#both because characters are complex and because these abilities are used for chara development

[glitter-stained]

And we finish the low quality Classic Transformation Constellation of the Robin round-up with Damian, the Boy himself! He's about to Wonder his enemies something good

His Robin transformation also has black because of the influence of the Bat in his blood since he, like Duke, is the son of a Star and has some of the powers of said Star in his blood without needing a crystal for it.

Abilities:

Flight

Enhanced athletics

Enhanced healing

Colour Swirl: that charging light he looks about to spear you with is a colourful wave that bludgeons through enemies like a brick rain (tim can confirm)

Son of the Bat: this ability takes its roots both in the pre-existing parental link between the Constellations of the Bat and the Robin, and the parental relationship between most holders of the Robin and one of the holders of the Bat, as well as Damian's powerful drive to prove himself as Batman's son. When Robin is in the vicinity of a Bat, all of his abilities, physical and magical, are enhanced (up to 3 times more powerful) though that may be altered depending on his relationship with the current holder of the Bat.

[llama-lord]

My Full Personal Interpretation of Chara

It’s my view that Chara was severely abused during their time on the surface, and began to view crying as weakness because of it. I'm not sure if Chara was actually trying to commit suicide, but I think they had suicidal tendencies, showing little concern for their own life. Undertale's intro shows Chara tripping instead of jumping, but it also shows them clearly seeing the hole and approaching it beforehand. Given that the injuries Chara sustained from the fall were far from fatal, as they were able to walk with Asriel's assistance, their cry for help could've been out of pain and/or survival instinct, rather than a genuine desire to live.

Pre-death Chara hated Humanity, but there was always a look of hope in their eyes (in the neutral ending where Asgore commits suicide, he tells Frisk “I'm reminded of the human that fell here long ago... You have the same feeling of hope in your eyes”), they loved Monsterkind, they loved Toriel and Asgore (while it’s possible that Toriel knitted the Mr. Dad Guy Sweater for Asgore, I think it’s more likely that it was Chara. “Mr. Dad Guy” is an awkward name, one that sounds like a middle ground between “Mr. Dreemurr” and “Dad”), and they loved Asriel more than anything. However, while Chara was capable of and showed genuine love and kindness to the Dreemurrs, sharing countless tender moments with them, they could be a bully sometimes. Although Chara never physically hurt Asriel, they frequently shamed and sometimes mocked Asriel for crying (mirroring their own treatment on the surface), and liked to playfully toy with his emotions from time to time. With no other friends and due to his own insecurities, Asriel looked up to Chara and came to idolize them. That said, while Chara's and Asriel's relationship was unhealthy, I doubt it was ever intentionally abusive until the plan came forth. Had Chara been made fully aware of how much damage they were doing to Asriel, I think they would've been horrified.

EDIT: I view the mindset that "big kids don't cry" as being picked up by Chara on the surface due to mistreatment. They shamed Asriel for crying under the distorted belief that they were toughening him up.

While I think Toriel and Asgore were decent parents, they never noticed Chara's darker tendencies, nor did they ever ask them questions about their life on the surface. When Asgore told Chara that they were "the future of Humans and Monsters" (I highly doubt Chara’s deathbed was the only time Asgore said this, given the weight of the title, and his bad habit of placing enormous responsibilities onto the shoulders of young children, seeing how he gave Frisk, a child no older than 12, the duty to "seek the truth" of the Prophecy so they can free everyone in the alternate Neutral Route where he commits suicide), his intent was to refer to Chara as living proof that the two species could coexist. However, Chara took it the wrong way, believing it now meant that they were responsible for everyone, giving them a complex, putting pressure on them as one of the Royal Children.

EDIT: I placed too much blame on Asgore in my initial write-up. It’s far more likely that Chara developed a complex from living with Monsters, and that being called "The Future of Humans and Monsters" was simply the icing on the cake.

EDIT: I think Toriel and Asgore may have recognized signs of abuse in Char, or just felt that something was off about them, but I doubt either of them realized how bad their issues were.

