Tendo City

OB1 Edit:

This is the place where I will move all lengthly debates between anyone at Tendo City (mainly mine and ABF's) that ruin threads.











Is your computer slow? :D

As for slowdown/speedup... yes, often roms don't feel 'right' speed-wise, and often I can't do anything about it. Generally its 'this seems too fast' for me... but too slow? Sometimes. Mostly for systems that aren't fully emulated though... like MAME's (non) emulation of 3d games, or PSX games (slow a lot!), or many N64 games...

And how well did Advance Wars sell? I'd like to know... its definitely the kind of game I'd really only expect on PCs... sure, consoles always have gotten a few strategy games, but not many...

As for how well PC strategy games sell... well, as you know, its got the whole range from some niche titles that sell just thousands to Warcraft which sells millions...

As for FFTA, well... that 'tactical strategy' genre in that form only exists on consoles, you know. Oh, the PC has lots of strategy games... hmm. X-Com? Some elements. Baldur's Gate? Some parts. But only consoles have the specific combonation that shows up in 'Tactics' games for some reason. It seems to be a subgenre only Japanese developers make in that form...

Yeah tactical games seem to be much of a console thing. PC games tend to be strategy, although Warcraft is hardly a "military" strategy game by any rights (clone and conquer is fun, but not real strategy). HOwever, thats not to say there weren't any PC tactical games, for example, MechCommander was a real time tactical game. X-Com and such, but not to many. The rest like Civilization, other war sims are strategy.

Well, I don't know, the Fire Emblem characters in SSBM weren't from this game although people all started to think that Eliwood was Roy... close, but Roy is his son, which is apparent in FE6, which I hope they will plan to release. They must, becasuse...


SPOILER











The end is a total cliffhanger that leads into the next generation. One of the spooky things about FE series is that it goes by generations. One game you play as a character, next game they're grown up or you play as their children. The storytelling is kind of saddening and nostalgic in a way if you think about it, with no real happy endings. Characters come and go, permanant farwells, and even important characters just die off, leaving a sense of wanting. Just like with Marthe, in FE 1 and 3, he might have won the war to rebuild his nation of Altea, but it is soon destroyed along with him afterwards. Some characters meet ignoble ends, and some characters whom you got attached to in the game disappear into insignificance in the ending.
















End Spoiler

Quote:Is your computer slow?

As for slowdown/speedup... yes, often roms don't feel 'right' speed-wise, and often I can't do anything about it. Generally its 'this seems too fast' for me... but too slow? Sometimes. Mostly for systems that aren't fully emulated though... like MAME's (non) emulation of 3d games, or PSX games (slow a lot!), or many N64 games...

And how well did Advance Wars sell? I'd like to know... its definitely the kind of game I'd really only expect on PCs... sure, consoles always have gotten a few strategy games, but not many...

As for how well PC strategy games sell... well, as you know, its got the whole range from some niche titles that sell just thousands to Warcraft which sells millions...

As for FFTA, well... that 'tactical strategy' genre in that form only exists on consoles, you know. Oh, the PC has lots of strategy games... hmm. X-Com? Some elements. Baldur's Gate? Some parts. But only consoles have the specific combonation that shows up in 'Tactics' games for some reason. It seems to be a subgenre only Japanese developers make in that form...

My computer is better than yours, bubba. :p

Games like Advance Wars and FFT fall under the Japanese strategy genre, and they're quite different from their American counterparts. Just like Japanese RPGs vs. American RPGs.

I don't know if you'd consider Advanced Wars a strategy game, it could be, since conquering territory with a war front does exist.

FFT is however, not a strategy game, it covers skirmishes and random fights and is best classified a tactics game.

Well they're as similar to PC strategy titles as Final Fantasy is to Baldur's Gate.

Quote:My computer is better than yours, bubba.

Games like Advance Wars and FFT fall under the Japanese strategy genre, and they're quite different from their American counterparts. Just like Japanese RPGs vs. American RPGs.

Uhh... other than the artwork and battle graphics, how exactly is AW not a PC-style strategy/war game? I can't think of a way... Tactics games are console-specific for sure but AW isn't a tactics game. Its a pure strategy/war game. Same as plenty of PC games.

As for GBA roms... not sure, most of the games I've played roms of I haven't played the real games of so I don't know exactly what the correct speeds are... :D And what games are you complaining about?

Quote:I don't know if you'd consider Advanced Wars a strategy game, it could be, since conquering territory with a war front does exist.

Uhh... what other genre could it be? A wargame? That doesn't really fit since you can build units in bases from resources... and the units (variables that can affect them, stats, etc) are too simplistic to be from a wargame.

Quote:Yeah tactical games seem to be much of a console thing. PC games tend to be strategy, although Warcraft is hardly a "military" strategy game by any rights (clone and conquer is fun, but not real strategy). HOwever, thats not to say there weren't any PC tactical games, for example, MechCommander was a real time tactical game. X-Com and such, but not to many. The rest like Civilization, other war sims are strategy.

The stragegy genre is very, very broad... on one end you have really fast paced stuff like Command & Conquer (tank rushtankrushtankrush) to all the way on the other end with deep, slow moving strategy games like Civilization...

MechCommander... hmm, yeah, that is unit tactics. Good one... but its real-time, which changes the dynamic somewhat. Great game, though. X-Com is the best example I can think of... or Fallout Tactics, or other turn-based small unit tactics games like that. But yeah, there aren't too many of them on the PC... at least not compared to subgenres like RTS, fantasy TBS, galactic/world management (Civ, MOO, etc), or others like that...

Not this again.

AW and FE are uniquely Japanese in their interface, controls, game mechanics, art, etc. Name one single PC game that's "just like it".

The slow GBA ROM I played was Sonic Advance 2, which I already said.

Huh? Artwork, yes... but the gameplay? Not in the least! What about AW (I'm not talking about FE... that is different...) is so 'Japanese'? I see standard military units, each with various stats (like a strategy game), range of attack and weapon type, etc... all completely normal for the TBS genre... base building and income too seem normal for a simplistic base/resouce model like in some games.

Interface and controls? Console-style of course, but I'm talking about gameplay, not how you control it... you can adapt a strategy game to either control scheme and for a GB that one makes sense...

Name one PC strategy game that's very similar to AW.

How similar is "similar"? I can think of a huge number of games that share some features with it, for sure...

See, I don't know how many games are EXACTLY like AW, but I do know that I can't think of a single gameplay feature (ie not graphics) that this game has that is unique to "Japanese strategy games" and hasn't been done before on the PC... huge numbers of course have moern units, are turn-based, have various types with differing ranges, etc... having base-building in games like that? Also fairly common. Now is there a game exactly like it? Probably, but I can't think of one exactly like it offhand. But there are just so, so many that have similarities that calling it different in some way from its genre is just bizarre.

Hmm... lets think. Heroes of Might & Magic -- controllable resource points (in AW they are the cities) that you 'capture'. Unit-building locations are static -- no building new bases. Can capture buildings and bases.

Every wargame ever -- tactical unit strategy, with complexity levels far higher than in AW. Except most wargames use hexes and not squares. :) So this isn't a wargame. But the combat still does feel like a simplistic one... its far simpler than most wargames, but the combat is clearly styled after them (like in many strategy games) with the way the units work... or an RTS. Oh, sure, the pace is vastly different, but the unit variety... that really is like an RTS. So I guess I can also mention Age of Empires... though maybe Rise of Nations is more appropriate, with the limited building it allows? Or in the wargaming genre, I guess Steel Panthers is the best comparison since its relatively simple. :) Though of course its in a whole different league of depth and complexity.

RTSes also have some similarities... how about the ones with no resource collection like Myth or Ground Control?

Hmm... or base-capture on a map... I remember this old shareware game called 'Mother of all Battles' that felt similar in some aspects.

If I looked up stuff I'm sure I'd find hundreds and hundreds of games that have a lot in common with AW. It isn't unique, or special... its far from a new take on its genre. Its just a simple turn-based strategy game. Simple to learn, with great depth in tactics, of course...

Wait, I remember an old RTS-ish TBS... never played it but it was in PC Gamer... uhh... Fallen Haven or something? Yeah, I think that's it.. I should look it up. :)

Or how about strategy-tactics games like X-Com and MechCommander?


I got another good one for some aspects (the world/resource side). Warlords. Can't build bases (build them in cities), very simple resouces (just one, get from cities)... the difference of course is that Warlords has completely different battles -- you make stacks of units and have them fight (like AW there are battle animations but its really just a ornamentation, not a true battle-mode like in HoMM or Disciples or something).

So... Warlords world and bases, simplistic wargame tactics, and RTS-level of unit variety. :)

None of those games you mentioned are very similar to Advance Wars. I'm not saying that Advance Wars is so unique that no other game compares to it, but it is most certainly just as different from any PC strategy title as Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest is from any PC RPG. They share key similarities like hit points, experience points, magic points, the communication aspect, but when you really sit down and play these games they seem completely different from each other.

Oh and I'd also like to point out that the first Wars game came out quite a long time ago, during the NES days. Like Fire Emblem, Advance Wars is just another entry into an old franchise. The first Wars game, Famicom Wars, came out in 1988, long before the big PC strategy boom.

Oh, so you know all of the games I mentioned? I didn't think you would... still doubt it, actually. There are a few there I mentioned I'd be quite surprised if you're ever heard of.

And there are PC RPGs that use menu-based combat! Unless you forget games like Anachronox and Septerra Core... same exact genre as Final Fantasy.

And 1988 is before the RTS genre was created, but the heart of the game isn't the unit creation aspect (actually I bet that the early ones didn't have it in this form...) -- its the tactical unit combat. And in that respect it, like the strategy genre, borrows very heavily from wargames... and that genre is quite old. :) You know, the 'rock-paper-sissors' aspect so central to so many strategy and war games... games where you get an army and, in a turn-based environment, control various units to attack another army are one of the oldest genres of electronic games there are! This game strays from that formula only to add unit creation and a extremely simple resource system based on how many towns you control. And that aspect, too, is as I said ripped straight from numerous other strategy games... some of which I'm sure predate ____ Wars...

Its just totally absurd to call as standard a strategy game as AW unique and unlike anything in the genre... as I show, there are so many games that have a lot in common with it that I never have a hope of remembering them all...

Goog grief, you're the thickest person I've ever known. Which part of this statement did you not understand??

