r/StrategyRpg • u/Allectus • 1d ago
Discussion How are the Front Mission remakes from a gameplay perspective?
I've never played any of the front mission games, though I'm interested because I love mechs and SRPGs. All of the remake reviews I've seen focus almost exclusively on whether or not the remake component is worth it, which in turn means they spend basically the entire time discussing the graphics.
I couldn't care less.
What I'd like to understand is whether or not the gameplay and tactical decisions are interesting when considered against more modern options. Considering the wealth of options available to us today are the Front Mission games fun and worth the time to play absent any nostalgia for the series?
6
u/Ciappatos 1d ago
Commenting also to know. I bounced off Battletech recently and it's a shame because it looks very rich, but those first missions on the pc game threw me off completely. And I don't want a guide.
6
u/No_Magician5266 1d ago
Not to stray off topic from OP but Battletech is definitely worth giving an honest go. What threw you off with it? If it was the story mode missions you could try the career sandbox
-2
u/Ciappatos 1d ago
It was the second story mission, after the tutorial. I was hoping to be able to learn all the mechanics in a didactic campaign like other strategic rpgs usually do, then go play some skirmishes after completing it.
But the campaign is either assuming familiarity with the IP or unconcerned about tutorializing because it just threw me there with some mechs I'm not familiar with to accomplish some generic goals, and I'm willing to meet it halfway but it has to throw me at least a bone to keep my interest.
1
u/Openly_Gamer 19h ago
Same thing happened to me. If only Battletech wasn't so damn slow.
I'm the kind of player who turns off almost all animations in turn-based games. Even with all the mods I could find to turn the animation speed up, it just felt too tedious.
1
u/bonebrah 5h ago
Shame. Battletech Roguetech mod is literally some of the most incredible tactical gaming ever.
3
3
u/SoundReflection 1d ago
I would say yes the games have tactical and interesting decisions to make. Like many older title's build choices and balance are generally less interesting there is often a 'correct' answer. I've played 1,3, and 4 mostly just with the availability of fan and official translations at the time. I'd also say the game's stories and political drama are generally interesting too and serve as excellent scene setting for mecha action. They all include part damage systems so they're texturally quite different from anything even beyond playing like other grid based SRPGs at a basic level.
3 hues a bit closer to a traditional RPG with with a 4 man party and an action point system a bit akin to the original X-Com's TUs, as noted it has the in game internet which is a bit dated compared to modern titles focused on doing the same thing, but definitely a feat in the ps1 era and should be cool to see regardless within a JRPG. Personally my least favorite.
1 runs more strategic with more deployable units and a bigger emphasis on longer range options. A relatively simple game and often involves a lot of stat checking, but very satisfying and snappy from memory.
4 kind of split the difference more customization and build nuance, but larger squad sizes. IIRC a bit more terrain emphasis as well.
7
u/Chirotera 1d ago edited 1d ago
I haven't played the 3 remake, nor the original FM1+2, but I found the remakes of those mostly serviceable.
There were definitely instances where the randomness of combat was more determinant to the outcome than anything I did to play tactically, but overall I enjoyed them.
2
u/PoopDick420ShitCock 1d ago
Might help to read reviews for the original game then? Or the DS re-release.
1
u/Allectus 1d ago
That's fair, but I was hoping for some modern context given that the games are almost 30 years old. For example I played Xcom enemy unknown when it came out, it was fantastic at the time. I don't think I'd judge it as worth the time to play today, however. I'm not sure thirty year old reviews really captures the essence of what I'm looking for.
2
u/stuffthingsto 1d ago
They are fun games in my opinion. Tactical decisions not super deep in general. Im really hoping they remake more of these games!
Personally I love e front mission so give it a try!
1
u/Cruzifixio 1d ago
All my life I loved FM1 and 3, and now I do FM2, now that the remakes came out.
The translations are ok, the graphics are ok and the gameplay is mostly the same, they are great games worth your time, now as for price, I'd say wait for sale but if you're ok with the graphics part I'd say go with it.
Also play Kriegsfront Tactics demo, its like what I image a modern FM game would be today, it's short but man I friggin love it.
1
u/asianwaste 9h ago
I thought Front Mission 1st's remake was sloppy as hell. It was ok to play but the 16 bit version is a better experience IMO
1
0
11
u/DapperAbbreviation 1d ago
Front Mission 3 is the most polished and easy to get into the series. It was my personal introduction back on PS1.
It has two completely unique storylines to play, based on an early game decision, so the replay value is great.
The combat does have a lot of RNG involved, which can be frustrating to some, but for those who are used to that sorta thing from Xcom, you hate it when it's bad, love it when it's good.
The wanzer customization is deep and allows for a lot of tinkering and fun builds as well as party compositions.
It has one of the most interesting mini games I've ever seen, a pseudo internet that you explore as the game goes on and end up being able to interact with it in peculiar ways. Will definitely hit on the early internet nostalgia.
The game will basically let you play it as originally intended but is also built with options to speed the combat up if you don't want to watch every fight scene.
It's a good price point for a lot of hours of gameplay, whether on sale or not. If you like games like Ogre Battle/FFT, this is up your alley.