Poisoning Asgore was a genuine accident. I don’t believe Chara "laughed the pain away" nor laughed sadistically. There is a recurring theme of characters laughing and joking in stressful moments (Snowdrake's Father when he talks about his son ran away after his mother disappeared, Snowdrake's Mother during her fight in the True Lab, Mettaton NEO, Undyne when Frisk is beating her to death in the Neutral Route, Toriel when you oneshot her in the Genocide Route or betrayal kill her, Asriel when you hug him, Asgore when he kills himself in the alternate neutral ending, and Migospel, especially Migospel, as his entire theme is him putting up a happy facade to hide his pain). The only times we ever see sadistic laughter in Undertale are from Asriel, who is soulless, and Chara in the Genocide Route, which I don’t believe is an accurate reflection of the person they were in life. So, while I doubt that Chara felt particularly terrible over accidentally poisoning Asgore, I believe their laughter was relatively dry, hollow, and empty.

EDIT: I think Chara freaked out when Asgore got sick, but calmed down after realizing that he wouldn't die. There was still some guilt, but most of it left at that point.

Due to a combination of Chara shaming him for his tears in the past, and his own idolization of them, Asriel now looked down on crying, and saw Chara's (relatively) calm reaction as preferable to his, saying "I should have laughed it off, like you did".

Then came the plan. I think Chara was motivated by both revenge and a wish to free Monsterkind. Chara chose to commit suicide rather than kill the Dreemurrs for their Boss Monster SOULs. I've seen people theorize that Chara picking death of buttercups was self-punishment for what they did to Asgore. I'm neutral on this theory, but I'll acknowledge that there are far less painful ways to die that would've still appeared accidental. And in this moment, yes, Chara was intentionally manipulative (which is abusive). They belittled Asriel's emotions and played up his desire to be a hero by telling him that he could free everyone. When Chara discovered their shared control with Asriel after their SOUL was absorbed, they resolved to walk to the village themselves. When the villagers attacked, Chara tried to kill them all, and that's when he resisted. Asriel had just enough control to walk back to the Throne Room, where he died.

EDIT: I doubt Chara was lying to Asriel when they told him that they only wanted 6 SOULs. Chara had no way of knowing of whether they’d even be conscious, let alone share control with Asriel, after they died. That, and going back to their village would’ve re-opened old wounds, which leads me to believe that their attempt to destroy it was an impulsive act fueled by a power trip, not a pre-planned one.

I doubt post-death Chara is entirely soulless, because they would need a way to manifest themselves. However, Chara’s dialogue at the end of the Genocide Route implies that something happened to their SOUL, saying that “My 'human soul’...My ‘determination’...They were not mine, but YOURS.” While Asriel’s SOUL was completely destroyed, Chara’s SOUL shattered into fragments. At least one of these fragments latched onto Frisk's SOUL after they fell, due to the amount of determination that Frisk had, and their shared SOUL trait.

Fast forward to Frisk's fall. I'll state my main points here. I fully believe the narrator theory, but disagree with the possession theory almost entirely (more on that soon).

If you do not believe the narrator theory, you can skip the bolded passage below.

While Chara does not make a physical appearance in True Pacifist Route, I think they become a better person from it. Chara realizes that they were wrong, that Asriel was right, and that not all Humans are bad. And while Chara doesn't save Asriel or your friends, they give you a push in the end, saying "you can SAVE something else".

Asriel's admission that "Chara wasn't really the greatest person" rings true. Chara was far from perfect. However, I see this statement less as him actually condemning Chara, and more as him taking them off the pedestal he’d placed them on, and realizing that they weren’t a good role model. When Asriel addresses “Chara” after the True Pacifist Route, he has low expectations for them, saying "You’ve probably heard this a hundred times already, haven’t you…?", when he asks them not to reset. However, the fact that he was willing to even make an appeal to begin with, saying "Take a deep breath. There's nothing left to worry about", shows that, despite everything, he still has hope, even though it’s not much, that Chara will do the right thing.

