Page 1 of 2

Ace Combat 6

Posted: 2008-03-22 12:27pm
by Starglider
Continuation of this thread, as someone will probably bitch if I necro it.

Who else, if anyone, thought this game was broken? IMHO it is the worst Ace Combat game, as in least fun and most annoying, since the PS2 (i.e. worse than 4, 5 and 0, it's hard to compare with 3 and 2). Here are some problems I had with it;

* The game forces you to kill air targets quickly for the wrong reasons; i.e. retarded and helpless allies. Killing air targets quickly is frustrating, because;

* Normal missiles are virtually worthless on air targets. The effectiveness of missile guidance has been going steadily down since AC4 (where it was arguably excessive). AC4 and 5 were 'clear everything on the map' shoot-em-ups largely because with a bit of practice it was '2 shots, 1 kill, rapid repeat'. AC0 had enough AI and weak enough missiles that the air combat was genuinely challenging and interesting. However in AC0 you didn't usually have heavy time pressure due to incompetent allies, so you could wait for a good moment and line up your shots carefully. If AC6 enemies flew like AC4/5 enemies the weak missiles would be fine, but they dodge at least as well as AC0 enemies if not better (obviously I prefer decent standard missiles over docile enemies by AC6 has neither).

* The gun is overpowered. You can kill anything with a short burst, often without it actually looking like you've hit it. The 'completed entire game using just the gun' medal is there because this is much easier than doing the same for AC5. This is what renders the normal missiles worthless; by the time you get in range for them, you might as well just use the gun.

* SAAMs are still basically one-shot, one-kill as long as you don't have to evade. This makes some bits of the game (i.e shooting down the insanely hypermaneuverable drones) much less frustrating than they would be otherwise. It is however rather incongrous. Enemies will dodge furiously if you're close but fly along serenely when illuminated by SAAM guidance radar. Maybe this is because;

* The 'missile warning' alarm does not shut up. The thing is going off for literally 75% of the game, with most of the remaining 25% being flying between waypoints. In previous AC games, sections like this were intense. Since it happens all the time in AC6, it just gets annoying and grating.

* Of course the alarm is going off because you're constantly getting shot at, which means you have to keep breaking pursuit; and 'snap off a couple of missiles while you turn past the enemy' as in AC5 doesn't work because the missiles are useless. Again, this just means the gun is the most useful weapon, because you can snap of bursts whenever an enemy crosses your flightpath and odds are you'll down it. Newsflash, Namco; this is supposed to be Ace Combat, not Blazing Angels.

* The level design is generally boring and uninspired. In particular, the final level is boring and derivative (and the final two levels are much easier than the preceeding few). The missions are so long because they have a lot of repetition. The checkpoints are there because losing half an hour of progress because you made a mistake would be immensely frustrating. Sometimes there isn't a checkpoint and it's immensely frustrating anyway. The 'half an hour of playtime' issue comes because the point quotas for decent ranks are so high, which means spending lots of time killing huge numbers of non-core targets. Which brings me to;

* The time pressure mostly comes from the wrong place; allied stupidity. The actual time limits are generous. But the ground forces have a habit of getting themselves killed if you don't kill all the mission critical targets quickly. Of course, killing a complete set of mission critical targets makes all the unkilled bonus targets in that set disappear, lowering your potential score. So it's sensible to leave one mission critical target unkilled while you pick off the noncritical ones. But oh no, your allies aren't quite helpless, they will eventually kill a single target on their own. So you have to worry about killing enough to prevent them dying, but not enough for them to win before you're done killing secondary targets.

* This would be doable if there was only one force to worry about at once. But there isn't. The game gives the impression that the various ops in a mission don't start until you get to the relevant bit of the map, but more often than not this is a lie; allied forces start dying and complaining about being down to 40% of their force before you've even ventured over to their side of the map. Of course sometimes this is your fault, because you're in a dogfight that drifts into a new part of the map and an unwanted 'operation X starts' banner appears. Sometimes your allies die for no apparent reason at all, i.e. a new group of fighters spawns on bombers you're supposed to be protecting when you thought they were clear and went off to do something else, or the cruiser you're protecting suddenly sinks despite destroying every single enemy ship, aircraft and shore battery in the vicinity.

