Last Remnant - Part Three

I've covered the story and characters pretty thoroughly, so now it's time to get to the nitty-gritty and talk about the actual gameplay in Last Remnant. On the surface LR is a turn-based RPG, one of those affairs where the action pauses so each side can determine how they want to proceed. While that's certainly the case, LR eschews standard character-based combat and replaces it with an emphasis on squads. You arrange your various characters into groups (up to 5), which then attack, defend, heal, or whatever as a team. You don't actually get to pick an individual action for each character (a good thing, since you'll eventually be commanding 15 at a time), but rather give each squad a general command (raise your HP, attack with special abilites, etc.) and then they follow as best they can.

It's an interesting system that greatly streamlines command inputs while still allowing for large-scale confrontations with enemy troops. The issue comes, however, with the fact that each squad receives a set of possible commands (mostly at random) from which you can choose, regardless of whether your preferred action is there or not. This comes into play especially when one of your squads has taken a lot of damage - you'll be looking for an option to heal (or at least pull back and regroup), but it's quite possible that the only options available will involve rushing headlong into the fight. It's a system that creates a strong (and largely unwelcome) element of luck. Indeed, I had instances where I got party-wiped in a boss fight because I drew a series of unfortunate command options, then tried again and won easily because I got healing and special attack options when I need them.

The lack of control over your characters aside, I will say that battles are cinematic masterpieces in this game. You really get a sense of ebb and flow as the tide of battle turns over the course of a big showdown (especially with the bosses). In that sense, LR achieved something I hadn't seen before - squad-based RPGs are not common.

Other positives about gameplay:
- No random fights...you see enemies on the screen and can avoid them if you don't want to battle. Very handy when backtracking so you don't have to waste time fighting worthless enemies.
- You don't control equipment and ability upgrades for your companions. They ask for equipment that you recover, and you can choose to give it to them or not. It's nice to avoid micromanaging a couple dozen characters, though occasionally you'll end up with a Sword of Awesomeness that's going to waste while your buddies are fighting with sharp sticks.
- There are a lot of side quests, hidden bosses, and special equipment to be found if you're looking. There's plenty of incentive to explore thoroughly, and the rewards are quite worthwhile.

So much to like in LR, and yet there's two MAJOR holes that tarnish the experience.

1. As a piece of software, LR on the Xbox 360 is essentially broken. Stuttering, slow-down, massive frame drops during battle...the developers should be embarrassed that they sent this game out the door. And it's no occasional thing either, something that could have slipped through the cracks in play testing. Every battle is marred by graphical glitches and frame rate issues. They knew this game was not fit to be released, and then they released it anyway. Poor form Square-Enix.

2. LR features the most screwed up leveling system ever devised. That is no exaggeration...it's terrible. The way it works is that you army as a whole levels together after a number of battles. However, individual characters gain strength by battling specific (tough) enemies that trigger statistical increases. What's really crazy is that the level of your army is practically inconsequential in determining how battle-ready you are, while statistical increases to individuals is paramount to victory against the tougher bosses in the game.

That may not have made much sense, so let me bottom line what it means to you, the player. The more you fight, the more your army level goes up in relation to your individual characters. Thus, fighting a lot means that you get WEAKER AND WEAKER relative to the tougher enemies. Think about that...the more experience you gain, the WORSE your team fights. The key to raising a strong party? Dashing around the map and avoiding enemies as much as possible until you get to a spot where you can battle the special "character improvement" monsters. Then grind like hell beating them over and over until you're super powerful. If you don't do it that way, you may find at the end of the game that your characters are simply too weak to continue, with little means of improving.

What a backwards, asinine system. It encourages you to skip the actual "game" part of the game as much as possible and PUNISHES you for having the audacity to try improving your roster at the beginning of the game. And don't even get me started about the fact that LR offers you the chance to recruit an enormous number (50+?) of unique generals into your army, but actually using a variety of allies rather than the same ones every time will practically doom you to failure.

The worst part? None of this is explained by the game or in the manual. If you search message board threads about LR, you'll find dozens of people complaining that they got to the end game and were too weak to continue. These people invested dozens of hours into the game playing in a manner that they thought would make their team strong, only to discover that they were RIGHT FUCKED and had to start over. Folks, that is the definition of bad video game design.

