can be a good game worth your money if it happens to be a game that catches your interest when you play it, but if a game is bug-ridden, poorly designed, or just outright horrible, the marketing can save the reviews, but the people that buy it are going to be pissed.

Re:Look of Gladius?

[analog_line]

I completely agree. I wasn't actually disagreeing with any of that.

I was merely addressing the claim made in the parent (and what a lot of people all over seem to think) that reviewers just never give bad reviews for anything.

Re:Look of Gladius?

[newsdee]

reviewers just never give bad reviews for anything

That's not true. I have worked as a reviewer for a major magazine, and gave some negative reviews for some games. The other reviewers didn't say anything, howevers readers complained. They only wanted to see what games were the best, and not "waste page space to review crap" (actual quote from a letter!).

So, readers get what they want... but the amount of games (and space too, I have to admit) is limited. As result, "negative" reviews are very unpopular w

Re:Look of Gladius?

[AvantLegion]

Wow, some readers are stupid.

The most enjoyable reviews, both as an ex-writer and as a reader, are the ones that crap all over a game.

Re:Look of Gladius?

[il_diablo]

Which is why sites like metacritic.com [metacritic.com] come in handy. It aggregates the scores of all reviews found for the game. It's interesting to see a game that garners a perfect 100 from a place like IGN that also gets a 60 from some indie mag.

The real question is...

[neglige]

...will there be a lightsabre? As a hidden feature?

More interesting TRPGs coming

[Visigothe]

While reading the various linkage [gasp!!] I came across what looks to be a *very* hot item for fans of Final Fantasy Tactics-style TRPGs [aside from the GBA sequal FF Tactics Advance]

It's called Disgaea: The Hour of Darkness [rpgamer.com] and RPG gamer has a bunch of screens/video on it. I have to remind myself that that site exists. I don't game much anymore, so I am not usually up on the latest and greatest. That said, I still long for a TRPG similar to the depth of play and plot I found in FFT

Re:More interesting TRPGs coming

[FireMyst]

If you're looking for a FFT game, don't forget Final Fantasy Tactics Advance [rpgamer.com]. I really enjoyed this game at E3 [rpgamer.com]. ^^

As for me, I eat up TRPG's, though I'm a bit tired of a grid. Instead of spells making a true circle, you get a + mark. Even the Heroes of M&M series realized a hexagon grid makes more sense for fair movement and targeting. Of course with Arc 4 removing the grid entirely, I hope we're seeing the end of the square grid map altogether.

The grid

[andy_fish]

I hope this isn't getting off-topic, but this is a topic that I want to hear comments from others about.

What is it about a grid that makes the game so much more fun? As mentioned in the article, battle in FFT was based in a grid. Also recently I've been playing Advance Wars which is also in a grid. Both these games are terrific, and all those fancy new 3d games fail at reproducing this kind of fun-ness. (the other game I've been playing is Brute Force, not fun)

Maybe its more fun cause its simpler? Maybe the disrete steps allow for more complicated gameplay decisions?

Re:The grid

[Reapy]

I think the grid has more do do with gameplay then simplicity. When you have to measure out who is going to be struck by a target and where you are able to move, the grid makes it managable. If there is a bad guy 6 squares away from me, and I can only move 4 squares, its really hard to judge how far away he is without a grid, as well as hard for me to judge how close I need to be to strike him with a weapon. Basically the grid allows you to make much better tactical decision without having to use a lot of t

Re:The grid

[hibiki_r]

A circular grid around the current unit would make things a little more manageable, but squares and hexes are the best way to make calculating movement and firing ranges easier.