(On another note, the fact that you returned in the first place, after Asriel asked you not to, after he said that he couldn’t come back, after you were EXPLICITLY told that the game would end after you left the Underground, doesn’t speak well of your intentions. Flowey’s expectations for Chara weren’t very high to begin with, but I believe that your return further lowered them. It serves as proof to him that maybe Chara hasn’t learned anything from this.)

Then there's the Genocide Route. Yes, the player not only starts, but is responsible for the overwhelming majority of the Genocide Route. No, I don't believe Frisk is possessed, at all, not until we are very close to the end. Until that point, Chara simply provides a Monster counts for us, and Frisk's more aggressive personality is simply a reflection of our actions. With Chara's SOUL fragmented, severely restricting their ability to feel love and compassion (they might benefit from Frisk's SOUL), there's hardly anything left to restrain their worst traits. Once we kill all 20 Monsters in the Ruins, feeding a desire for power, Chara is on board with us. Their dialogue changes from less joking and increasingly apathetic (“Not worth talking to”, “Forgettable”), with a trace of violent overtones (“Where are the knives”), to outright sadistic as we progress (laughing at the RG 01/02).

EDIT: Judging from the dialogue for the stove after killing Toriel and the dialogue for killing dogs in a Neutral Run, I think Chara may (at least initially) have shame for what they are witnessing in the Genocide Route. However the thrill of gaining power ultimately overrides it. It’s essentially a guilty pleasure.

EDIT: Looking back, while Chara doesn’t actually kill anyone before Sans, it’s plausible that they helped us deal more damage in certain fights. A possible reason why we deal so much damage to Toriel in the Genocide Route is that Chara lashed out. Flowey has feelings of abandonment associated with Toriel (”She'll find another kid, and instantly forget about you. You'll NEVER see her again.”). Given that Toriel refers to Frisk as “my child”, and Chara’s final pre-death memory was of their betrayal, Chara could’ve felt betrayed by her, even though she was a decent parent.

I doubt Asriel’s “recognition” of Chara in the Genocide Route is an accurate reflection of what they were like in life. There is ample evidence to conclude that, not only did Asriel genuinely think that Frisk was Chara in EVERY route, but also that he held onto this delusion the ENTIRE time. Furthermore, there are multiple inconsistencies with the interpretation that Asriel will only quickly conclude that Frisk is Chara in the Genocide Route, and takes much more time to do so in the True Pacifist Route:

1. Omega Flowey toys with Frisk in the Neutral Route, despite seemingly wanting their SOUL.

2. Flowey’s dialogue for sparing Asgore in an aborted Genocide Run directly contradicts the notion that he thinks Chara would only be cruel.

3. Omega Flowey saw the name of Frisk’s SAVE file right before the fight, which alone should’ve been enough evidence to make him think that they are Chara.

4. Flowey’s spare dialogue doesn’t change in an aborted Genocide Run, directly contradicting the notion that he doesn’t think Chara would care about anyone else, as he still threatens to kill “everyone they love”.

Here’s something to consider:

Given how long it took for Flowey to go insane, he is likely aware that Chara will not necessarily be as violent as he is. By giving him evidence for him to conclude that they actually are (killing everyone in the Ruins), Flowey gains enough confidence to drop his charade.

Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that Flowey thinks that Frisk is Chara in every route is his reaction to being spared in a Neutral Run. He should not be confused by the concept of mercy, as he has undoubtedly been shown mercy himself many times during his own resets.

In other words, it’s not that Flowey can’t understand the concept of mercy itself, it’s that he can’t understand why this person specifically would show him mercy. Although Flowey is aware that Chara may not necessarily be as violent as he is, this scenario is different. If there was ANY time to have a kill-or-be-killed mindset, this was it. Flowey gave us every possible reason he could for us to kill him, and sparing him is the strongest challenge to his delusion that Frisk is Chara. He simply cannot understand why “Chara”, who tried to kill the villagers when he refused, would show him mercy after what he said and did.