So in the end, we have a game with great protagonists and not a single decent villain. A complex political plot that falls apart at the end. A unique and engaging squad-based combat system that's done in by buggy coding. A deep customization system that's complimented by numerous side quests and then SHAT UPON by a bass-ackwards leveling mechanic that potentially ruins the game for many players.

I alternately loved and hated this game, so why do I find myself hoping they'll make another one???

Last Remnant - Part Two

Last time, I established that Last Remnant desperately lacks a quality villain. But what it does have is a couple of likable protagonists in Rush Sykes and Marquis David (pronounced dah-veed...think French).
















Rush starts the game on a quest to find his kidnapped sister. They have absentee parents (scientist/scholars who are too busy in the field to raise their kids), so Rush has understandably developed a "guardian" relationship with his sister. He blames himself for allowing her to be kidnapped (he fights the abductors but is overmatched), so it isn't hard to see why he's so driven. He reminded me of a more good-natured Fox Mulder (shout out to the X-Files fans), in that he wants to help people, but he doesn't want to get too side-tracked from his mission.














As for David, he's a young man (I'd guess late teens, like Rush) trying to fill the shoes of his recently deceased father, the former Marquis of Althum. Apparently dad was a pretty great ruler, much loved by his subjects, and David is struggling to cope with the loss and the weight of following in his footsteps. David is a good person who wants to help those in need, but he has to balance that desire with the needs of his kingdom. All the while, he has to deal with the fact that Althum is pretty low in the pecking order of kingdoms (they aren't even fully independent from another nearby country). It's a precarious position, and not easy to handle for a young prince that took the throne too early and is filled with self-doubt.

Now here's the kicker that makes these two such good characters: Rush and David end up complimenting each other perfectly. Rush is cocksure and confident, but he lacks the resources and political acumen to get his sister back. He'd "rush" headlong into danger without someone like David reigning him back a bit. As for David, he has the will to do the right thing but lacks the confidence. So through their friendship, Rush learns to fight for something greater than himself (the well-being of an entire kingdom) and ultimately recovers his sister, while David gains the confidence to lead Althum in its hour of need, saves the kingdom from a war, and gains its independence.

The best part is that everything I'm describing about their relationship is subtext, rather than explicitly stated. In most games (and movies), the writers worry that the viewer is too stupid to pick up on a subtle undertones, so they spell everything out. In this game, there's no specific scene where Rush and David express the fact that they depend on one another and cover for each other's shortcomings. They interact like normal people...you just get to know them over the course of the game to the point where you can detect these things yourself. Mark me down as a person who prefers the more subtle route in storytelling.

CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS: NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO HOP OFF THE BUS...NON-TRADITIONAL MATERIAL TO FOLLOW! SEE YOU NEXT TIME!

One last bit of "subtext" that I felt was present in Last Remnant - there were more than a few hints that Rush and David had deeper feelings for each other than just friendship. They have a very close relationship, well beyond what even most very good friends would develop. Some of the comments that they exchange have a flirtatious undertone (example: when David requests an item from the party's inventory, Rush responds "Awww...I could never say no to you.") At one point, an openly gay bartender blatantly hits on Rush, so it's not like homosexual themes would come out of nowhere.

Again, this is all subtext. It's certainly never explicitly stated that the two share a deeper relationship. But I think most people who are perceptive when it comes to personal interactions would definitely pick up on at least the possibility. Compared to the atrocious homosexual themes in the equally-atrocious Enchanted Arms (featuring a screeching drama queen stereotype), Rush and David are handled with class and subtlety. Whether I'm right or not, I enjoyed them both as characters.

Last Remnant - Part One

If I were pressed to give Last Remnant a rating on a one to ten point scale that summed its graphics, plot, gameplay, innovation, and everything else into one simple score, I'd give it a 5. Then you'd probably walk away with the idea that it was a mediocre title that did nothing well or poorly and was ultimately forgettable. And you'd be totally wrong (which is one reason that exercise is of limited usefulness).