* The allied command system sounds good but is actually very rarely useful. I don't care if it's heretical, I preferred AC5's four-plane system.

* The battle against the five giant 'air cruisers' sounds fun, and probably should be, but is rendered an unfun pile of frustration by the above issues (particularly on hard or above, where extra targets are present). The best tactic is, as usual, to spray everything in sight with machine gun fire (at least, after you've expended all of your XMA6s; incidentally the medium range missiles are the only non-broken air-to-air weapon). The battle versus the Arkbird is two orders of magnitude more fun.

* The menu system and HUD design is ok but less helpful than previous versions (i.e. your current mission rank is no longer shown on the HUD).

After these gameplay issues, the fact that

* The music is definitely not as good as 4 or 5 (in which it was ridiculously awesome) and IMHO not as good as 0.

* The story is bland, disjointed and contains offensively stupid characters who you never start to care about. Both the combatant nations are sketchy caricatures compared to previous AC backstory.

* Yet another Ulysees-asteroid inspired megaweapon? Come on...

* The real-time cutscenes look bad compared to AC5's prerendered ones.

* There are less planes and weapons available. This includes less variety of enemies to blow up.

* The game is fairly short, about as long as AC4.

* The interestingly detailed enemies from AC0 have disappeared, to be replaced by the standard 'one super-squadron plus faceless hordes' setup.

hardly matter.

Good stuff, in brief;

* Graphics. Better than the previous generation but not exactly awe-inspiring. The main visible improvement is the persistent missile trails.

* Aircraft handling. A touch more realistic while still being suitable for what is essentially a shoot-em-up. Stalling occurs at more sensible times. The high-G turns are nice. The flight ceiling while not realistic isn't as annoyingly low as AC5.

* I haven't spotted any planes flying through mountains or buildings AC5 style.

Indifferent stuff;

* The proximity fuses on the missiles. Sometimes they kill in one hit, sometimes they don't. I like the realism in principle, but in actual gameplay the unpredictability would be annoying, were it not for a) you have such a ridiculous missile inventory that shooting off two at every air target would not be a problem and b) it doesn't make sense to use the standard missiles on air targets anyway, when the gun does the job faster and more reliably.

After this I am even more convinced that AC5 is the best Ace Combat game to date. It had the best level design, concept (war between actual superpowers, not two-bit poxy countries, with an interesting twist as opposed to AC0's stupid one), music, scope and general execution. The characters were a little silly but were actually engaging. Despite being a bit too easy, even on Ace (whereas AC0's difficultly level was spot-on for me), I still find it the most fun AC game to play.

I haven't tried the online mode yet. I remain optimistic that these issues were the result of the game being rushed out, and that AC7 will be awesome.

Posted: 2008-03-22 01:27pm
by Medic
The more I reflect on it, yeah, this serving of Ace Combat is nothing special, it just LOOKS damned good. To the extent it's hard to play the other ones anymore. (besides, which, I've played 4, 5 and Zero to death)

I wouldn't hold your breath for online play either, it's tiresome and formulaic. Hold after burner, high-G turn to avoid missiles, take off a snapshot between being targeted by others be it with MSSL's, or some special armament. Gunfighting is rare because "snipers" on the other team will kill any slow-moving target in the middle of a furball, from the outside of it.

Posted: 2008-03-22 08:48pm
by CaptHawkeye
Yeah, AC6 was apparently aimed at pleasing the Xbox Live tard demographic because they were testing new ground. I didn't think it was possible to dumb down an already dumbed down title. Missile shotz were easier than ever and secondary weapons became absurdly easy to use. Mostly because the needlessly doubled ammo storage. :)

And I *STRONGLY* agree with you that the music sucked, and storyline, even by preachy AC standards was terrible and lacking. Which I even complained about in the thread. AC4 felt like the genuine progression of a war, AC6 was just lame.

And Shamrock needed to shut the fucking hell up.