Asriel makes three colossal mistakes in the Genocide Route. First, he talks as if he's equal to Chara in strength, that he could kill them if he wanted to, saying "Creatures like us wouldn't hesitate to kill each other if we got in each other's way", making them turn on him (I see this line as serving as proof to Chara that Asriel hadn’t learned anything from the village incident). Asriel flees to the Throne Room. We fight Sans, with Chara making the final attack for us. We confront Asgore, who Chara attacks for us. This is where Asriel makes his 2nd mistake, destroying Asgore's SOUL, trapping us in the Underground. His final and fatal mistake is when he begs for his life instead of hiding in the ground. The Chara who Asriel begs for mercy from is, for the most part, soulless; they cannot and do not feel any love or compassion for him anymore. Asriel neglected his own belief that Chara was soulless, when he told them "No... you're empty inside, just like me". Asriel has given Chara plenty of reasons to be angry, and with nothing left to hold that anger back, Chara proceeds to hack him to pieces. This is when Chara finally makes a physical appearance. While there are plenty of other Monsters left in the Underground, murdering the person they loved the most in life is the point of no return for them. This is important because I don't believe that Chara would've intentionally killed Asriel prior to their death, even at their absolute worst, even if he betrayed them. But here? Chara sees killing Asriel as the elimination of the one person who always held them back, and the final step to abandoning their humanity and ridding themselves of the emotions that they now believe only ever hurt them. They've found a better partner, us, one who will always give them what they want. With their goal to achieve power in this world accomplished, Chara believes that its existence no longer serves a purpose, and asks us to erase it. And if we refuse, they think it's hilarious, that we believe we have a choice here. When Chara says "SINCE WHEN WERE YOU THE ONE IN CONTROL?", it doesn't mean they were possessing Frisk, nor does it mean that we never had in control. We controlled Frisk, we had countless chances to abandon this path, but we pushed all the way to the end. Chara has been betrayed before, and was caught completely off-guard. But this time, they came prepared. If their partner tries to turn their back on them like Asriel did, they'll override their decision, because they have final say, and they WILL get what they want.

EDIT: I’m on the fence on whether Chara actually hesitated to kill Flowey. I will say that, unlike with Asgore, they were willing to hear him out at the very least.

As far as the Soulless Pacifist Route goes, I fully believe that Chara kills your friends. However, this is not done out of malice. If Chara genuinely wanted your friends dead for good, they would’ve kept the world erased. This is simply a demonstration of power by Chara, to show that they are the one in control.

Other thoughts:

Despite Asriel’s betrayal, Chara doesn’t seem to hold any strong feelings of hatred or bitterness for him outside of the Genocide Route, and until the “Creatures like us...” line, given how there's no push to kill him in an aborted Genocide Run.

Everything after this point are mostly unsubstantiated headcanons and beliefs of mine. Feel free to continue reading if you are interested.

In my opinion, Asriel’s trauma is often underestimated in fan portrayals. While he has healed to some extent from the True Pacifist Route, taking Chara off the pedestal he once placed them on, his sense of self-worth is still in dire need of repair. How intentional the trauma inflicted on him was is simply a reflection on the perpetrator. It is irrelevant in measuring the damage.

I don’t think Chara is completely fixed by the True Pacifist Route? While Chara has certainly learned something from observing our actions, they still have plenty of work to do on themselves. However, while they can’t change what they did, with Frisk’s help, I think they can try to make up for it by becoming a better person.

While Chara is inherently in a better position than Asriel after the True Pacifist Route (Chara benefits from Frisk’s SOUL and fragments of their own SOUL, while Asriel is completely soulless) I think Asriel will be much easier to help. While Asriel could easily get his form restored by SOUL donations from 7 generous dying Humans, I doubt Chara will ever be able their own body again. The absolute best case scenario I see for Post-Pacifist Chara is them peacefully body-sharing with a consenting Frisk.

Asriel is not obligated to forgive Chara, or (while I doubt he’d be this bitter) even talk to them ever again. That said, Asgore and Toriel owe Chara a lengthy talk. Chara is responsible for their own actions, and their circumstances do not excuse them, but, while they failed themselves, Asgore and Toriel failed them too. This talk can be one for understanding, and, hopefully, reconciliation.

