Is Jagged Alliance 2 better for RPG/roleplay than for Tactical/Strategy depth?

[Hakadd]

Is Jagged Alliance 2 better for RPG/roleplay than for Tactical/Strategy depth?

I'm asking because some player that never played JA1 nor JA2 affirmed JA2 fans was more interested in RPG/Roleplay aspect than in Tactical depth.

That said, I'll quote I omitted the simulation feeling aspect, so perhaps the pool is wrong, or it's fine to read RPG/Roleplay as simulation feeling too.

Second point, even if clearly the frontier between tactical and strategy isn't a clean strict line, and that JA2 has both aspects, it's on purpose I added them as different choices, and skipped the Tactical and Strategy choice because most would take it instead of Strategy or Tactical.

[ninjalex]

You have to put a lot of your own immersion and do your own kind of roleplaying if you want a roleplaying experience out of JA2. You don't even know what you say to NPC in dialogues, there are just vague approaches (threaten, friendly, direct). Yes there are stats, yes, you get some roleplaying aspects, and you have some choices that have certain effects, but it is flavor, and not a central theme of JA2.

IMO I'm not sure if it is in the tactical or the strategy-department where JA2 shines. I guess the weight is on tactical because so much of the game is making tactical decisions in firefights and zone exploration, but the logistics and strategy of painting the map is in it's own class. So I choose tactical mostly because that's the majority part of the game.

Edited July 13, 2023 by ninjalex

[StoProGratis]

For me it's both. I love how deep Arulco world is and I love how many strategies you can use in game. Tactical side is also one of the best in turn based squad game for me. Silent Storm was also nice. I'm not a big fan of xcom or Brigade tactical mechanics.

[Hakadd]

I think tactic, strategy, roleplay, can have different interpretation. If I vote I would choose tactical, but then are the combats more tactical or strategical, I suppose the answer can vary from a JA fan to another JA fan.

 

Second element of perspective, even if already quoted in OP. Roleplay is also related to simulation aspect, so for example how combats feel as a simulation, despite clearly it's very abstract.

 

Another aspect of roleplay is definitely in player mind. But roleplay in your mind is still roleplay value and a game value because no, you cannot roleplay well in your mind with many games. The game needs have elements opening roleplay in player mind.

 

I think all of that is subjective, hence the pool.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Hakadd

[sandman25dcsss]

That other player was me.

A better question would be the following:

"Replace real weapons with "weapon A", "weapon B", replace merc portraits with green rectangle, orange ellipsis, blue triangle, replace enemy images with red squares, remove all voiceover etc. and then ask them if they would still play the game."

[MateKiddleton]

I would say tactical is its strongest and defining feature.

[Hakadd]

5 minutes ago, sandman25dcsss said:

That other player was me.

A better question would be the following:

"Replace real weapons with "weapon A", "weapon B", replace merc portraits with green rectangle, orange ellipsis, blue triangle, replace enemy images with red squares, remove all voiceover etc. and then ask them if they would still play the game."

Mostly no player would play any tactical game changed to that, so no I don't buy it. But please don't try mine the pool. 🙂

[ninjalex]

5 minutes ago, Hakadd said:

I think tactic, strategy, roleplay, can have different interpretation. If I vote I would choose tactical, but then are the combats more tactical or strategical, I suppose the answer can vary from a JA fan to another JA fan.

It's a good question you've proposed. Roleplaying is a very loosely defined concept that varies a lot from people to people. Some people wouldn't call it roleplaying unless you can make choices in game, you have a character progression and a story line connected to it.

 

Then you have theme and flavor for games that can affect the roleplaying aspect, and it's necessary to make the mechanics fun (as mentioned earlier here, if its pure strategy of boxes moving around, it's maybe not as fun).

 

The mechanics in JA2 are amazing, but the flavor makes the game shine. I'd still say that the roleplaying aspects are different from "traditional roleplaying" and some of it's really shallow.

[sandman25dcsss]

6 minutes ago, Hakadd said:

Mostly no player would play any tactical game changed to that, so no I don't buy it. But please don't try mine the pool. 🙂

I would play for sure. People don't even realize real weapons is part of roleplaying, they include it in tactical aspect. This is why the poll is useless for me, it will not change my mind.

Edited July 13, 2023 by sandman25dcsss

[Koinsky]

8 minutes ago, sandman25dcsss said:

That other player was me.

A better question would be the following:

"Replace real weapons with "weapon A", "weapon B", replace merc portraits with green rectangle, orange ellipsis, blue triangle, replace enemy images with red squares, remove all voiceover etc. and then ask them if they would still play the game."

I think i can answer that: yes, but not for long. Games like xcom, laser squad (for those old like me), felt soulless after i experienced JA2. The fun factor was just a lot bigger. 
To me it's like my appreciation of music. I can listen to some avantgarde composer making music with a door and the wind and i think, hmm "Interesting", but it is an intellectual exercise, while the music i end up hearing repeatedly is the one that besides being intellectually stimulating also stirrs my emotions. 
JA2 is challenging (at least at first) and FUN. I hope JA3 is that too.