Quote:I'm not saying that Advance Wars is so unique that no other game compares to it

:bang:

Learn to read, ABF. That might help.

Of course there are similarities between AW and other PC strategy titles, but they are not enough to make them "the same kind of game" as you so ignorantly put it. I've played Heroes of Might & Magic, X-Com, Mech Commander, Myth, etc. Some similarities but not enough.

And Anachronox tries to copy the console-style RPG, so of course it's pretty similar to FF. :hammer:

Quote:And Anachronox tries to copy the console-style RPG, so of course it's pretty similar to FF.

That was my point, you know... that there are American console RPGs made in a console-RPG style... you made it sound like there were none. :)

Quote: I'm not saying that Advance Wars is so unique that no other game compares to it

Fine, you aren't saying that. Then you have no point... since you certainly can't say that any of the elements the game combines were invented for that game, or are at all unique. Is it different? Well... not really. I mentioned games that include every gameplay element that matters... many with several. Some come really close. And every (good) game has something that makes it different... AW has some, but it doesn't push the genre or anything. Its just a good, simplistic in design strategy game... a very well done one, but hardly genre-bending or anything.

Quote:That was my point, you know... that there are American console RPGs made in a console-RPG style... you made it sound like there were none.

No dummy, what I said was that there are console-style RPGs and PC-style RPGs. You can have a console-style RPG on a PC (FFVII, Anachronox) and a PC-style RPG on a console (Morrowind, KOTOR), of course. Yeesh.

Quote:Fine, you aren't saying that. Then you have no point... since you certainly can't say that any of the elements the game combines were invented for that game, or are at all unique. Is it different? Well... not really. I mentioned games that include every gameplay element that matters... many with several. Some come really close. And every (good) game has something that makes it different... AW has some, but it doesn't push the genre or anything. Its just a good, simplistic in design strategy game... a very well done one, but hardly genre-bending or anything.

The Wars games came before any of those PC games that you claimed were "Advance Wars-like"! Just like Phantasy Star came before Anachronox, and since it first appeared on a console and that's where that particular type of RPG thrived, it makes it a console-style RPG!

Gah, this is like arguing with a blind person over whether or not the sky is blue.

Quote:The Wars games came before any of those PC games that you claimed were "Advance Wars-like"! Just like Phantasy Star came before Anachronox, and since it first appeared on a console and that's where that particular type of RPG thrived, it makes it a console-style RPG!

Not true. As I said, turn-based strategy games and wargames both well predate the Wars series, incontestibly..

Quote:No dummy, what I said was that there are console-style RPGs and PC-style RPGs. You can have a console-style RPG on a PC (FFVII, Anachronox) and a PC-style RPG on a console (Morrowind, KOTOR), of course. Yeesh.

I'd rather catagorize them by how they play than what system they are on... menu-based, turnbased combat, realtime, pausable realtime, action-style realtime, and variations on those basic types...

Quote:Not true. As I said, turn-based strategy games and wargames both well predate the Wars series, incontestibly..

Not TBS's like Famicom Wars. Not even close.

Quote:I'd rather catagorize them by how they play than what system they are on... menu-based, turnbased combat, realtime, pausable realtime, action-style realtime, and variations on those basic types...

That's great, but there is a very specific RPG sub-genre called the "console-style RPG".

No, as I said there I'd rather call them menu-based, since that's what they are... 'console style' isn't that good a definition, really...

And you are really trying to deny that no game before Wars had those elements? Are you crazy?

You seem to have a problem with differentiating between small, few similarities and ones that make two things very similar to each other. There's jumping and running in Mario Bros. yet it's very different from Pitfall. There's running and shooting in a first-person view in Deus Ex yet it's very different from Doom. Etc, etc.

Most games have menus so calling them "menu-based" RPGs is about as descriptive as calling the kart racing sub-genre "wheel-racers". All of the elements of the console style RPG (founded by Phantasy Star) come together to make a very unique kind of RPG, one which was created and flourished on consoles. D&D-style RPGs were created and flourished on PCs so that's why people call them "PC-style RPGs". Of course there are different sub-genres of these two sub-genres, but overall there are two main types of RPGs: console-style and PC-style.

As in, you fight your battles in a menu, not in some kind of tactical map or mode or something like that... its a good definition, I think...

And are you honestly saying that combat in Wars games doesn't feel a LOT like a simplistic TBS or wargame? If you are... well that would be totally ridiculous. I've played enough strategy games and wargames to know that it most certainly does. Of course it has the bases and unit building so its somewhat different from a wargame, as I have explained... but still... you sound like you think it actually innovated the genre or something (since its unlike anything else, it must be innovative...)! That is ridiculous...

Here's ABF's way of "debating":

No, that's no true. I know for a fact that you are wrong, and if you believe that then you are insane. I'm right.

You have a very bad habit of not paying attention to what people write, and it's extremely annoying. You also love putting words into other people's mouths and then arguing with those very words! I don't even have the words to describe this insanity. I know that trying to convince you of this will be as fruitful as trying to convince the geese in our town to stop crapping all over the place, but for some reason I'm compelled to keep trying. Here, let's try this one more time, and before you start forming a crazy retort, actually read what I write and think about it for a second!


The Wars games, while sharing some similarities with a few PC games, are very much unique enough to belong to a seperate sub-genre. Like Phantasy Star which created the console-style RPG (the menu-based combat is not the only thing that seperates console RPGs with PC RPGs, despite what you claim), it is a part of a larger genre but has enough key differences that puts it in a seperate sub-category. Every genre has seperate sub-genres. Everything from racing games (futuristic racers, sim racers, kart racers, etc.) to FPS's (Doom-style mindless shooters, Rainbow Six-style tactical shooters, etc.) have seperate sub-genres. Just like you are doing with Wars and some PC strategy games, you can compare Mario Kart and Gran Turismo and call them near-identical games. However, once you actually play these two games the difference seems like night and day.

Quote:The Wars games, while sharing some similarities with a few PC games, are very much unique enough to belong to a seperate sub-genre. Like Phantasy Star which created the console-style RPG (the menu-based combat is not the only thing that seperates console RPGs with PC RPGs, despite what you claim), it is a part of a larger genre but has enough key differences that puts it in a seperate sub-category. Every genre has seperate sub-genres. Everything from racing games (futuristic racers, sim racers, kart racers, etc.) to FPS's (Doom-style mindless shooters, Rainbow Six-style tactical shooters, etc.) have seperate sub-genres. Just like you are doing with Wars and some PC strategy games, you can compare Mario Kart and Gran Turismo and call them near-identical games. However, once you actually play these two games the difference seems like night and day.

First...

Quote:(the menu-based combat is not the only thing that seperates console RPGs with PC RPGs, despite what you claim

Not true. That would be a dumb thing for me to say... I never said that that was the only difference! Read what I wrote! I merely said that that is the main difference, and it provides for good classification that doesn't resort to "console" vs "PC"...

Sub-genres. Yes, Wars is of course in a different sub-genre than a wargame or Warlords. However... they have more similarities than Mario Kart and Gran Turismo, I'd certainly say...oh, sure, like MK Wars is simplfied compared to the more complex games in their genres... but still... I just think that your assumption that that is the first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat (those are the elements AW combines, after all) is a complete fallacy. *goes to look for evidence of that fact*

See what I'm talking about, everybody? This fool completely makes up something, claims that I said it, and then argues with it! It's incredible how ABF's mind works. Not the good kind of incredible, though.

Here's what I want you to do, ABF. Go throughout this thread and quote me where I made these claims:

Quote:your assumption that that is the first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat (those are the elements AW combines, after all)

Please, you just said that I said that! Now go and quote me! Go ahead! Hopefully this will make you realize just how inane your arguing techniques are. If you have nothing on my argument then you have to make something up and claim that I said it! Absolutely amazing.

Quote:Please, you just said that I said that! Now go and quote me! Go ahead! Hopefully this will make you realize just how inane your arguing techniques are. If you have nothing on my argument then you have to make something up and claim that I said it! Absolutely amazing.

You said that there hadn't been strategy games exactly like it before. I said that those are the gameplay elements involved in Wars. What, do you have more major gameplay elements like that? Go ahead and list them then... I really don't see what you are complaining about here... I didn't mean that you said those things of course! I have listed those elements before, however, and I would think that if you had something to add to the list you would have done so... since you haven't I have to conclude that you don't, so my list stands. And since it does, all I have to do is show that there was a TBS with resource(s) and unit building and wargame-style combat (because as I've said twenty times the combat reminds me VERY strongly of a wargame) and you are proven wrong. As you say, a game like that would be in the same sub-genre as Wars...

Oh yeah, and how about instead of just insulting me you read what I say and present a reasoned response? I love strategy games, and have played a lot of them... talking about them is a topic I like. And though you can if you try pick apart and find offense in what I say, you really have to be looking... you clearly are, which is sad. I'd never do that...

So how about we do this. You should explain why AW is so unique, in your opinion. Is there something I have missed? Because I just fundamentally don't understand that position of yours... oh, sure, I see that its not in the same subgenre as Gettysburg, or Civilization, or Warlords, or the myriad other subgenres of the strategy genre... but there ARE games in that subgenre, I am sure. I mean... turb-based gameplay with wargamish combat and unit building can't be that rare!

Closest thing I can think of offhand is the true classic Empire. Sure, there are plenty of differences, but I'd say that its a clear precursor...

http://www.classicempire.com/ (though the win one runs REALLY fast. Use the dos IBM-PC one and dosbox (dosbox.sourceforge.net) if you want to try it... and read the help. it relies on knowing many keyboard keys. :) )

Quote: You said that there hadn't been strategy games exactly like it before. I said that those are the gameplay elements involved in Wars. What, do you have more major gameplay elements like that? Go ahead and list them then... I really don't see what you are complaining about here... I didn't mean that you said those things of course! I have listed those elements before, however, and I would think that if you had something to add to the list you would have done so... since you haven't I have to conclude that you don't, so my list stands. And since it does, all I have to do is show that there was a TBS with resource(s) and unit building and wargame-style combat (because as I've said twenty times the combat reminds me VERY strongly of a wargame) and you are proven wrong. As you say, a game like that would be in the same sub-genre as Wars...

So far all you have managed to accomplish is find a few similarities between the Wars series and this so-called generic "wargame", without actually proving a single word of yours. There is no PC strategy game that predates Famicom Wars that is "just like" it. If there is, prove it. You have yet to do that.