I strongly dislike the concept of killing off Chara under the guise of “setting them free”. It does not heal Asriel’s trauma, nor does it accomplish anything else.

[operationrainfall]

Title Langrisser I & II Developer Chara-Ani, Extreme Publisher NIS America Release Date March 10th, 2020 Genre Tactical RPG Platform PC, Nintendo Switch, PS4 Age Rating T for Teen – Fantasy Violence, Mild Language, Suggestive Themes Official Website

I’ve been excited about Langrisser I & II since I first heard that NIS America was publishing it. Not due to any past familiarity with the Langrisser series, since I’m pretty much a lifelong Nintendo fan, but cause I love strategy RPGs. You don’t have to look back very far to see I tackle those games pretty much every chance I get. But when I heard I would get to cover a pair of classic SRPGs that was only originally available on Sega consoles, I was intrigued. The question then, is were these Langrisser adventures worth the wait? Or should they have stayed in gaming’s past?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The stories of both Langrisser I and Langrisser II feature roughly the same premise. Evil forces are at work, and it’s up to your heroes to put a stop to things. There’s a bit more complexity, such as warring kingdoms, dark magic and evil-sealing artifacts, but it pretty much boils down to a seen before story. Which makes sense, since the original games came out in the 90s, when the industry was still in its adolescence, and was relying on basic tropes instead of trying to shatter expectations. Also, since it was out in that era, we get some sublimely silly anime features, such as over the top drama and very, very silly names for some characters (looking at you, Chris the priestess and Narm the sky knight). While a part of me was somewhat disappointed Langrisser I & II doesn’t have a more nuanced premise, mostly cause I’ve been spoiled by series like Fire Emblem, I can cut it some slack. Ultimately, what’s most important in the SRPG genre is how it plays, and for the most part I felt these adventures played very well.

Both Langrisser games feature the exact same mechanics, though there are slight differences between the two. An example is how in Langrisser I any units can literally walk on water and cross mountains, only at the expense of limited movement range. Or how in Langrisser II, the various classes are a bit more streamlined and less overpowered initially, meaning you’ll learn less spells and skills when you change classes and that your class choices are more important. But when it comes to how you fight, both games play the same. Each game is split into various chapters, and each one has you fulfill a specific objective before you can claim victory. These can vary, such as protecting an NPC, reaching a goal, defeating a particular boss or decimating every foe. There’s a good amount of variety, and they constantly mix things up with enemy ambushes that come out of nowhere. There are even some maps where the objective will change mid-battle, so expect both Langrisser games to keep you on your toes.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As for how these battles play out, it’ll be mostly second nature to any fan of the genre. You select units, move them around, attack and cast magical spells. When you select any unit, it will display their movement range, and you can move and then attack foes. One quirk is that you can’t move and then cast a spell. So if you want to do that, you’ll have to do it from your starting position that turn, which took me a bit to wrap my head around. It means the positioning of your magical focused units is utterly vital, at least until you learn spells that have a wider AOE. Any spell costs MP, though thankfully you’ll max out your health and MP meter whenever you level up. Which was something I learned in one harrowing map that I thought I was doomed to lose until I realized one spellcaster had miraculously filled their MP. And that brings me to my primary complaint in the game. Though most of the mechanics were easy to figure out on the fly, there were other aspects of the strategy that were unclear. And the reason for that lack of clarity was that the game never told me there was any guide. There’s no tutorial at the beginning of the game, and the only way to access the guide is by pressing + first and then selecting “How To Play”. Which was totally unapparent, especially since pressing A on the map brings up another menu. It’s no exaggeration that I was 70% done with the second game when I finally discovered the guide, and that was only because I asked my rep at NIS America specifically.