[sandman25dcsss]

Some people select tactical because they like travel on the map doing stealth kills and preparing ambushes, but it is more about roleplaying than about tactics. Suggest to remove the abilities as unbalanced and they will complain about that, happened on this forum.

[Hakadd]

Just now, ninjalex said:

It's a good question you've proposed. Roleplaying is a very loosely defined concept that varies a lot from people to people. Some people wouldn't call it roleplaying unless you can make choices in game, you have a character progression and a story line connected to it.

 

Then you have theme and flavor for games that can affect the roleplaying aspect, and it's necessary to make the mechanics fun (as mentioned earlier here, if its pure strategy of boxes moving around, it's maybe not as fun).

 

The mechanics in JA2 are amazing, but the flavor makes the game shine. I'd still say that the roleplaying aspects are different from "traditional roleplaying" and some of it's really shallow.

A good example for me is those dialog offering many choices without real consequences. It became banned because a trend started bash the design because it was fake choices.

 

But I'm pretty sure many players was enjoying the pure roleplay aspect to analyze the choices and choose the best for your roleplay or just for you. That was pure roleplay in player mind but with good roleplay value for many players even if not the majority.

 

But the consequences aspect led very far, for many players a NPC that died or not isn't a real consequence or the NPC death block some quest or open a new quest, or is changing main story, and so on. But nope text is major, NPC aren't just bytes they are part of the world and one dying or not is a consequence.

[ninjalex]

2 minutes ago, sandman25dcsss said:

Some people select tactical because they like travel on the map doing stealth kills and preparing ambushes, but it is more about roleplaying than about tactics. Suggest to remove the abilities as unbalanced and they will complain about that, happened on this forum.

 

It can be both I guess. You can roleplay guerilla warfare and it's still mainly a tactical choice. But then every kind of playing is roleplaying. Which kind of waters down the concept.

[sandman25dcsss]

1 minute ago, ninjalex said:

 

It can be both I guess. You can roleplay guerilla warfare and it's still mainly a tactical choice. But then every kind of playing is roleplaying. Which kind of waters down the concept.

Yes, I agree. Our discussion on Steam was regarding desire of JA veterans to make tactical decisions based on roleplaying aspect which makes chance to hit less important.

[ninjalex]

Just now, sandman25dcsss said:

Yes, I agree. Our discussion on Steam was regarding desire of JA veterans to make tactical decisions based on roleplaying aspect which makes chance to hit less important.

If roleplaying were to affect tactical decisions YOU could go into territory where Biff makes an almost suicide run to protect Flo. A sub-optimal tactical choice, but a roleplaying choice.

[sandman25dcsss]

1 minute ago, ninjalex said:

If roleplaying were to affect tactical decisions YOU could go into territory where Biff makes an almost suicide run to protect Flo. A sub-optimal tactical choice, but a roleplaying choice.

Sorry, I don't understand. I played JA2 less than 2 hours.

[ninjalex]

12 minutes ago, Hakadd said:

But I'm pretty sure many players was enjoying the pure roleplay aspect to analyze the choices and choose the best for your roleplay or just for you. That was pure roleplay in player mind but with good roleplay value for many players even if not the majority.

I'm a little confused as to what is "pure roleplay aspect". Is it that choices matters? You could have an incredibly immersive roleplaying experience without having your choices matter. But generally having choices that matters is a staple for roleplaying. And actions have consequences, but what does that mean in a roleplaying aspect. All choices in games have consequences, that doesn't necessarily mean its roleplaying.

[ninjalex]

2 minutes ago, sandman25dcsss said:

Sorry, I don't understand. I played JA2 less than 2 hours.

Biff loves Flo, they're in a relationship. Which means that they work better together (good relations). What I'm saying is you can sacrifice tactical play for roleplaying. And that is one way to make roleplay more important than tactical decisions in JA2, or a way to incorporate your own kind of roleplaying into the game.

[5Cents]

Hm, not sure, about what to answer.. I could play Ja2 in every of these 3 ways in an enjoyable manner (I think Ja1 was rather more concentrated on tactical aspects than RPG or stratetics).

Its rather a matter, how you want to play it, it doesnt dictate its genre to players.

Im tense to see, how it will be in JA3.

Edited July 13, 2023 by 5Cents

[GODSPEED]

All of the above.

There are times I play JA2 to experience the Roleplaying aspect more than the tactical one. That is when I try new mercs (different combinations), just to explore the way they interact.. all the while I am playing a Tactical game full of cool guns.

Then there are times I start a new game with the mercs I like most and know by heart, simply because I want a deep tactical game. I already know the lines they say, what to expect from the mercs. I just want battles to take place.


Jagged Alliance 2 is unique in that it offers something special and different for each and every player.