Quote: Oh yeah, and how about instead of just insulting me you read what I say and present a reasoned response? I love strategy games, and have played a lot of them... talking about them is a topic I like. And though you can if you try pick apart and find offense in what I say, you really have to be looking... you clearly are, which is sad. I'd never do that...

Oh right, so you're saying that you did not put words into my mouth and then argue with those words? You're a liar, ABF, and I'm not afraid to say that. You rarely ever respond directly to anything that I say, instead choosing to make up something in your mind and then responding to that. I don't know if you're aware of that or if you're just plain crazy.

Quote: So how about we do this. You should explain why AW is so unique, in your opinion. Is there something I have missed? Because I just fundamentally don't understand that position of yours... oh, sure, I see that its not in the same subgenre as Gettysburg, or Civilization, or Warlords, or the myriad other subgenres of the strategy genre... but there ARE games in that subgenre, I am sure. I mean... turb-based gameplay with wargamish combat and unit building can't be that rare!

If it's not that rare then please, show me some examples. Empire shares some similarities with Wars, but far less than Gran Turismo shares with F-Zero.

Quote:If it's not that rare then please, show me some examples. Empire shares some similarities with Wars, but far less than Gran Turismo shares with F-Zero.

WHAAAT???

F-Zero and Gran Turismo has almost nothing in common, while Empire has so much in common with AW! Oh, sure, there are differences... Empire just has units that can attack one square, you build in all cities, no resources (instead units take different amounts of turns to build)... but the main gameplay themes are nearly identical.

And Empire dates to 1971 as a boardgame... :)

Quote:So far all you have managed to accomplish is find a few similarities between the Wars series and this so-called generic "wargame", without actually proving a single word of yours. There is no PC strategy game that predates Famicom Wars that is "just like" it. If there is, prove it. You have yet to do that.

I am very seriously starting to doubt that you have really played much in the way of wargames before, or you'd understand what I meant. Same with AW -- its a very clear decendent of the wargame line that started to add more strategy-game ideas... eventually that subgenre moved to strategy games, but the wargame heritage is clear too (just look how Empire, a game we'd now call strategy, is called a wargame in those old reviews that site has linked...).

Quote:Oh right, so you're saying that you did not put words into my mouth and then argue with those words? You're a liar, ABF, and I'm not afraid to say that. You rarely ever respond directly to anything that I say, instead choosing to make up something in your mind and then responding to that. I don't know if you're aware of that or if you're just plain crazy.

I do the exact same thing you do: read a statement and take it to mean what I think it means... nothing more...

Quote:WHAAAT???

F-Zero and Gran Turismo has almost nothing in common, while Empire has so much in common with AW! Oh, sure, there are differences... Empire just has units that can attack one square, you build in all cities, no resources (instead units take different amounts of turns to build)... but the main gameplay themes are nearly identical.

Oh you're totally right! F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo are nothing alike, even though...

-They're both in the racing genre
-The objective of both games is to race around a track and try to beat your opponents
-Both games allow you to race for money which allows you to buy parts for your car
-Both games feature the same basic control system which is accelerate, turn, and brake
-Both games have multiplayer modes where you race against other opponents

Yup, not even in the same genre!

Quote:And Empire dates to 1971 as a boardgame...

And Gran Turismo dates back several decades as a real-life "sport". Or even better, you can trace the origins of Gran Turismo to several millennia ago back to the days of Chariot racing. Same basic concept.

Quote:I am very seriously starting to doubt that you have really played much in the way of wargames before, or you'd understand what I meant. Same with AW -- its a very clear decendent of the wargame line that started to add more strategy-game ideas... eventually that subgenre moved to strategy games, but the wargame heritage is clear too (just look how Empire, a game we'd now call strategy, is called a wargame in those old reviews that site has linked...).

Going by your logic you could say that Mario Kart doesn't belong its own sub genre because it follows the same basic gameplay mechanics as Rad Racer. Same thing goes for F-Zero, GT, etc.

Quote:I do the exact same thing you do: read a statement and take it to mean what I think it means... nothing more...

Oh really? Is that why you responded to something that you made up?? I have proof a few posts up! What do you have to say about that??

Quote:Oh you're totally right! F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo are nothing alike, even though...

-They're both in the racing genre
-The objective of both games is to race around a track and try to beat your opponents
-Both games allow you to race for money which allows you to buy parts for your car
-Both games feature the same basic control system which is accelerate, turn, and brake
-Both games have multiplayer modes where you race against other opponents

Yup, not even in the same genre!

and (you repeat yourself)

Quote:Going by your logic you could say that Mario Kart doesn't belong its own sub genre because it follows the same basic gameplay mechanics as Rad Racer. Same thing goes for F-Zero, GT, etc.

Wrong. In Mario Kart, you race, sure... but its DRAMATICALLY different. Totally different handling. Totally different speed. Track design. It has weapons. Etc, etc. Those make for a difference orders of magnitude greater than the one between Empire and Wars... no question there. I can't see how you could possibly think that Empire and Wars are as different as Mario Kart and Gran Turismo! The differences between MK and GT are enough for them to be in very different subgenres. Wars and Empire? The differences between them are no greater than between plenty of other strategy games that are put in the same genre, certainly! Far less than some, I'd certainly say (like how about Myth and Age of Empires are both RTSes, perhaps? Or how about F-Zero and Rush? Etc...).

Quote:And Gran Turismo dates back several decades as a real-life "sport". Or even better, you can trace the origins of Gran Turismo to several millennia ago back to the days of Chariot racing. Same basic concept.

Umm... so? I was comparing that to Wars' date of 1988, of course...

I'd have mentioned the date of the first computer version of Empire, but I don't know when they did the PDP-11 version. I do know that that PC port you can download there is from 1983, though.

Quote:and (you repeat yourself)

Great rebuttal!

Quote:Wrong. In Mario Kart, you race, sure... but its DRAMATICALLY different. Totally different handling. Totally different speed. Track design. It has weapons. Etc, etc. Those make for a difference orders of magnitude greater than the one between Empire and Wars... no question there. I can't see how you could possibly think that Empire and Wars are as different as Mario Kart and Gran Turismo! The differences between MK and GT are enough for them to be in very different subgenres. Wars and Empire? The differences between them are no greater than between plenty of other strategy games that are put in the same genre, certainly! Far less than some, I'd certainly say (like how about Myth and Age of Empires are both RTSes, perhaps? Or how about F-Zero and Rush? Etc...).

"wrong". Again, great rebuttal!

No matter how many caps you use, the fact remains that MK, F-Zero, and Gran Turismo are all a part of the same genre and share more similarities with each other than Empire and Wars. Of course they're very different from each other, that only further proves my point. But they do share more similarities to each other than Empire and Famicom Wars. That is a fact.

Quote:Umm... so? I was comparing that to Wars' date of 1988, of course...

Gee, perhaps I said that because you mentioned the fact that Empire draws its ideas from old board games? Try thinking more, ABF. It might help.

Quote: I'd have mentioned the date of the first computer version of Empire, but I don't know when they did the PDP-11 version. I do know that that PC port you can download there is from 1983, though.

That would be fantastic if Empire were just like Famicom Wars. But sorry, it's not.

Quote:Great rebuttal!

Uhh... your two statements said the exact same thing, so why should I write two seperate responses?

Quote:"wrong". Again, great rebuttal!

No matter how many caps you use, the fact remains that MK, F-Zero, and Gran Turismo are all a part of the same genre and share more similarities with each other than Empire and Wars. Of course they're very different from each other, that only further proves my point. But they do share more similarities to each other than Empire and Famicom Wars. That is a fact.

I can't think of any way that anyone who has played those two games could even consider that. Not even remotely.

Ooh, so in AW your guys can move and attack farther. That is not something that changes its genre. Neither is having a different resource model -- many strategy games have different resource models in the same subgenre. The fact that all cities build units? Sure, that's a big difference... but still its not totally different since only cities on the coast build ships (and 6 of Empire's 8 units are ships). So I completely fail to see anything that even remotely resembles a huge genre gap between those two like between F-Zero, Mario Kart, and Gran Turismo. Or Myth, Warcraft, and Rise of Nations...

How about instead of insulting me again you give "reasons" for your position. That's all I've been asking for for some time now but all you do is keep insulting me... it makes me think that you -A) haven't played a lot of the games I mention -B) don't have a solid case to defend and/or -C) don't have a solid grasp on what these games entail... feel free to prove me wrong, but more rants about how idiotic I am will not accomplish anything except make me think even more that you don't have any objective here except insulting me.

Your constant bashing is unhelpful, unwarranted, unwanted, and inexplicable... I keep trying to present a case and all you do is say "no you're insane thats so dumb you are so wrong" without actually presenting much of a case and then bash me very strongly for doing something you are almost certainly doing worse! Its getting very old...

Quote:Gee, perhaps I said that because you mentioned the fact that Empire draws its ideas from old board games? Try thinking more, ABF. It might help.

Umm, but I was talking about Empire in relation to Fire Emblem... what does Gran Turismo have to do with that? Of course racing goes back a long time, as do wargames... so as I said there we should focus on the topic of strategy/war games that meet the qualifications of this subgenre. You mean like something related to your point on Mario Kart... uh, could you explain it? You've spent a lot of time in this thread bashing me for things that only you can see, but not much actually explaining your position on the issue we are supposed to be discussing... its getting really tiresome... and its hard to respond to your arguements when you barely explain them because of how you spend five times more space attacking me. Give a arguement that is clearly thought out and presented like I think mine was and I'll be able to reply... but so far the isn't really much of a debate. All you seem to be saying right now is that you are so obviously right that you won't even deign to actually respond to my post... but until you do that I can't reply, obviouslY! How am I supposed to "rebut your arguement" when your arguement is just that I'm an idiot for not seeing that you are right?

HOW do Wars and Empire differ more than Mario Kart and Gran Turismo?

HOW did you manage to interpret my statement of the medium-level differences between Empire and Wars as "very different"?

I just completely fail to see how you even begin to say that statement about how Wars and Empire are more different than GT and MK. Makes no sense whatsoever -- as I said in my last post. But did you answer my question? NO! You just attacked me for not seeing your point! Gee, thanks for clearing up why you think what you do!