While this lack of clarity didn’t ruin my experience, it did make it more frustrating. For example, I didn’t know that keeping your Commander units next to their Mercenaries heals them every turn. Or that there’s a weapon triangle of sorts between Infantry, Spearmen and Cavalry. It seemed like some types of units had more efficacy against others, but I never confirmed it til late. More significant was the Command option. Each Commander can select it, even after they’ve ended their turn actions, and it gives the following options – Attack, Defend or Charge. Yet when I selected any of these, there was no immediate response. Little did I realize that selecting a Command prompts your Mercenaries to follow those orders once you end the player phase. Lastly, I had no idea that each Commander’s influence, visualized by a glowing white area, improves the stats of their Mercenaries while they’re in range. Though I did figure that out without the guide. My point being, all I wanted from Langrisser I & II was some in-game clarity that there’s a guide that governs how things work, especially since it isn’t forced down your throat. It would have made everything flow more smoothly, especially since without it I was individually moving all my Mercenaries every turn like a sucker.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

On the topic of Commanders and Mercenaries, there’s a bit more to cover. Each Commander will learn passive skills they can equip before battles, which mostly boost various stats. At the beginning of each battle, all of your Commanders can recruit some Mercenaries. Depending on your current class, you’ll be able to recruit more or less of them. Additionally, each class you learn unlocks more types of Mercenaries for that character. For example, the aerial classes will be able to recruit Sky Knights and Harpies, whereas naval classes can recruit various Merfolk. The nice thing is, you’ll never be forced to stay a certain class just to have access to particular units. Once you unlock them, they’re yours to use as you see fit. Just keep in mind, the stronger the Mercenary, the more expensive they are. Yes, recruiting Mercenaries costs money (cause of course it does), so part of the strategy is finding the best bang for your buck. Usually I would spend anywhere from 10 – 15K in a single battle on my Mercenaries, though thankfully you do get rewarded with more gold at the end of each battle. Overall I rather liked the unique aspect of Mercenary units, and even though they’re weaker than your Commanders, they’re vital to deflect attacks and surround foes. And while Mercenaries don’t level up themselves, they have a sort of symbiotic relationship to their leader. When they defeat a foe, their Commander gets more experience. Plus, so long as a Mercenary has a bit of health left, you can heal them by keeping them near their Commander, or just healing them with a spell. Just be wary, since if the Commander dies, so does all their Mercenary units.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I will say, I also really enjoyed the various classes in the game. There’s a wide variety, and the only thing that determines what class you can and can’t learn is the specific character. You could have two mages that have access to different classes, for example. But it couldn’t be easier to use them. As you defeat foes and win maps, your characters get points that are used to change classes. So long as you have enough points and are on the proper branching path, you will be able to learn a new class. Once learned, you immediately get new skills and spells, have access to new Mercenaries, and get stat boosts. While there’s no penalty for staying the class you want, sometimes others will help your character achieve better overall stats. The cavalry-focused classes also have much better movement range, which is why most of my party were riding horses, rocs or leviathans. My only minor issue with the class system is that many of them are pretty interchangeable, or are just upgraded versions of other classes.

More classic gaming on Page 2 ->

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

One of the biggest hooks for Langrisser I & II are the many, many endings you can get. Though I managed to beat each of the two games in 18 hours, that’s how long it took to get only one ending in each. As you play, depending on decisions you make and secret factors, you’ll unlock different story paths and missions. You’ll also only have access to certain characters if you follow their path or make the right decision. A key example is Lance, who is your enemy for most of Langrisser I, but can become an ally after you save him from basilisk petrification. Or take Sonya, a wild half demon girl who can be recruited in Langrisser II. I love the idea of branching paths and multiple endings (there’s 20+ in the game), but have one small complaint. Once you’ve beaten either game, there’s nothing that tracks which endings you’ve already gotten. So it’s very easy to get lost or get the same ending twice, even with the ability to go back to chapters and make new choices. Without a full guide, it’s rather challenging to acquire the many endings in the games.

Hello, new waifu!