Which is also why it would seem 1.13 has a divided fanbase. Those who favour tactical depth and complexity based on some virtual form of "realism" don't usually like 1.13 as much as those who prefer "realism" and tactical minutia. Me? I like to know if my bipod has something to rest on. I want to know if the barrel of my HK 21E is overheating or not. I need to store my FN Five-seveN mags into the appropriate Molle pouch, or else something doesn't sit right with me.

But, with all that detail, Jagged Alliance wouldn't be a thing without the mercs and their uniqueness.. and wouldn't be a thing without the Roleplaying elements.


All of those aspects make it such an extremely unique game.

[Stuurminator]

JA2 doesn't really qualify as an RPG in the way that most CRPGs describe themselves. It includes RPG elements like individualized (and improvable) unit stats, quests, and "party members" with very strong personalities, but it offers almost no opportunity to define your own character besides very broad moral actions in the "how ruthless am I willing to be" sense. You could say it's as much an RPG as the Fire Emblem series.

JA3 appears to have massively expanded the roleplaying aspect just by dint of having dialogue trees and far more moral/quest decisions.

[GODSPEED]

3 hours ago, Stuurminator said:

JA2 doesn't really qualify as an RPG in the way that most CRPGs describe themselves. It includes RPG elements like individualized (and improvable) unit stats, quests, and "party members" with very strong personalities, but it offers almost no opportunity to define your own character besides very broad moral actions in the "how ruthless am I willing to be" sense. You could say it's as much an RPG as the Fire Emblem series.

I beg to differ (in a very friendly way btw). Jagged Alliance contains EVERYTHING that makes a "Roleplaying game" a Roleplaying game.

What is so different from a game like Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale ? Those games have much in common with Jagged Alliance. You build a team of unique characters that banter, you have skill/stat progression and even if minor, you do make a few moral choices throughout.

Even games with WAYYYY fewer roleplaying elements are still considered Roleplaying. Skyrim. It lacks any moral dilemnas, lacks any "banter" (unless you count what Lydia, your steward, says when she acknowledges a command).. yet, as light as the RPG elements are, it is still an Roleplaying game, becasue your decide what kind of role you play.


Just for fun, I took my big and small boxes, here are some of the words on those boxes.


Jagged Alliance:
"A Strategy Role-Playing Adventure"

"Superb turn-based mercenary action and great role-playing, all in one package."
***** Value //(that is not a bard word, but 5 "STARS" 🤣)
           -Electronic Entertainment


Jagged Alliance 2:
//Front of box:
"The Role-Playing Strategy Game of 1999"

//Inside front cover flap of box:
Intense Role Playing
A vast new story, huge new world, many quests plus mercenaries with unique personalities that improve with experience.

//Back of box:
The best of strategy:
- Non-linear gameplay
- Dozens of realistically modeled weapons
- Unique blend of real-time exploration and turn-based combat

The best of role-playing:
- Interact with more than 150 in-game characters
- Recruit your own team of unique mercenaries
- Create your own custom mercenary
- Conflicting mercenary personalities affect gameplay

 

Jagged Alliance 2 Unfinished Business & Jagged Alliance 2 Wildfire
Side of box:
ROLEPLAYING
STRATEGY


The only box I can't find mention of Role-Playing is the Deadly Games box. It's more about 6000+ lines of digitized speech, taunts, insults, multiplayer, etc..

Edited July 13, 2023 by GODSPEED

[Rugged Coalition]

14 hours ago, GODSPEED said:

Just for fun, I took my big and small boxes, here are some of the words on those boxes.

Jagged Alliance:
"A Strategy Role-Playing Adventure"

"Superb turn-based mercenary action and great role-playing, all in one package."
***** Value //(that is not a bard word, but 5 "STARS" 🤣)
           -Electronic Entertainment

Jagged Alliance 2:
//Front of box:
"The Role-Playing Strategy Game of 1999"

My Jagged Alliance box says:

Quote

A Strategy Role-Playing Simulation

And at the back of the box there's this:

Quote

An exciting new game approach - Role playing and strategy - puts you in the thick of the action!

Jagged 2 boxes use the following description:

Quote

A role-playing strategy game

I like this because it's simple... So I would describe the game having a strategic layer with the economics, logistics and hiring decisions. The personalized mercs spice the whole game, especially the simulation based tactical combat. This is the meat of the game where you also do the exploring and solving of "quests".

[Hendrix]

Voted tactical, but only because that is the very core part of the game. The strategic part gives the player the freedom to progress through the world, exploring, conquering and defending sectors as you see fit. I think the game would be a bit boring if there were a set number of maps to conquer in a specific order.

But what really gives the game it's soul is the character, be it you love them or hate them. Still to this day, almost 24 years later, I still get a grin on my face when mercs complement each other for a task well done. These mercs are the reason I keep coming back to JA instead of games with generated characters.

[GODSPEED]

7 hours ago, Rugged Coalition said:

My Jagged Alliance box says...

Over the weekend, I might try to take some nice photos of the boxes I have and post them in a new topic.

I think boxes from different regions will have different catch phrases as well.

Ohh.. and love you 'username'!! 😂

Edited July 14, 2023 by GODSPEED