Didn't it also annoy you how they cut out a lot of planes from previous games? Where the fuck did my MiG-29 go? :cry:

Re: Ace Combat 6

Posted: 2008-03-22 09:15pm
by Ford Prefect
Starglider wrote:* The battle against the five giant 'air cruisers' sounds fun, and probably should be, but is rendered an unfun pile of frustration by the above issues (particularly on hard or above, where extra targets are present). The best tactic is, as usual, to spray everything in sight with machine gun fire (at least, after you've expended all of your XMA6s; incidentally the medium range missiles are the only non-broken air-to-air weapon). The battle versus the Arkbird is two orders of magnitude more fun.
Mind you, getting that ally meter up all the way and unleashing it all on Aigaion results in one of the most glorious looking missile barrages ever. I was so busy marvelling at all the missiles coming in at once that I crashed straight into the big flying whale. Glorious, I tell you.
concept (war between actual superpowers, not two-bit poxy countries
There mere fact that you actually had a superweapon on your side for once was wonderful.

Posted: 2008-03-22 09:28pm
by Stark
I played the 360 demo, and the game seemed really, really boring. I played one of the PS2 ones and it was still boring but less so (sorry, flying in circles for 10 minutes = boring). It does look pretty nice, though, even if it is both simplistic and boring.

Posted: 2008-03-23 12:12am
by Nephtys
Why must AC be about superweapons and silly fake countries? I played AC4, and I have a friend who really enjoys the series. I still am caught up mostly on small 'Over-Japanesed' details, like idiotic country names (Oasa is now at war with Easa! Oh no!), lame superweapons (Look out! It's Stonehenge!) and more or less a complete lack of anything as far as I saw resembling interesting gameplay.

Please, although I've only played 4 (and 3? ages ago?), explain where the fun is... It just feels like you're flying around, locking onto enemy planes who refuse to even attempt to hit you, fire two missiles, then move onto the next target. The greatest opponent is the ground, not enemy fire.

Posted: 2008-03-23 12:51am
by chitoryu12
The multiplayer was probably the most repetitive Xbox Live game I've ever seen. All of the combat takes place either in the very middle of the field or off to the side, so you spend the first ten seconds flying in a straight line before someone targets you with the longest range SP weapon completely by accident. And everyone used the most maneuverable missiles so they're nearly impossible to avoid in the heat of combat. I once had so many of them flying at me I spent over thirty seconds spinning in random directions while the warning buzzer blared from my TV.

And, of course, if you get a guy who's unlocked that sci-fi plane with the lasers (Always forget its name) on your team, there is no chance in hell of you ever losing. If he's against you, it's probably best to just stay the fuck out of the middle of the battle and snipe from long range.

Posted: 2008-03-23 05:01am
by Ford Prefect
chitoryu12 wrote:And, of course, if you get a guy who's unlocked that sci-fi plane with the lasers
You mean the CFA-44 and its railgun.

Posted: 2008-03-23 07:51am
by wautd
AC6 is the best AC I've played!

It's also the only AC I've played but meh.

I agree that it was quite boring but for a strange reason I got addicted to it
* The gun is overpowered. You can kill anything with a short burst, often without it actually looking like you've hit it. The 'completed entire game using just the gun' medal is there because this is much easier than doing the same for AC5. This is what renders the normal missiles worthless; by the time you get in range for them, you might as well just use the gun.
I couldn't hit jack shit with the gun :?

Posted: 2008-03-23 09:32am
by Shroom Man 777
I loved the PS2 games and this one... well, it looks pretty, but... it's not near the awesomeness of 04, 5 or Zero. Mang.

I liked the allied fire support thing. But... yeah. Too short, without interesting enemies (not even close to Yellow Squad or those awesome aces in Zero). With barely fleshed out and unintimidating superweapons. With a plot that was no where near the battlefield-philosophizin' absoludicrousity of the previous games. Meh.

I need to replay Zero. And goddamn, my copy of 5 has died. All I've got is 04 and I've done it a binillion times. Mang.

Posted: 2008-03-23 11:49am
by Starglider
CaptHawkeye wrote:Yeah, AC6 was apparently aimed at pleasing the Xbox Live tard demographic because they were testing new ground.
I haven't even got that to work yet. It keeps saying 'cannot connect to server'.
And I *STRONGLY* agree with you that the music sucked,
Particularly in the final level. Instead of AC4/5/0 awesomeness we get a bland depressing hymn with no orchestration. Incidentally the theme of that was 'spend half an hour shooting all the targets off a huge pile of concrete - or ten minutes if you don't want an S rank - while every minute or so you have to afterburn over to a specific part of the level and do an AC4 style trench run.

