"Dynasty Tactics (1) was ace, James."
Glad to hear agreement!
"i had no idea dynasty tactics existed
this topic is a double success"
That might genuinely be my best contribution to this board ever, then.
"what made DT2 not as good?"
The two most satisfying things about the original, for me, were stringing tactics together in battle (Tactics are the main way of doing major damage in battle, and if you combo'd them it made them much more potent with the added effect of making you feel like a boss), and capturing enemy generals (one of only three ways of recruiting new officers, and by far the most fun in my opinion!). They messed both of those mechanics up, by making tactics only work a certain percentage of the time, so your best-laid plans could fall at the hands of the RNG, and by making it so capturing enemy officers had a miniscule chance of recruiting them (at least for the officers worth recruiting). So basically the risk was increased and the reward decreased. On top of that, they added another layer of complexity to the (admittedly already quite awkward at times) combat system, and added more unnecessary sections to the map screens, which were already pretty fine minimalistically in the first game. About the only thing improved was the story, which is debatable anyway (they added more stories and you can play as Lu Bu as well as the main three, but the branching nature of the stories doesn't feel as original as the, uh, original. I wonder why?).
So yeah, long rambling statement over with, I'd recommend the first over the second. The second is an okay game for sure, but the first is a great game, at least in my opinion.
And if anyone does get the game they should totally do a play-through topic, even if only myself and Jeff Zero read it!
--
James - Board 8's Resident Warm And Safe, Slipper-Wearing User
& The Cream of Porcupine Tree Fanboyism