Oh, and I know that you'll say I'm being hypocritical for attacking you for attacking me... but there's a difference -- I am not attacking your positions. That's because I don't understand them! All I'm trying to say here is that I don't see why you spend so much time attacking me for things I mostly don't think are problems while expecting me to understand your barely existant points... your heavy focus on attacking me confuses me. I don't see it as even remotely warranted... I didn't do anything to deserve this... and as I said all I want is to talk about the issue! Why must you make this into a personal bashing thread? I don't want that or appreciate how you try to make everying into statements of dislike... can't you just read what I say and reply to the subject at hand? That's all I'm asking! Seriously, that's all I'm asking here.

Er... sorry about that post... I think I should delete it, actually. I try my best to not attack people like that... its not nice. Please ignore it. There are much nicer ways of saying "please try to talk about strategy games and not attack me, it really isn't nice at all"... but seriously, I want to know your reasons for thinking what you do! You have not explained yourself yet in this thread, and its getting very annoying... you keep repeating your position, but with no explanations of why we will get nowhere.

Lets try this again.

Quote:Oh you're totally right! F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo are nothing alike, even though...

-They're both in the racing genre
-The objective of both games is to race around a track and try to beat your opponents
-Both games allow you to race for money which allows you to buy parts for your car
-Both games feature the same basic control system which is accelerate, turn, and brake
-Both games have multiplayer modes where you race against other opponents

Yup, not even in the same genre!

You have some points there, actually... there are superficial similarities. Still, when you look at how the game implements its features and how it configures them for play, it becomes clear that F-Zero and GT take nearly opposite stands on most all issues there (save the fact that the tracks are circular and you can't go far off them). That is simply not the case with Wars and Empire... you have something there, but you aren't really looking at what makes the game different from other games in its genre, which is the key subject here.

Quote:And Gran Turismo dates back several decades as a real-life "sport". Or even better, you can trace the origins of Gran Turismo to several millennia ago back to the days of Chariot racing. Same basic concept.

Sure, racing games, like wargames, go way back. But I'd think that would support my case that Wars isn't unique far more than yours that it is!

Quote:Oh really? Is that why you responded to something that you made up?? I have proof a few posts up! What do you have to say about that??

As I said, I didn't make that up! I just read your statement and applied what I saw as what your terms meant to your words... then I said that if your definition of the terms is different, please tell me that! I mean, I can't be expected to telepathically know what you meant there, can I? All I can do is define it in the way that I understand it to be defined and ask you to tell me if I'm right or not... which is what I did... you didn't respond to my question though, which leaves me no choice but to say that my point still absolutely stands until you state your definitions of the terms.

To refresh your memory...

Quote:Not true. That would be a dumb thing for me to say... I never said that that was the only difference! Read what I wrote! I merely said that that is the main difference, and it provides for good classification that doesn't resort to "console" vs "PC"...

Sub-genres. Yes, Wars is of course in a different sub-genre than a wargame or Warlords. However... they have more similarities than Mario Kart and Gran Turismo, I'd certainly say...oh, sure, like MK Wars is simplfied compared to the more complex games in their genres... but still... I just think that your assumption that that is the first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat (those are the elements AW combines, after all) is a complete fallacy. *goes to look for evidence of that fact*

I said "after all" because earlier on I had mentioned all of those aspects at at least some point and you had never directly argued that there were any others! What else was I supposed to think?

Quote:AW and FE are uniquely Japanese in their interface, controls, game mechanics, art, etc. Name one single PC game that's "just like it".

Please explain in depth what this basic statement of yours means and how Wars isn't like any of the games I mentioned.

Now, as I said, I conceed that the anime-style graphics are probably unique to Wars in the genre. But controls? Interface? And especially game mechanics? See no logic there...

Quote:Of course there are similarities between AW and other PC strategy titles, but they are not enough to make them "the same kind of game" as you so ignorantly put it. I've played Heroes of Might & Magic, X-Com, Mech Commander, Myth, etc. Some similarities but not enough.

No, none of those games are similar enough to be in the same subgenre. But Empire? When we get there your case gets ... weak. Especially when you consider that I am absolutely sure that there were other wargames back then which had unit-building (but not building buildings) in a wargame-ish environment... I don't know early wargames well at all so I couldn't say, but it would surprise me VERY much if said subgenre didn't exist from fairly early.

Unless you see Wars as somehow different from how I describe it? You haven't attempted your own definition of the game, you know... how about one? I'd like to hear how it differs from how I have defined the game (and the subgenre) at least twenty times now in this thread, and how you explain that its so different from the games I see as being so similar to it...

You want me to completely ignore that previous post? Oookay...

Quote:You have some points there, actually... there are superficial similarities. Still, when you look at how the game implements its features and how it configures them for play, it becomes clear that F-Zero and GT take nearly opposite stands on most all issues there (save the fact that the tracks are circular and you can't go far off them). That is simply not the case with Wars and Empire... you have something there, but you aren't really looking at what makes the game different from other games in its genre, which is the key subject here.

The games share all of the same basic qualities, which is why they are both in the same genre. Now as soon as you venture beyond the very basic aspects of the games you start to notice some huge differences, and that is the same way with Empire and Wars.

Quote:Sure, racing games, like wargames, go way back. But I'd think that would support my case that Wars isn't unique far more than yours that it is!

It's as unique as the first Mario Kart is. Or Super Mario Bros. 1. All three games took basic elements of the genre and brought them up several notches, adding several seemingly small elements which make for very unique gameplay experiences.

Quote:As I said, I didn't make that up! I just read your statement and applied what I saw as what your terms meant to your words... then I said that if your definition of the terms is different, please tell me that! I mean, I can't be expected to telepathically know what you meant there, can I? All I can do is define it in the way that I understand it to be defined and ask you to tell me if I'm right or not... which is what I did... you didn't respond to my question though, which leaves me no choice but to say that my point still absolutely stands until you state your definitions of the terms.

To refresh your memory...




Not true. That would be a dumb thing for me to say... I never said that that was the only difference! Read what I wrote! I merely said that that is the main difference, and it provides for good classification that doesn't resort to "console" vs "PC"...

Sub-genres. Yes, Wars is of course in a different sub-genre than a wargame or Warlords. However... they have more similarities than Mario Kart and Gran Turismo, I'd certainly say...oh, sure, like MK Wars is simplfied compared to the more complex games in their genres... but still... I just think that your assumption that that is the first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat (those are the elements AW combines, after all) is a complete fallacy. *goes to look for evidence of that fact*



I said "after all" because earlier on I had mentioned all of those aspects at at least some point and you had never directly argued that there were any others! What else was I supposed to think?

You completely made up some lies and then pretended that I said them! And in addition to that you went on and changed the subject! You do this all of the time and don't even realize it. I've made my points as clear as they possibly could be.

Quote:Please explain in depth what this basic statement of yours means and how Wars isn't like any of the games I mentioned.

Now, as I said, I conceed that the anime-style graphics are probably unique to Wars in the genre. But controls? Interface? And especially game mechanics? See no logic there...

Quote:Unless you see Wars as somehow different from how I describe it? You haven't attempted your own definition of the game, you know... how about one? I'd like to hear how it differs from how I have defined the game (and the subgenre) at least twenty times now in this thread, and how you explain that its so differet from the games I see as being so similar to it...

Want big differences? Here you go:

-The controls are nothing alike, and I don't even know why I have to explain that unless you never played Empire.
-The interface? Come on, don't tell me that you think they're even remotely similar to each other. You do know what I mean by interface. right?
-You don't start out with several different units all lined up on your side
-In Empire the map is hidden until you explore it.
-You cannot detect enemy pieces unless you are right next to them.
-Armies cannot move onto their own cities, they will be destroyed if they try.
-You can let your units move randomly.
-The game isn't even totally turn-based as other players' moves are performed while the computer is waiting for a command from you.
-It takes several turns to create units in factories.

Blah blah blah, there are dozens of other differences between the two games, far more than the number of differences between F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo.

Quote:No, none of those games are similar enough to be in the same subgenre. But Empire? When we get there your case gets ... weak. Especially when you consider that I am absolutely sure that there were other wargames back then which had unit-building (but not building buildings) in a wargame-ish environment... I don't know early wargames well at all so I couldn't say, but it would surprise me VERY much if said subgenre didn't exist from fairly early.

So the only similarities we have between Empire and Wars are:

-You can built units (although the way you do it is very different)
-You can move units
-You can capture bases (although the rules and manner in which you do so are different)
-You can shoot other units
-It's turn-based (although not completely)

What other games can I do this with? Since you think that Wars is just completely identical to Empire (enough so that they belong in the exact same subgenre), the following games cannot belong in seperate subgenres. According to your rules.

F-Zero and Gran Turismo:

-You race around a track
-You can earn money
-You can customize your vehicles
-You brake, accelerate, turn
-Ramming into other vehicles is important to winning

Pitfall and Super Mario Bros.:

-You run across a level
-You jump over stuff
-You get points for time
-You jump on enemies to kill them

Quake and Deus Ex:

-You run around in a first-person view
-You shoot people
-You strafe
-You can jump

I could go on forever, if you'd like.

Quote:You want me to completely ignore that previous post? Oookay...

Given the tone of the post... if you want to, go ahead. I just admit that the post is neither nice nor productive in this discussion. And anyway, I said the same thing much nicer in the second post... and you seem to finally be explaining yourself. Which is good. :)


Anyway, innovation. That is central to this arguement here... what makes innovation? Is it innovation to take something that is standard in one subgenre of a genre, mix it with stuff standard in another subgenre, and call that innovative? Maybe in a way, but that's quite different from true innovation... Wars did not bring anything NEW to the strategy genre. That's the core of what I have been getting at all along -- it did not bring anything new to the table. Were there games before it exactly like that? I bet there were, but don't have absolute proof so I won't make a definite statement yet... but either way, it didn't bring anything new. Units with ranged movement and fire existed, bases, cities, capturing cities, a rock-paper-sissors triangles system of weapons... Wars did not invent something new, which is what true innovation is.

Is it exactly like Empire? No! Of course not! But I think it is close enough to call it the same genre.

Want more examples?

RTSes are a great example, as I said already -- Warcraft, Myth, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, Command & Conquer, Empire Earth, etc... Empire Earth and Command & Conquer are very, VERY different games, yet they are definitely in the same genre. Or Warlords, Disciples, Heroes of Might & Magic, and Age of Wonders... Stars, Master of Orion, Ascendancy, etc... Rush, F-Zero, Wipeout... must I really go on?