I get the impression the developers were trying to show off the fact that the 360 has the processing power to run lots of enemies at once. In the previous games, you were mostly doing one thing at once; dogfighting a squadron, shooting down cruise missiles, doing trench runs, whatever. When you got good you could do these things very quickly and with minimal missile expenditure, which was fun. In AC6 you have tens of enemies flying around taking pot shots at all the time, which makes it impossible to concentrate on the main task, since you have to keep breaking off and hacking their numbers down to a reasonable level.
AC4 felt like the genuine progression of a war, AC6 was just lame.
Plus Erusia's defeat in AC4 was more credible. They were a second-tier country that overstretched trying to take over a whole continent, were over-reliant on their single not-so-hot superweapon, and were taken out by an international coalition with major outside logistical support. In AC6 you have to wonder how the hell the bad guys lost.
Didn't it also annoy you how they cut out a lot of planes from previous games? Where the fuck did my MiG-29 go? :cry:
Yeah, but screw the MiG-29, where's my X-02? Or F-35? Or FB-22? At least the Berkut is still there.

I'm not even particularly fond of the CFA-44. It has an overkill weapon but stalls at the drop of the hat? I suppose the balance is good in theory, but like a lot of AC6 it doesn't work in practice. The Falken is a laugh because it's so ludicrously overpowered, I literally giggled the first time I took out the SOLG with a single laser burst. The X-02 is cool because it looks and feels great without having broken weapons (i.e. Ace mode is still challenging flying it). The CFA-44's weapons are too overpowered to feel like you're playing the game fairly, but then it has that habit of stalling when you get careless (which gets you instantly killed by missiles on Expert), which renders it unfun as a silly plane.
wrote:Mind you, getting that ally meter up all the way and unleashing it all on Aigaion results in one of the most glorious looking missile barrages ever.
Most of which crash pointlessly into the superstructure, because the thing is made of invulnerium apart from a few weak spots. Another no-no Namco; don't have missile launchers that don't appear as targets and can't be killed. No previous AC games had it and for good reason. I did laugh at the 'open all secondary gunports' line; it was reminiscent of those old 2D shooters where shooting bits off the boss revealed new weapons built under the first layer of weapons. Still not a good idea though.
wautd wrote:AC6 is the best AC I've played! It's also the only AC I've played but meh.
AC6 is an ok game but a bad AC game. If you liked it, get a slimline PS2 and AC5 (and maybe 4 and 0). They're well worth the price of the PS2 on their own these days. :)
I couldn't hit jack shit with the gun
At those ranges you have to lead a typical crossing target by about half the screen. Unlike the missiles the gun works fine even on planes flying at right angles to you, but you have to fire a long way in front for that to work. The actual gun range extends somewhat further than the game suggests (i.e. you can kill things before the gunsight even appears, with practice).
Nephtys wrote:Why must AC be about superweapons
Because they'd be significantly less variety in the game without the wild things you have to do to kill the superweapons. Besides as every right-thinking HAB citizen knows, superweapons done right (e.g. Arkbird, Megalith) are also awesome.
and silly fake countries?
This is Ace Combat. Your plane carries 100 missiles and you single-handedly win every major battle. It isn't supposed to be realistic; that would be any one of these wars quickly degenerating into a nuke-fest. Real countries would detract from the tone, pointlessly constrain storytelling and get everyone bitching about real-world politics. Plus it would likely end up hindering plausibility more than it helps it.
Please, although I've only played 4 (and 3? ages ago?), explain where the fun is...
It is fun for much the same reasons that side-scrolling shoot-em-ups were (and are) fun. If you don't like games that are mostly about spatial reasoning and hand-eye co-ordination, then it isn't for you.
It just feels like you're flying around, locking onto enemy planes who refuse to even attempt to hit you, fire two missiles, then move onto the next target. The greatest opponent is the ground, not enemy fire.
You were probably playing on normal difficulty. AC4 is not really interesting unless you're playing on Expert, preferably Ace.