Though I do feel that it’s best to play the games in chronological order, technically you don’t have to. And while it’s very tempting to start with Langrisser II, since overall I felt it was better balanced and had a more interesting plot and characters, there’s one reason you should play Langrisser I first – for context. The second game takes place in the same world, but centuries afterwards. You’ll have various recurring characters and similar story beats, but I really can’t express properly how much more I liked Langrisser II. Everything that was clunky or frustrating mostly happened in the first game. It doesn’t start that challenging, but a few chapters in you lose your chaperone, a powerful knight named Volkoff, and then things get harrowing. The last few missions in that entry were especially hard, since many involve your army being surrounded by spellcasters who can snipe you with a beyond irritating Meteor spell, which hits an enormous area for significant damage. To add insult to injury, every single one of these magicians has a skill that recovers some MP every turn, meaning that if you take too long reaching them, they’ll just keep recasting overwhelming Meteors again and again.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Regardless of balance, you have the option to replay each game from the beginning after you’ve beaten it in a new game+. This will activate Challenge Mode, and every time you “lap” the game by beating it again, the next attempt will be a bit harder. You can choose to tackle Challenge Mode with all your previously acquired skills and items, or you can do it from scratch. I found the latter to be far more interesting, as it’s very boring plowing through the early game as an overpowered god unit. If nothing else, this mode offers another way you can unlock the many endings in the game, though you’re also perfectly free to start a new save file, since each game has room for 5.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Aesthetically speaking, I have mixed feelings about Langrisser I & II. On the one hand, I adore the art for the character portraits and stationary cutscenes. These show off great flair and bring life to the characters. By contrast, the chibi art used in actual battles is a bit underwhelming. Frankly all the units look like Funko Pop figurines, and that’s not a compliment. They’re all pretty lifeless and cartoony, with the exception of the models used for monsters. These are all larger than life and vile, and I really wished the models for the humanoid characters in battle followed suit. Or, better yet, that this game had sprite-work or even pixel art characters. I know that’s a tall order, but given that we’ve been waiting on this game for the better part of a couple decades, why not go all out? Cause while the chibi designs are functional, the contrast between them and the other art is palpable. Though I did check out footage from the original games, and I will say that the chibi models here are better looking than the pixel models there. Also, I was a bit frustrated by how many maps look nearly identical in the first game, though they do fix that a bit in Langrisser II, with more temples, villages and forests. Part of me would have killed for maps with fog of war or features like drowning darkness or even a sunset to liven things up. Musically, both games focus on a hard rock soundtrack that, while not bad, doesn’t necessarily fit the action that well. The second game does have more soundtrack variation, which I appreciated, but overall the music was not the game’s strong suit. Though I did enjoy the Japanese voice acting for all the characters in the game.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

While I enjoyed quite a lot about Langrisser I & II, there’s some other nagging issues I need to touch on here. One are the long load times that occur when turning on the game and loading files. I know both adventures are based on much older games, but it irked me you can’t do thinks like view detailed unit breakdowns for non-Commanders or see a preview for how much damage spells will inflict. I also didn’t like how AOE spells cast by foes don’t pan the camera to indicate all the units affected. More than once, I would hold my breath when these spells were cast and pray one of my Commanders didn’t end up defeated. Also, while the writing in both games is grammatically sound, much like the plot it lacks nuance and subtlety. It’s great if you already like these sorts of games, but it’s also very derivative. And regarding the enemy AI, it’s ruthless but not particularly smart. It’s pretty easy to bait it, and the only times it’s a problem is when the odds are firmly stacked against you in some maps. Finally, while I liked how pressing the trigger buttons moves the cursor to different Commanders, I wish I could have only moved it between either mine or the opponent’s. Without that differentiation, you’ll have the cursor flying all over the map. These irritations make this feel like an old game with a new coat of paint, which is unfortunate, since there’s still a lot of good here.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Overall, I am happy that NIS America brought new life to two classic games in Langrisser I & II. Sure, it’s not perfect, and there’s many archaic oddities, but I had a good time. My biggest complaints were a lack of a timeline or registry showing your achieved endings, and something that made it more apparent how to recruit certain characters. In my 36 hour playtime, I probably encountered only 16 of the total 33 playable characters and approximately half of the 50 classes. Even then, for $49.99 you get good bang for your buck, and tons of replay value in Langrisser I & II.

[easyreview cat1title=”Overall” cat1detail=”” cat1rating=”4″]

Review Copy Provided by Publisher

REVIEW: Langrisser I & II Title Langrisser I & II