The point is that subgenres are broad. Now... can you categorize the subgenres into sub-sub genres? Fine! In that case then Wars and Empire indeed are different. But subgenres? I'd put both in tactical military strategy... can't think of a better name for the subgenre. :)

Quote:The games share all of the same basic qualities, which is why they are both in the same genre. Now as soon as you venture beyond the very basic aspects of the games you start to notice some huge differences, and that is the same way with Empire and Wars.

Not huge in the context of the strategy genre, absolutely not. I mean, the genre is everything from Civilization to Command & Conquer! When we're discussing games as relatively similar as Empire and Wars... their differences just don't look as big in the context of the genre as a whole.

Quote:It's as unique as the first Mario Kart is. Or Super Mario Bros. 1. All three games took basic elements of the genre and brought them up several notches, adding several seemingly small elements which make for very unique gameplay experiences.

Heh... you know you were the one arguing that Mario Kart invented the 'wide variety of weapons' thing? Are you now going back and saying that that innovation wasn't that big after all? If not, you contradict yourself...

And anyway, Mario Kart was far more innovative and changed its genre (or changed from previous games in its genre) far more than Wars did.



Hey, here's a good question.. ever played the first game, Famicom Wars? I got the rom... its interesting. Want to see it? I'll attach the zip. :)

Quote:You completely made up some lies and then pretended that I said them! And in addition to that you went on and changed the subject! You do this all of the time and don't even realize it. I've made my points as clear as they possibly could be.

I'd love to see these lies you are talking about... what I see in that post is an attempt for me to interpret a very vague position of yours that you refused to explain.

As for changing the subject, yeah, I guess I did... but what more is there to say about the first one? I'll say something then... Okay, you like calling them console and PC. I think that's innacurate since there are console RPGs on PC and PC ones on consoles... a more accurate form of classification would be based on something that actually seperates the RPGs into subgenres, so that Anachronox isn't some kind of strange exception... like, as I said, battle system. :)

Though of course it is an extreme oversimplification, as all genre labels are...

Quote:-The controls are nothing alike, and I don't even know why I have to explain that unless you never played Empire.

True. Empire auto-selects the next unit after you move... and doesn't have a graphical interface for the options.

Quote:-The interface? Come on, don't tell me that you think they're even remotely similar to each other. You do know what I mean by interface. right?

Like how Empire has the keyboard keys for everything while in Wars you have menus you open with the buttons? Yes, they are quite different. Of course that was hardly the first game ever with graphical option menus, though. :)

Quote:-You don't start out with several different units all lined up on your side

Huh? You don't always in AW either... in Famicom Wars you certainly don't have an army on your side at start.

-In Empire the map is hidden until you explore it.

True sometimes in Wars... Advance Wars, anyway...

Quote:-You cannot detect enemy pieces unless you are right next to them.

Again, an option in AW anyway.

Quote:-Armies cannot move onto their own cities, they will be destroyed if they try.

True.

Quote:-You can let your units move randomly.

Randomly? Do you mean 'set path and have them move to point X'? That's a old strategy game idea... I've also seen a 'move to explore map automatically' one in plenty of games. Handy when you have a lot to explore... :)

Quote:-The game isn't even totally turn-based as other players' moves are performed while the computer is waiting for a command from you.

Again, true.

Quote:-It takes several turns to create units in factories.

Yes. This is as I said a replacement for a money system, so better units are harder to acquire. Not a difference in theme (make better units harder to get), just in application.

Quote:Blah blah blah, there are dozens of other differences between the two games, far more than the number of differences between F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo.

But playing F-Zero and GT doesn't feel similar at all because of how GT is realistic (game mechanics wise). Empire and AW... once you get past the interface, there are striking similarities in gameplay!

Quote:So the only similarities we have between Empire and Wars are:

-You can built units (although the way you do it is very different)
-You can move units
-You can capture bases (although the rules and manner in which you do so are different)
-You can shoot other units
-It's turn-based (although not completely)

What other games can I do this with? Since you think that Wars is just completely identical to Empire (enough so that they belong in the exact same subgenre), the following games cannot belong in seperate subgenres. According to your rules.

READ WHAT I SAY! That's the only way you could think that I mean that if games are in the same subgenre they are identical. If you read what I'm saying you'd see that I'm saying that subgenres can include lots of variety!

And there is more to it than that... but anyway, those things that you listed as the similarities are pretty much all of the base things that make the games what they are. You make it sound like not much, but that list is a good start... those things being similar is a big thing because of how vital those elements are to playing the games!

-build units in bases
-attack enemies
-use variety of forces for strategy
-different units have differing resource costs (time or money)
-move and attack units on tactical map in turnbased wargame style
-capture enemy bases for production and to defeat them
-rock-paper-sissors unit weaknesses triangles of force are the key to combat
-single or multi player
Maybe some more, but that's more than enough to prove my point.

Quote:F-Zero and Gran Turismo:

-You race around a track
-You can earn money
-You can customize your vehicles
-You brake, accelerate, turn
-Ramming into other vehicles is important to winning

All true. But the way you run around the track is vital, just like the manner of unit building/movement/tactics required in Empire and Wars is the vital connection there. F-Zero just doesn't feel similar gameplaywise! When you play one and the other the experience is so different... more so than Empire. Playing that would put you in a much better situation to be able to understand AW than F-Zero would for Gran Turismo...

Quote:Pitfall and Super Mario Bros.:

-You run across a level
-You jump over stuff
-You get points for time
-You jump on enemies to kill them

Well those two are certainly in the same genre, platformers... but I haven't really played Pitfall much at all so I don't know about it.

Quote:Quake and Deus Ex:

-You run around in a first-person view
-You shoot people
-You strafe
-You can jump

Deus Ex is the question here. It could be played as a FPS, you know... but its really a multi-genre game. It can be a RPG too, or a stealth game. Its your choice...

Quote: Anyway, innovation. That is central to this arguement here... what makes innovation? Is it innovation to take something that is standard in one subgenre of a genre, mix it with stuff standard in another subgenre, and call that innovative? Maybe in a way, but that's quite different from true innovation... Wars did not bring anything NEW to the strategy genre. That's the core of what I have been getting at all along -- it did not bring anything new to the table. Were there games before it exactly like that? I bet there were, but don't have absolute proof so I won't make a definite statement yet... but either way, it didn't bring anything new. Units with ranged movement and fire existed, bases, cities, capturing cities, a rock-paper-sissors triangles system of weapons... Wars did not invent something new, which is what true innovation is.

Is it exactly like Empire? No! Of course not! But I think it is close enough to call it the same genre.

Want more examples?

RTSes are a great example, as I said already -- Warcraft, Myth, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, Command & Conquer, Empire Earth, etc... Empire Earth and Command & Conquer are very, VERY different games, yet they are definitely in the same genre. Or Warlords, Disciples, Heroes of Might & Magic, and Age of Wonders... Stars, Master of Orion, Ascendancy, etc... Rush, F-Zero, Wipeout... must I really go on?

The point is that subgenres are broad. Now... can you categorize the subgenres into sub-sub genres? Fine! In that case then Wars and Empire indeed are different. But subgenres? I'd put both in tactical military strategy... can't think of a better name for the subgenre.

Quote:And anyway, Mario Kart was far more innovative and changed its genre (or changed from previous games in its genre) far more than Wars did

Your use of double-standards amaze me. So Wars--even though it's very different from Empire and you can't name one other game that came before it which is very similar to Wars-- is not innovative while Super Mario Bros. and F-Zero are. SMB took the platforming genre, improved every single aspect of it, and added a few things which made for a truly unique experience. F-Zero is just like earlier racers that came before it but added speed, power strips, a futuristic setting, and took away visible wheels. That's it. Wars did much more to its particular genre than F-Zero did, no doubt about it. It did at least as much to its genre as Mario Kart did to the racing genre, and a bit less than SMB did to platforming.

Quote:Not huge in the context of the strategy genre, absolutely not. I mean, the genre is everything from Civilization to Command & Conquer! When we're discussing games as relatively similar as Empire and Wars... their differences just don't look as big in the context of the genre as a whole.

The genre as a whole has a much greater gap between its subgenres than probably any other genre out there, so again you are using a double-standard. You have to put it in context with other games in different genres which are considered innovators or pioneers of their respective genres.

Quote:Heh... you know you were the one arguing that Mario Kart invented the 'wide variety of weapons' thing? Are you now going back and saying that that innovation wasn't that big after all? If not, you contradict yourself...

No, yet again you fail to grasp the meaning of my statement. This is very boring.

I said that Famicom Wars was as innovative as Mario Kart was, which is pretty sizable.

Quote: Hey, here's a good question.. ever played the first game, Famicom Wars? I got the rom... its interesting. Want to see it? I'll attach the zip.

Yes I played it. Still fun!

Quote:I'd love to see these lies you are talking about... what I see in that post is an attempt for me to interpret a very vague position of yours that you refused to explain.

I quoted you and showed you your exact lies a couple of days ago! This is a message board, ABF! Your words are recorded for everyone to see, so trying to take back something that you said is impossible. I will not repeat myself again just because you don't understand correct English (the only explanation I can think of for your extreme level of idiocy in this thread). Go back a page and look for yourself.

Quote: As for changing the subject, yeah, I guess I did... but what more is there to say about the first one? I'll say something then... Okay, you like calling them console and PC. I think that's innacurate since there are console RPGs on PC and PC ones on consoles... a more accurate form of classification would be based on something that actually seperates the RPGs into subgenres, so that Anachronox isn't some kind of strange exception... like, as I said, battle system.

Though of course it is an extreme oversimplification, as all genre labels are...

The battle system is not the only thing that makes something a console RPG. It's the art style, the narrative structure, the linearity, etc. Anachronox stole the battle system from console RPGs, that's it. As I explained a dozen times already, they're referred to as "console RPGs" and "PC RPGs" because that's where each subgenre was created and flourished. Whether you think it's accurate or not does not matter because that's how most people classify these two subgenres.

Quote:True. Empire auto-selects the next unit after you move... and doesn't have a graphical interface for the options.

So why did you ask about the difference in controls? You make no sense.