Oh and something I forgot to rant about, how stupid is that battle vs the enemy ace in the CFA-44? To recap;

* Thirty or so armed drones that travel at mach 5, have a turning circle of 50 feet, are too small to hit with the machine gun and trivially dodge any missile? The only way I managed to kill them was XMA6 barrages from long range, which pegged about one drone every other barrage.
* A hypermaneuverable hyperfast plane that is stealthed so that you constantly lose your lock on it and lock onto one of the drones instead.
* The hyperfast plane is also immune to missiles except when the AI seems to glitch. I unloaded around 100 QAAMs at the thing (on hard, I went back for reloads) and hit it twice. Of course it takes four hits to kill, so I made up the difference with lucky machine gun hits when it happened to fly right past me.
* The enemy is also firing railgun shots at you, which means that if you stop turning for more than a second, you die.

I haven't got to that level on Expert yet but when I do I'll probably just take the CFA-44 and railgun it.

Posted: 2008-03-23 12:52pm
by chitoryu12
I couldn't hit jack shit with the gun
It's not like you had to have good aim. If I felt like strafing an AA emplacement, I just used the rudder to yaw slightly and sweep the fire in its general area. I seriously destroyed targets when I hit within ten feet of them with three or four shells.

Posted: 2008-03-23 05:19pm
by 18-Till-I-Die
To me, AC6 was a "meh" game.

It was also the first AC game i've played, though i'm well aware of the series.

Really i just found the whole thing largely an exercise in frustration and failure for the most part, with a little fun here and there, but neither one outweighing the other cause it was all so bland.

Also, "Dance with the Angels"? Really? Hey think we said it enough yet?

GO DANCE WITH THE FUCKING ANGELS LOSER!!!! :roll:

New Rule: Japanese people are never allowed to write the script for anything, ever, under any circumstances.

Posted: 2008-03-23 05:40pm
by CaptHawkeye
Starglider wrote: Particularly in the final level. Instead of AC4/5/0 awesomeness we get a bland depressing hymn with no orchestration. Incidentally the theme of that was 'spend half an hour shooting all the targets off a huge pile of concrete - or ten minutes if you don't want an S rank - while every minute or so you have to afterburn over to a specific part of the level and do an AC4 style trench run.
A really annoying trench run at that since the machine gun towers defending were manned by super human robots who could blast F-22s out of the air with ease.

Plus Erusia's defeat in AC4 was more credible. They were a second-tier country that overstretched trying to take over a whole continent, were over-reliant on their single not-so-hot superweapon, and were taken out by an international coalition with major outside logistical support. In AC6 you have to wonder how the hell the bad guys lost.
Exactly, meanwhile, in AC6, the player's side gets pushed back so far it's down to its last fucking airfield plus last allied city. Yet somehow, the Estovakians lose. And it's all downhill from there for them. And another thing, where did all those Emmerian armies and and massive fleets come from? They were down to their last fucking base weren't they?

And because that wasn't enough, the player doesn't even get to carry out a counter invasion this time. We hear that, basically via act of plot, Estovakia is no more! Yay!

Also, the game currently bears the honor of being the most over-patriotic game i've ever played. More so than any America-wank or any nation wank game. Can you believe it? The nationalism in the game was so dense it was annoying, even though it was based on motherfucking fictional country. No one gives a shit about your stupid ass Golden King! Stop talking about him you fuckers!
Most of which crash pointlessly into the superstructure, because the thing is made of invulnerium apart from a few weak spots. Another no-no Namco; don't have missile launchers that don't appear as targets and can't be killed. No previous AC games had it and for good reason. I did laugh at the 'open all secondary gunports' line; it was reminiscent of those old 2D shooters where shooting bits off the boss revealed new weapons built under the first layer of weapons. Still not a good idea though.
I kept hoping for the magical structurally illogical DEATH STAR LASER BEAM to pop out from underneath the hull and start VAPORIZING THE WORLD! :lol:

Posted: 2008-03-23 06:47pm
by 18-Till-I-Die
Actually, while they were down to one airbase, IIRC they actually were made up of the bulk of the Emerian (?) army that fled during the invasion, and they had some small island under their control off the coast.

I think, anyway.

To be honest the mission descriptions and dialogue was so obtruse and Engrish-laden i'm kind of at a loss as to what, precisely, was happening in the first place. I still don't really understand why Estovakia (?) attacked them in the first place.