In actual fact, Last Remnant is a game that is alternatively mesmerizing and infuriating, brilliant and broken beyond repair. It's a turn-based Japanese-style RPG that tries to reinvent many of the conventions of that genre, failing as often as it succeeds. So should we praise Last Remnant for trying something different, or deride it for its numerous shortcomings?

Anyone who follows my reviews will know that I always start RPG analysis with the plot and characters. The genre is so dependent on the story that it's hard to make up for a bad one. Last Remnant opens with Rush Sykes, a pretty typical teenage JRPG protagonist, as he desperately searches for his kidnapped sister. Rush ends up in the middle of a war zone between neighboring countries and is apprehended on suspicion of being a spy. After proving that he's not engaging in espionage, Rush agrees to assist the leader of Athlum (Marquis David) in exchange for help locating his sister.

What follows is a tale of political machinations gone awry, as the leaders of other nations scramble to exploit powerful living weapons called Remnants to destroy one another and conquer the world. Worse, a new nation has emerged under the rule of an unstoppable warrior known only as the Conqueror, who for reasons unknown is sweeping across the continent with little resistance. Rush and his new friends must stand against the Conqueror and unravel the mystery behind the Remnants to discover his true motivations.

It's not a bad idea for a plot, and it probably would have worked well except for one glaring issue: the antagonists are badly characterized. There are four people that you might call the "villains" of this story, and not a single one combines an interesting personality with clear motivations. Let's go through them (obviously, SPOILERS):

Duke Hermeien: This is one of the two people (the other being the Conqueror) that the game pitches from the start as the main bad guy. He's the Chairman of the Congress (sort of like the head of the U.N.) and leader of the Academy (the main institution of knowledge and scholarship). These two positions make him the most powerful political figure on the continent (besides the God Emperor). And like all maddeningly stupid villains, Hermeien's goal is to conquer the continent for himself. Why? Who the hell knows...he's already supremely powerful in the political, social, and economic spheres, plus he fully controls the only academic institution in existence. Why would he risk all that just so for the slim chance that he could subjugate and rule the same people who are willingly cooperating with him already? Anyway, Hermeien is a dimwit and a total red herring villain...he's dispatched well before the end of the game and rather unceremoniously at that.

Wagram: Ostensibly Wagram is the Duke's top underling, but it's pretty obvious from the word go that he's one of those "I'm secretly manipulating the guy who thinks he's in charge" villains who turns out to be higher on the bad guy hierarchy than his boss. That might be interesting if (1) they'd tell us anything about Wagram's background or motivations and (2) again, if it wasn't terribly obvious from the start. Anyway, Wagram is portrayed as a mysterious guy, which if fine but doesn't give much context to our political plot.

The God Emperor: This guy is completely superfluous to the story. Supposedly he rules over everyone, but all the leaders under him do whatever they want, including invading each other's land. He doesn't appear in the story until the very end and is more of a lazy idiot than a villian. The good guys bluntly inform him that a plan is underway to see all humans (and humanoid races) wiped out, to which he basically shrugs and says "If it's the will of the Remnants, I'm cool with it". As far as I can tell, his only role in the governance of this land is to sit on his throne in a stupid outfit and eat a lot of fatty foods.

The Conqueror: The actual main bad guy and the only truly formidable foe in this story. The Conqueror is quite a bad ass, capable of punching right through a person's torso Bruce Lee style and catching a sword with his finger tips. But there's a problem with this guy too...he pretty much never talks or explains what the hell he's doing. Again, a mysterious villain is fine, but why should I be motivated to stop him if I don't even understand what he's doing in the first place?

What we have here is a game that features lots of cutscenes with political figures yapping to one another at various meetings and congresses, but with no real understanding of the goals and motivations of the villains, it's hard to make sense of it all. We know that Marquis David is the good guy, and it seems like the Duke is the bad guy, but what is everyone trying to accomplish? It reminds me of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, with Senator Palpatine manipulating the Republic using a bunch of political duplicity. It's effective, I suppose, but not very compelling to watch in a video game cutscene.

Next time, I'll talk about the characters that did work for me.