Quote:Like how Empire has the keyboard keys for everything while in Wars you have menus you open with the buttons? Yes, they are quite different. Of course that was hardly the first game ever with graphical option menus, though.

I never said it was, and that's you putting words into my mouth again. It's just another thing that separates the two games, albeit one of the smaller differences.

Quote:Huh? You don't always in AW either... in Famicom Wars you certainly don't have an army on your side at start.

If you had actually played Advance Wars you'd see that most of the time you start off with several units. Sometimes you start with nothing and have to create them in your factory, but that is not how it usually is.

Quote:True sometimes in Wars... Advance Wars, anyway...

Not quite. In Wars there is a fog of war, but that's different from how it works in Empire. In Wars there is a clear area around each unit and it only surrounds each unit wherever it goes. You don't open up new areas and have them stay clear even when your units aren't there. And most of the time there is no fog at all.

Quote:Again, an option in AW anyway

Wrong again. The only time that happens is when a)fog is turned on and b)an enemy unit is hiding in bushes. Big difference.

Quote:Randomly? Do you mean 'set path and have them move to point X'? That's a old strategy game idea... I've also seen a 'move to explore map automatically' one in plenty of games. Handy when you have a lot to explore...

I'm referring to Empire. Your units move around randomly sometimes. Not the case in Wars, which makes for a big difference in gameplay.

Quote:Yes. This is as I said a replacement for a money system, so better units are harder to acquire. Not a difference in theme (make better units harder to get), just in application.

Which makes for much different gameplay. You get money when you capture enemy bases in Wars, and gain a little bit with each turn.

Quote:True.

Quote:Again, true.

Yes. :)

Quote:But playing F-Zero and GT doesn't feel similar at all because of how GT is realistic (game mechanics wise). Empire and AW... once you get past the interface, there are striking similarities in gameplay!

Quote:All true. But the way you run around the track is vital, just like the manner of unit building/movement/tactics required in Empire and Wars is the vital connection there. F-Zero just doesn't feel similar gameplaywise! When you play one and the other the experience is so different... more so than Empire. Playing that would put you in a much better situation to be able to understand AW than F-Zero would for Gran Turismo...

You're using the same standard for comparing two racing games as you are with comparing two strategy games. With racing games it's all about the feel of the craft, and two games that use totally different handling can still be very similar to each other. Empire and Wars' differences aren't as easy to notice at first because there is no one "feel" in which to measure immediate differences. But once you sit down and take a good long look at both games, and then play them, the differences are enormous.

Quote:READ WHAT I SAY! That's the only way you could think that I mean that if games are in the same subgenre they are identical. If you read what I'm saying you'd see that I'm saying that subgenres can include lots of variety!

And there is more to it than that... but anyway, those things that you listed as the similarities are pretty much all of the base things that make the games what they are. You make it sound like not much, but that list is a good start... those things being similar is a big thing because of how vital those elements are to playing the games!

-build units in bases
-attack enemies
-use variety of forces for strategy
-different units have differing resource costs (time or money)
-move and attack units on tactical map in turnbased wargame style
-capture enemy bases for production and to defeat them
-rock-paper-sissors unit weaknesses triangles of force are the key to combat
-single or multi player
Maybe some more, but that's more than enough to prove my point.

You've just proven my point. Even the most opposite games (F-Zero and GT) can look identical to each other when you break them down to their basics! Mario Kart and GT are in different subgenres, yes? But is Mario Kart more innovative in its respective genre than Super Mario Bros. was in its won genre? NO! Even though SMB is in the same genre (even the same subgenre) as Pitfall, there are more differences between it and Pitfall than there are between MK and GT. Likewise, even though you could place Empire and Wars in the same genre, the differences are incredible and it does not make Famicom Wars any less innovative than it already is. Well, a little bit less, not not much. It's SMB all over again.

Quote:Well those two are certainly in the same genre, platformers... but I haven't really played Pitfall much at all so I don't know about it.

Trust me, there's a world of difference. Or just get a ROM and see for yourself.

Quote:Deus Ex is the question here. It could be played as a FPS, you know... but its really a multi-genre game. It can be a RPG too, or a stealth game. Its your choice...

It's an RPG no matter how you want to play it because of the experience points and communication aspect of the game.

Quote:Your use of double-standards amaze me. So Wars--even though it's very different from Empire and you can't name one other game that came before it which is very similar to Wars-- is not innovative while Super Mario Bros. and F-Zero are. SMB took the platforming genre, improved every single aspect of it, and added a few things which made for a truly unique experience. F-Zero is just like earlier racers that came before it but added speed, power strips, a futuristic setting, and took away visible wheels. That's it. Wars did much more to its particular genre than F-Zero did, no doubt about it. It did at least as much to its genre as Mario Kart did to the racing genre, and a bit less than SMB did to platforming.

I already told you, I'm not an expert on early '80s strategy games... I can look for stuff but there have been such a ridiculous number of strategy games released and I don't know how to find exactly what I am looking for... but as I said there are dozens of games that have a fair amount in common with Wars. Exactly the same? Not sure. But a lot of them have clear similarities, some major... I'd mention some, but I already have (mentioned the themes that are relevant here).

Oh, and you're right, F-Zero didn't totally change its genre, and Mario Kart might well have done more. But putting Famicom Wars on that level? Crazy! It definitely didn't have the influence, anyway... after all most strategy games are on the PC made in the West and we didn't even get the thing...

Quote:The genre as a whole has a much greater gap between its subgenres than probably any other genre out there, so again you are using a double-standard. You have to put it in context with other games in different genres which are considered innovators or pioneers of their respective genres.

Yes, it is an extremely broad genre, that is true... and supports myc case... and how is it a double standard?

Quote:No, yet again you fail to grasp the meaning of my statement. This is very boring.

I said that Famicom Wars was as innovative as Mario Kart was, which is pretty sizable.

And I think it wasn't, since there were so many strategy games before it that included many of the features of the game... and there's the fact that Wars didn't add anything to the genre! Mario Kart did in its genre....

Quote:Yes I played it. Still fun!

Yeah... once you figure out which button does which. And wrestle with the interface... I mean, A to select and B to choose? Argh!

Quote:I quoted you and showed you your exact lies a couple of days ago! This is a message board, ABF! Your words are recorded for everyone to see, so trying to take back something that you said is impossible. I will not repeat myself again just because you don't understand correct English (the only explanation I can think of for your extreme level of idiocy in this thread). Go back a page and look for yourself.

Please tell me that I don't have to repeat the same thing for the fifth time... I wasn't lying or putting words in your mouth! I was saying what my interpretation of what you were saying was! All that is is saying that that's what I think are in the category! Why is that so hard to understand? When I say "these are what I think are in the subgenre" to no response, then say "do you think there is anything else in the subgenre?" to no response, isn't assuming that you agree with my analysis of what the subgenre is reasonable?

Though of course it was partly written that way in frusterating that you refused to actually talk about the issue and would rather attack me. I mean, I was trying to ask what you think is in the subgenre and you ignore me and so I assume you agree with my opinion (or if you disagree you'd just say what else you think should be in it)... and get bashed even harder for it... it really is inexplicable...

Quote:The battle system is not the only thing that makes something a console RPG. It's the art style, the narrative structure, the linearity, etc. Anachronox stole the battle system from console RPGs, that's it. As I explained a dozen times already, they're referred to as "console RPGs" and "PC RPGs" because that's where each subgenre was created and flourished. Whether you think it's accurate or not does not matter because that's how most people classify these two subgenres.

So Diablo and Baldur's Gate are both "PC RPGs" though they have polar opposite battle systems and gameplay? I think not! Your classification system there is far too restrictive...

Quote:So why did you ask about the difference in controls? You make no sense.

Huh? I didn't ask that... not in the way you think, anyway...

Quote:I never said it was, and that's you putting words into my mouth again. It's just another thing that separates the two games, albeit one of the smaller differences.

You have said many times that the interface in Wars is one of the unique features that seperates from previous strategy games (its in your list of them!)! That is clearly completely false! There's nothing more to say about that, really.

Quote:If you had actually played Advance Wars you'd see that most of the time you start off with several units. Sometimes you start with nothing and have to create them in your factory, but that is not how it usually is.

Maybe in the campaign, but in multi or single map you frequently start with just a base... like how you do in the first Famicom Wars... :)

Quote:Not quite. In Wars there is a fog of war, but that's different from how it works in Empire. In Wars there is a clear area around each unit and it only surrounds each unit wherever it goes. You don't open up new areas and have them stay clear even when your units aren't there. And most of the time there is no fog at all.

AW's fog is not always different. If you have black mask and fog on, AW works exactly like Empire... sure, the default is the quite different revealed mode, but at least by AW (in the series) there is a option to have both black mask (must explore) and fog (that covers areas your units can't see right now).

Oh, and I think that Empire has fog as well as black mask...

Quote:Wrong again. The only time that happens is when a)fog is turned on and b)an enemy unit is hiding in bushes. Big difference.

Ooh, huge critical subgenre-changing difference that in one game you can see one square into the fog and in another you can see more than one! Yup! Seriously, a lot of your differences are minor issues that are not even remotely things that would change its subgenre...

Quote:I'm referring to Empire. Your units move around randomly sometimes. Not the case in Wars, which makes for a big difference in gameplay.

Uh, as far as I know in Empire your units never 'move randomly'. They either go where you directly tell them to, or go to a (farther away) point automatically if you give them that command... and anyway, plenty of strategy games have units that move on their own. It's called AI. :D

Quote:Which makes for much different gameplay. You get money when you capture enemy bases in Wars, and gain a little bit with each turn.

Different? Yes, absolutely. That makes the gameplay in the two games go at different paces, and is one of the biggest differences between them, since the resource model drives strategy games... but still, they differ in execution, not philosophy. Getting more expensive units is harder. Most games more recently of course use both models (better units both cost more and take more time to build), but early on some games used just one or the other. Not a key to being in one subgenre or another, though...

Quote:You're using the same standard for comparing two racing games as you are with comparing two strategy games. With racing games it's all about the feel of the craft, and two games that use totally different handling can still be very similar to each other. Empire and Wars' differences aren't as easy to notice at first because there is no one "feel" in which to measure immediate differences. But once you sit down and take a good long look at both games, and then play them, the differences are enormous.

Isn't using a consistent standard good? :)

True, racing games can have all kinds of feature similarities, with unlocking things, customizing cars, etc... and those do matter. But the handling is so important...