Though to be fair their patriotism was perfectly acceptible in my eyes...if someone just invaded my country for no reason and started blowing the shit out of my cities with tactical nukes launched from giant armored zeppelins (or whatever teh Aigaion was) i'd be fucking indignant too. I mean the Estovakians should have expected that...to quote a Boondocks episode: "Of course they're shooting at us, we shot at them first!"

Posted: 2008-03-23 06:56pm
by CaptHawkeye
18-Till-I-Die wrote:Actually, while they were down to one airbase, IIRC they actually were made up of the bulk of the Emerian (?) army that fled during the invasion, and they had some small island under their control off the coast.
To be honest, that still doesn't work too well. Their is no way that airbase could have been big enough to hold their entire remaining air force. Unless their air force was either pitifully small or they were just bullshitting. Which still opens the case of how exactly they managed to create an invasion force big enough to not only invade but re-conquer their whole continent. Even with partisan assistance, it's just inconcievable unless they got a lot of foriegn aid we were never told about. And it doesn't make sense to use the "Estovakia's economy collapsed". Otherwise how else would they be able to build and continuously operate those massive aerial ships plus full size Army and Navy?

We are never given any real explanation as to how they magically got loads of military forces that suddenly turned the tide. They couldn't have had them at the start, otherwise they wouldn't have run so far they would literally be at their last stronghold.

Posted: 2008-03-23 08:16pm
by 18-Till-I-Die
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume the spectacular Engrish in Ace Combat 6 caused them to confuse some words, and they meant by "airbase" or "airstrip" to mean some kind of larger operational base network on the island (?) they controlled. More so, weather it makes sense or not, it does appear that they did withdraw most of their army as the invasion begun...apparently because they felt "fight a guerilla campaign from a position of weakness" is a better prospect than "fight on your home turf from a position of weakness". Like i said dont really understand it all but it seemed clear they withdrew most of their forces for some odd "strategic" reason.

That being said, it's still stupid and really weird but that makes the plot hole kind of smaller, i guess.

Posted: 2008-03-24 01:05am
by Adrian Laguna
Starglider wrote:In AC6 you have tens of enemies flying around taking pot shots at all the time, which makes it impossible to concentrate on the main task, since you have to keep breaking off and hacking their numbers down to a reasonable level.
This probably wouldn't be a problem if your allies were actually helpful. I think it would be cool if in the next Ace Combat game, they make it so that if you try to go head long into the teeth of the enemy all by yourself you'll get pwnt, but if you co-ordinate with your allies you can clean house. Ideally you would still rack-up ridiculously high kills scores per battle, but friendly units would still carry their weight. I noticed that in AC4, while the ground units never killed anything, and the air units did so only once in a blue moon, your allies were useful in at least distracting the enemy. Particularly in the Shattered Skies mission, with the giant furball over the space center. Most of the planes were fighting each other, with only one or two coming after you at a time.
Nephtys wrote:idiotic country names (Oasa is now at war with Easa! Oh no!)
They're not idiotic, they're realistic. A lot of them are based on real country names.

From AC4: Erusia is a play on either Russia or Eurasia, with the nation itself being a 90s Russia knock-off. ISAF is a real life acronym used for the coalition forces in Afghanistan. North Point sounds stupid, until you remember that there are hundreds of cities on Earth whose name means "New City". San Salvacion is hardly any stupider than El Salvador, or its capital city, San Salvador.

From AC5: Osea is based on America, so USA->Usa->Osa->Osea, that's pretty much the only country name that might be silly, since it's a proper name based on an acronym. What the Union of Yuktobanian Republics is based on should be self-evident, with the word Yuktobania being basically a play on Yugoslavia, because it sounded suitably Eastern European. I don't know how they got the name for their Prussia knock-off, Belka, but I don't see what's particularly silly about that. Finally, Sapin is just an anagram of Spain.

Posted: 2008-03-24 02:01am
by Shroom Man 777
The sillier names are Sapin... Ustio... and YUKTOBANIA!

They crack me up.

But I love them.

Posted: 2008-03-24 05:00am
by Setzer
IIRC, they grabbed suitable sounding German words for Belka, which is like a modern day Nazi Germany. Economic woes led to a fascist government overthrowing a democratic one, and armed itself for war.

