Log in

No account? Create an account
17 May 2005 @ 12:48 pm
I don't have time to post about the concert yet, so i'll talk about this instead :)

The Romance of the Three Kingdoms 7 faq lies!

I finished up the game i started in the last time period. The faq says you become a tyrant if you kill lots of enemy offices who refuse to join you. I didn't kill a single one, I always try to recruit any officers i capture and if they refuse i let them go free since i figure i'll always have the chance to recruit them again later. (I could try to draw some comparisons with Cao Cao's attempts to recruit Guan Yu in the novel, but that might be a bit _too_ geeky =)

Despite that i _still_ became a tyrant.

China also got overrun by the Xianbei about ten years later and everyone was killed, which the faq _was_ right about. In order to avoid that all your cities need to be well developed at the end of the game. However that one i didn't have much choice over. Since this was the last time period most of the officers in the game were dead and i didn't have anywhere near enough people to develop, or even maintain, all my cities.

I'm wondering if the tyrant thing can also be triggered by one of the other possibilities the faq lists: "Liege has aggressive expansion policy -> Chaos ensues after death."

If so it seems like Koei has set up some rather difficult requirements to get the good ending. You have to take over the entire country to win the game, but you have to do so without an "aggressive expansion policy." The only way i've figured out to do that which _might_ count is to gain teritory mostly be recruiting the regional prefects and then anexing the enemy lieges' territories when they're reduced to almost nothing. Then when you're about to "conquer" the last kingdom you need to stop and develop every single teritory you've got, _and_ possibly somehow bribe the guy you're about to conquer into doing the same in _his_ teritory(s). And only _then_ finally take over that last kingdom.

So i decided to try this out, but also decided to try and create a "perfect" officer at the same time. According to the faq there are five skills that can not be learned during the game, although you can gain access to two of those for as long as you have the proper item. However i happened to discover in the previous game that the faq lied (again) and there is a sixth skill you can't learn. So i spent between a half hour and an hour re-rolling the skills on a new officer until i got all four of must-have skills. I _wanted_ to get all six unlearnable skills so i wouldn't have to depend on any items, but that could take forever.

So i started the game and went on a crash course of training. After about two or three hours of that i found that the faq lied yet again! There is a _seventh_ unlearnable skill that i'd missed before! (Or rather that the previous character started with, so i didn't miss its absensce at all.) I'm rather annoyed and need to go back to skill generation, but i think i'll wait till this game is done.
Current Mood: geekygeeky
Steven DeFordwillworker on May 18th, 2005 06:51 pm (UTC)
"The faq says you become a tyrant if you kill lots of enemy offices who refuse to join you."

"Despite that i _still_ became a tyrant."

Your logic is backwards. The FAQ statement is:

if(kill officers) {you=tyrant}

which is not logically equivalent to

if !(kill officers) {you != tyrant}

DonAithnendonaithnen on May 18th, 2005 07:41 pm (UTC)
Um, this is a FAQ, not some logic puzzle. It's clearly a cause and effect relationship, if you don't do the cause, you shouldn't get the effect.

The FAQ is supposed to tell you what actions lead to what results. If they say "Liege kills many Officers who refuse to join him -> Becomes a tyrant" and list no other causes of becoming a tyrant then the implication is that that is what causes it, or at the very least _one_ of the requirements.

If the author knew of some other way to become a tyrant but didn't list it then they're a crappy FAQ writer. If they just didn't know about whatever the other way is then the list is just wrong, either wrong in the sense of being incomplete or wrong in the sense of listing the wrong cause for the wrong effect.