What do F-Zero and GT have in common? (from yours, changed)
-vehicles racing on a track
-parts to unlock to build cars (only GT has improving current ones)
-You can earn money
-You can customize your vehicles
-You brake, accelerate, turn
-Ramming into other vehicles is important to winning

But the differences... so many... i'll list a few.
-can go off track in GT (very important since you spend a lot of time there...)
-handling total opposites
-heal strips
-boosting
-no changing cars that already exist in f-zero
-weapons (spin/slam attacks in f-zero)
-number of cars on track
-futuristic look vs current
etc, etc... they have more differences than similarities, I bet, when you go down the list (in simple terms like this).

Empire and Advance Wars? You have a good point that the nature of the game slows down notice of changes... that is true for any strategy game -- it takes more time to notice differences. However, it is easy to tell when games are in different subgenres since in the strategy genre there often really isn't a lot of overlap between subgenres. At least not anymore...

Quote:You've just proven my point. Even the most opposite games (F-Zero and GT) can look identical to each other when you break them down to their basics! Mario Kart and GT are in different subgenres, yes? But is Mario Kart more innovative in its respective genre than Super Mario Bros. was in its won genre? NO! Even though SMB is in the same genre (even the same subgenre) as Pitfall, there are more differences between it and Pitfall than there are between MK and GT. Likewise, even though you could place Empire and Wars in the same genre, the differences are incredible and it does not make Famicom Wars any less innovative than it already is. Well, a little bit less, not not much. It's SMB all over again.

You just have a inflated opinion of the value and uniqueness of the Wars series... see, SMB added LOTS of stuff to its genre that had been barely ever seen before anywhere. Mario Kart added some stuff. Wars didn't. Did it mix themes in a way that hadn't been seen much if at all (not sure on that point) before? Yes, probably. But did it actually do much of anything new? No. Decidedly not. And that is important for innovation!

Quote:It's an RPG no matter how you want to play it because of the experience points and communication aspect of the game.

Sure its always an RPG, but if you want you can play it as a FPS. :)

Quote:Trust me, there's a world of difference. Or just get a ROM and see for yourself.

What platform? Atari 2600? I probably have it, given that I have 2000 2600 roms... *checks* yup, there. Uh, played it for like five minuites... and yes, its clearly a 2d platformer just like Mario... exept far more primitive. :)

Quote:I already told you, I'm not an expert on early '80s strategy games... I can look for stuff but there have been such a ridiculous number of strategy games released and I don't know how to find exactly what I am looking for... but as I said there are dozens of games that have a fair amount in common with Wars. Exactly the same? Not sure. But a lot of them have clear similarities, some major... I'd mention some, but I already have (mentioned the themes that are relevant here).

Oh, and you're right, F-Zero didn't totally change its genre, and Mario Kart might well have done more. But putting Famicom Wars on that level? Crazy! It definitely didn't have the influence, anyway... after all most strategy games are on the PC made in the West and we didn't even get the thing...

Here you go again, thinking only from your very narrow-minded point of view. Wars gave birth to the whole Japanese war/tactics genre, which is actually very big in Japan. We're just getting bits and pieces here and there. Tactics Ogre draws much from Famicom Wars. Famicom Wars definitely added much more to it genre than F-Zero or Mario Kart did. No doubt about it.

Quote:Yes, it is an extremely broad genre, that is true... and supports myc case... and how is it a double standard?

double standard
n.
A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another

You compare Mario Kart to Gran Turismo and come up with less differences that I came up with for Empire and Wars, yet you say that MK and GT are nothing alike and Empire and Wars are almost the same game. That is a double standard.

And the fact that the strategy genre gap is so large definitely hurts your "case" because comparing two games from two different sub genres is like comparing a racing game and a flying game, not a kart racing game and a realistic racing game. You fail to see this, and I have no idea why.

Quote:And I think it wasn't, since there were so many strategy games before it that included many of the features of the game... and there's the fact that Wars didn't add anything to the genre! Mario Kart did in its genre....

Mario Kart added weapons and polished up everything! Wars added so much more in addition to polishing everything.

Quote:Please tell me that I don't have to repeat the same thing for the fifth time... I wasn't lying or putting words in your mouth! I was saying what my interpretation of what you were saying was! All that is is saying that that's what I think are in the category! Why is that so hard to understand? When I say "these are what I think are in the subgenre" to no response, then say "do you think there is anything else in the subgenre?" to no response, isn't assuming that you agree with my analysis of what the subgenre is reasonable?

Though of course it was partly written that way in frusterating that you refused to actually talk about the issue and would rather attack me. I mean, I was trying to ask what you think is in the subgenre and you ignore me and so I assume you agree with my opinion (or if you disagree you'd just say what else you think should be in it)... and get bashed even harder for it... it really is inexplicable...

What's inexplicable is how completely void of any sense of reason or intelligence you are! You have no idea what you're even talking about!
You said that I said that Wars was the "first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat" , when I never said anything of the sort, and then responded to that very thing that you made up! That's putting words into my mouth and then attacking those words!

:bang:

What is wrong with you?? First you fail to understand what I wrote, then you make up something and claim that I said it, and then you say that you never did it!!

Quote:So Diablo and Baldur's Gate are both "PC RPGs" though they have polar opposite battle systems and gameplay? I think not! Your classification system there is far too restrictive...

"I think not!"

Do you have any idea how super-annoying you are?

These are B-R-O-A-D classifications! B-R-O-A-D

Like CAR and BOAT.

Quote:Huh? I didn't ask that... not in the way you think, anyway...

Here we go again...

Did you forget about THIS??

"Please explain in depth what this basic statement of yours means and how Wars isn't like any of the games I mentioned.

Now, as I said, I conceed that the anime-style graphics are probably unique to Wars in the genre. But controls? Interface? And especially game mechanics? See no logic there..."

You asked how Wars differs from other games that are similar to it (all one of them) in terms of controls!

:bang: :bang:

Quote:You have said many times that the interface in Wars is one of the unique features that seperates from previous strategy games (its in your list of them!)! That is clearly completely false! There's nothing more to say about that, really.

Example #5,657,143 of ABF making up crap.

I said that the interface is completely different from EMPIRE.

Quote:Maybe in the campaign, but in multi or single map you frequently start with just a base... like how you do in the first Famicom Wars...

You choose how to start in mutli.

Quote:AW's fog is not always different. If you have black mask and fog on, AW works exactly like Empire... sure, the default is the quite different revealed mode, but at least by AW (in the series) there is a option to have both black mask (must explore) and fog (that covers areas your units can't see right now).

Oh, and I think that Empire has fog as well as black mask...

Most of the time there is no fog at all in AW. There is always fog in Empire, and only one kind of fog.

Quote:Ooh, huge critical subgenre-changing difference that in one game you can see one square into the fog and in another you can see more than one! Yup! Seriously, a lot of your differences are minor issues that are not even remotely things that would change its subgenre...

These are differences which have a large impact on gameplay, and you would actually invent some time into both games then you would see that. And when did I say that they don't belong in the same sub genre? Pitfall belongs in the same sub genre as Super Mario Bros. yet SMB is very different from Pitfall, and is considered one of the most innovative games ever made.

Quote:Uh, as far as I know in Empire your units never 'move randomly'. They either go where you directly tell them to, or go to a (farther away) point automatically if you give them that command... and anyway, plenty of strategy games have units that move on their own. It's called AI.

Actually it's not always AI.

And again, you've proven that you've barely played any of Empire. Take a look at this quote from the instruction manual. One of the functions that you issue is:

RANDOM
The piece will move at random subject to the following conditions:
1. The piece will not do anything to cause it to be destroyed.
2. If it is an army, it will board an unloaded troop transport and wake up if it is next to one.

Quote:Different? Yes, absolutely. That makes the gameplay in the two games go at different paces, and is one of the biggest differences between them, since the resource model drives strategy games... but still, they differ in execution, not philosophy. Getting more expensive units is harder. Most games more recently of course use both models (better units both cost more and take more time to build), but early on some games used just one or the other. Not a key to being in one subgenre or another, though...

It's actually one of the smaller differences, but you can think whatever you want to. And I NEVER SAID THAT THEY DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME SUB GENRE!!!

Quote:Isn't using a consistent standard good?

True, racing games can have all kinds of feature similarities, with unlocking things, customizing cars, etc... and those do matter. But the handling is so important...

What do F-Zero and GT have in common? (from yours, changed)
-vehicles racing on a track
-parts to unlock to build cars (only GT has improving current ones)
-You can earn money
-You can customize your vehicles
-You brake, accelerate, turn
-Ramming into other vehicles is important to winning

But the differences... so many... i'll list a few.
-can go off track in GT (very important since you spend a lot of time there...)
-handling total opposites
-heal strips
-boosting
-no changing cars that already exist in f-zero
-weapons (spin/slam attacks in f-zero)
-number of cars on track
-futuristic look vs current
etc, etc... they have more differences than similarities, I bet, when you go down the list (in simple terms like this).

Empire and Advance Wars? You have a good point that the nature of the game slows down notice of changes... that is true for any strategy game -- it takes more time to notice differences. However, it is easy to tell when games are in different subgenres since in the strategy genre there often really isn't a lot of overlap between subgenres. At least not anymore...

Your comparisons are so flawed that I'm wondering if you have ever actually played Gran Turismo before. Let me tear apart your argument one step at a time.

Quote:-can go off track in GT (very important since you spend a lot of time there...)

So a big difference between the two games is that you can slide into the tiny bit of grass or dirt in each track which slows you down in GT, even though F-Zero has a similar concept with you falling off the track??
Oh boy.

Quote:-handling total opposites

So you don't use the thumb stick to steer left and right? You said that they were total opposites, right?
Vehicle handling between the two games is very different, but every racing game handles differently from the next. Is 1080 not a snowboarding game because it handles nothing like SSX?

Quote:-heal strips

F-Zero has "heal strips" and Gran Turismo has pit stops. Same thing.

Quote:-boosting

OoooOOOOoooohhhh!! What a genre-breaking difference!!

Quote:-no changing cars that already exist in f-zero

Again, OoooOOOOoooohhhh, what a genre-breaking difference!!

Quote:-weapons (spin/slam attacks in f-zero)

You call those weapons?? Wow, you really are stretching! You can also ram into other cars in GT!