They had a powerful Luftwaffe that supported an initial powerful assault, were slowly driven back by a superior alliance of enemy nations, they relied on Superweapons to turn the tide, and their high command seemed to have an affection for suicidal gestures of defiance.

Posted: 2008-03-24 05:57am
by K. A. Pital
Yuktobania is Russia. It's the USSR. Erusea doesn't look like that, it's more like Yugoslavia/Serbia or something.

Posted: 2008-03-24 11:53am
by Jade Falcon
I enjoyed the game, but I'd probably have felt differently if I'd played previous Ace Combats. I vastly preferred it to Over-G Fighters anyway. The whole story with the woman at first confused me, I thought she was meant to be your wife until the second cutscene. The side story with the tank crew served absolutely no purpose at all. The last mission was one of the most frustrating, it wasn't even a particularly enjoyable mission either.

Posted: 2008-03-24 01:32pm
by Psychic_Sandwich
18-Till-I-Die wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume the spectacular Engrish in Ace Combat 6 caused them to confuse some words, and they meant by "airbase" or "airstrip" to mean some kind of larger operational base network on the island (?) they controlled. More so, weather it makes sense or not, it does appear that they did withdraw most of their army as the invasion begun...apparently because they felt "fight a guerilla campaign from a position of weakness" is a better prospect than "fight on your home turf from a position of weakness". Like i said dont really understand it all but it seemed clear they withdrew most of their forces for some odd "strategic" reason.

That being said, it's still stupid and really weird but that makes the plot hole kind of smaller, i guess.
I was under the impression that they only had the one base and town. That was the point of mission two, after all; stop the bombers smashing up your shit, because if they get at the town and your airstrip, the war is lost.

The random huge armies seem to have been fighting on the mainland, just not in any sort of coherant manner. There was that mission where you had to rescue all those surrounded Emmerian troops, after all, and when you show up, one of the ground units says something like 'holy shit! somebody radio HQ and tell them that these guys are on our side[/I]'. What appears to have happend is that large scale organised resistance collapsed for some reason (maybe the Emmeria military was too over centralised around Gracemeria or something), but much of the actual military was left intact, so they were left with individual armies trying to hold isolated pockets of land without support, and when you and your friends show up, they pitch in with you.

That's the only way I can make it work inside my head, because if Estovakia had really destroyed most of the Emmerian military while they were overruning the country, then you should have lost. Of course, none of this would be as much of a problem if they told you what was going on, instead of 'you're loosing! Wait, now you're winning!'

Posted: 2008-03-24 02:10pm
by Vendetta
18-Till-I-Die wrote:More so, weather it makes sense or not, it does appear that they did withdraw most of their army as the invasion begun...apparently because they felt "fight a guerilla campaign from a position of weakness" is a better prospect than "fight on your home turf from a position of weakness".
Law of Narrative Causality. Any time a beleaguered force has waged a desperate final stand at their very last airbase, they win the war. Happens in Ace Combat 2, 4, and Zero.

Posted: 2008-03-24 03:55pm
by Starglider
Vendetta wrote:Law of Narrative Causality. Any time a beleaguered force has waged a desperate final stand at their very last airbase, they win the war. Happens in Ace Combat 2, 4, and Zero.
In 4 there was massive outside logistical support. In Zero, both superpowers sent whole armies to invade Belka. The player's team was just an extra mercenary force that represented one of the minor country's contribution to the counterattack.

Of course 5 still wins, for the 'you tried to invade our continent? screw you, we're going to destroy your landing forces then invade you right back' factor. It also has something else cool; the enemy actually reacting realistically to the player's progress, i.e. single handedly shooting down hundreds of planes and destroying naval cruisers with a few sidewinder hits, while being seemingly immune to attack. By the end of the game they're shouting 'those can't be planes, they must be demons' and 'oh no, it's the Razgriz, we're all gonna die!'. Awesome :)

One good thing about AC6; your wingman can finally use the special weapons sensibly. I also liked the extra code words for the superplane's weapons; 'Drive, Drive!' for the Macross-Plus/Death-Blossom missiles and 'Slash, Slash!' for the Quake3-esque railgun. I wonder what the code for the Falken's TLS would be. 'Burn, burn' presumably. :)