Quote:-number of cars on track[/b]
Another genre-breaking difference! Omigosh!
[quote]-futuristic look vs current

A purely cosmetic touch.

Now of course I can see that F-Zero belongs in a different sub genre than Gran Turismo and that the two play very different from each other, but as you can plainly see, when you actually write down the differences you can make them seem like the same game!

Quote:You just have a inflated opinion of the value and uniqueness of the Wars series... see, SMB added LOTS of stuff to its genre that had been barely ever seen before anywhere. Mario Kart added some stuff. Wars didn't. Did it mix themes in a way that hadn't been seen much if at all (not sure on that point) before? Yes, probably. But did it actually do much of anything new? No. Decidedly not. And that is important for innovation!

What SMB did was take everything from Pitfall and then polish everything to death! It didn't actually add nearly as much "stuff" to the genre as you think it did. It changed everything that was already established in Pitall, but it didn't create too many completely new things.

Quote:Sure its always an RPG, but if you want you can play it as a FPS.

Oh, so you can remove the experience points, communication aspect, and item/weapons upgrade part of the game?
.... NO, you cannot.

Whew... we need to shorten this, desperately. Writing these things is like writing an essay, except while more confused...

Quote:Here you go again, thinking only from your very narrow-minded point of view. Wars gave birth to the whole Japanese war/tactics genre, which is actually very big in Japan. We're just getting bits and pieces here and there. Tactics Ogre draws much from Famicom Wars. Famicom Wars definitely added much more to it genre than F-Zero or Mario Kart did. No doubt about it.

Tactics games are like Famicom Wars? Huh? Uh... I don't see anything significant in common there... that would be quite a stretch.

You yourself said that Wars and Tactics are completely different!

Quote:double standard
n.
A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another

You compare Mario Kart to Gran Turismo and come up with less differences that I came up with for Empire and Wars, yet you say that MK and GT are nothing alike and Empire and Wars are almost the same game. That is a double standard.

And the fact that the strategy genre gap is so large definitely hurts your "case" because comparing two games from two different sub genres is like comparing a racing game and a flying game, not a kart racing game and a realistic racing game. You fail to see this, and I have no idea why.

Where did I compare Mario Kart and Gran Turismo? I don't remember making a list for that, just for F-Zero and Gran Turismo... but yes, I found 8 differences and you found 9 differences between Empire and Wars. I'm sure I could find one more if I tried, though... if that's what you mean. I'm not sure, exactly... you are confusing me...

And as for double standards, I really don't think so... I think its more looking at each genre in the context of that genre.

Quote:Oh, so you can remove the experience points, communication aspect, and item/weapons upgrade part of the game?
.... NO, you cannot.

(Deus Ex) Well no, of course not... but that wasn't my point! You keep misunderstanding me... I don't mean that stuff. I mean that if you want to you can just run around and shoot everyone just like in a FPS. That is what I mean.

Quote:Mario Kart added weapons and polished up everything! Wars added so much more in addition to polishing everything.

But you haven't shown that AW added ONE SINGLE THING to the strategy genre! Not one thing! Now as I said a new mix of existing themes is well up to question, since I don't have proof of an identical PC game (just ones that are very similar), but added anything new? Not from anything I can see.

Quote:What's inexplicable is how completely void of any sense of reason or intelligence you are! You have no idea what you're even talking about!
You said that I said that Wars was the "first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat" , when I never said anything of the sort, and then responded to that very thing that you made up! That's putting words into my mouth and then attacking those words!



What is wrong with you?? First you fail to understand what I wrote, then you make up something and claim that I said it, and then you say that you never did it!!

Hey, how many times will I have to rephrase the exact same thing before you get it into your head that I meant what I have explained myself to mean? Seriously, its getting really old... you clearly have not bothered to try and understand what I explained that I meant since you have repeated the same falacious statements over and over.

I SAID THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS MY (SHORT) DEFINITION OF THE SUB-GENRE ADVANCE WARS IS IN! And why I said that you think those are its aspects? BECAUSE I HAD MENTIONED ALL OF THOSE FACTORS BEFORE AND ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THEM AND YOU SAID NOTHING!

Though mainly what I was doing there was being frusterated that you were attacking me more than responding to the topic... I had kept posting things and you'd ignore them and just attack me, so I just kept going on my line... what I really meant there was that I wanted you to say your side of that definition! But no... you won't, you just keep attacking me...

Quote:"I think not!"

Do you have any idea how super-annoying you are?

These are B-R-O-A-D classifications! B-R-O-A-D

Like CAR and BOAT.

Diablo and Baldur's Gate are as different as two games in the same genre can be... denying that would be silly and obviously wrong. Putting them in the same subgenre is about as insane as saying that Civilization is in the same subgenre of strategy games as Command & Conquer. Completely absurd...

Quote:Here we go again...

Did you forget about THIS??

"Please explain in depth what this basic statement of yours means and how Wars isn't like any of the games I mentioned.

Now, as I said, I conceed that the anime-style graphics are probably unique to Wars in the genre. But controls? Interface? And especially game mechanics? See no logic there..."

You asked how Wars differs from other games that are similar to it (all one of them) in terms of controls!

Nope. You misunderstood me. What I meant there wasn't an "I don't know" 'please tell me', it was a 'please explain your viewpoint' "please tell me". Big difference there. And hmm... I'm still waiting for an explanation of that first basic statement of yours. Could you do that, please? As I've said many times, I want to understand why you think Wars is so innovative and different... I can't see it at all. I want to know your reasoning for that first statement!

It was this.

Quote:AW and FE are uniquely Japanese in their interface, controls, game mechanics, art, etc. Name one single PC game that's "just like it".

AW aren't "uniquely Japanese" in interface or controls or game mechanics. Art, yes. Those others? No.

Oh, putting things from existing games in the same genre that your game is in isn't innovation, and that's what Famicom Wars did if I give it the most credit I possibly could (and I very much doubt that that's the case).

Quote:Example #5,657,143 of ABF making up crap.

I said that the interface is completely different from EMPIRE.

I was referring the (directly) above very early quote there. That was WAY before Empire was mentioned. So no, I wasn't making it up and given your later comments I think you might want to take the interface part of that one back. :)

Quote:You choose how to start in mutli.

True. So? Does that dilute my point somehow?

Quote:Most of the time there is no fog at all in AW. There is always fog in Empire, and only one kind of fog.

Famicom Wars is a much better comparison to the ancient Empire... if we're talking about Advance Wars, wouldn't more recent games be a more appropriate comparison than the 1983 Empire? And I have no idea about Famicom Wars' options in these categories, just that by default there is no fog or mask.

Quote:Actually it's not always AI.

And again, you've proven that you've barely played any of Empire. Take a look at this quote from the instruction manual. One of the functions that you issue is:

RANDOM
The piece will move at random subject to the following conditions:
1. The piece will not do anything to cause it to be destroyed.
2. If it is an army, it will board an unloaded troop transport and wake up if it is next to one.

Looks like an early attempt at easy exploration, like you can find in Conquest of the New World, Civilization, etc... or if you want RTSes, behavior controls that make units react depending on their environs without your control. None of those change the (sub-)genre...

Quote:These are differences which have a large impact on gameplay, and you would actually invent some time into both games then you would see that. And when did I say that they don't belong in the same sub genre? Pitfall belongs in the same sub genre as Super Mario Bros. yet SMB is very different from Pitfall, and is considered one of the most innovative games ever made.

I haven't played huge amounts of Empire, but I've played enough of similar games to get the idea quite well. And yes, those factors do make the gameplay in Empire versus Wars quite different, you are correct about that. But they are also clearly in the same sub-genre... not sure if you're denying that, you seem to be trying to have that both ways with your various statements.

Honestly, the main reason for this problem is that the strategy genre just has such an insane amount of variety that tying games into specific sub-genres is very, very hard... some are easy, like RTSes, fantasy-strategy games, god games, and 4X (Civ, MOO) games, but then you get into a huge grey area with strategy and several other genres... Empire and Wars both fall into that area, certainly. Both have a lot in common with wargames and strategy games... its hard for me to say which genre influenced either of them more, really.

So the problem is that the strategy genre is really broad and Wars doesn't fit in one of the easy-to-define clear 'Strategy' or 'Wargame' subgenres. So what do we do now... I say 1) try to find games similar and 2) try to find games that it takes influence from in its gameplay ideas. That's the case I've been trying to present here... I've done a good job on 2), but 1) I need work on.

Quote:It's actually one of the smaller differences, but you can think whatever you want to. And I NEVER SAID THAT THEY DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME SUB GENRE!!!

You say that, but also say things that are nearly the opposite! I don't know which to believe... and if that isn't your arguement, what is? That they are in the same subgenre but are too different for one to be seen as a major influence on the other game? That wouldn't make any sense!

Quote:Your comparisons are so flawed that I'm wondering if you have ever actually played Gran Turismo before. Let me tear apart your argument one step at a time.

For like five minuites once in Best Buy. Please think of that as more of a generic 'more realistic racing game' like the myriad demos of moderately simmish racing games I've played on PC. :)

Hey, without a PSX or PS2 can you seriously expect me to have played it much?

Quote:So you don't use the thumb stick to steer left and right? You said that they were total opposites, right?
Vehicle handling between the two games is very different, but every racing game handles differently from the next. Is 1080 not a snowboarding game because it handles nothing like SSX?

Yeah, of course they are both driving games... I meant total opposites as in much more realistic handling vs. much more arcadish.

Quote:So a big difference between the two games is that you can slide into the tiny bit of grass or dirt in each track which slows you down in GT, even though F-Zero has a similar concept with you falling off the track??
Oh boy.

Hmm... depends on the size of the shoulders and if you constantly flip over/get stuck in the dirt going 5 mph when you go around them wrong like in most sims...

And as for falling off the track in F-Zero, on most all tracks it's extremely rare. And you respawn immediately...

But if turning is easy then its not very simmish, because I'd say hard turning is one of the things that is most common in simmish racers. :)

Quote:F-Zero has "heal strips" and Gran Turismo has pit stops. Same thing.

F-Zero GX has the easiest healing of the series... in the first game it was really hard to heal up and you had to stop. In X you could heal, but sometimes not all the way... GX feels like Wipeout or Extreme-G 2, while X and Extreme-G 3 are more like the original F-Zero. No idea about GT of course, but I'd expect that it'd take a fair amount of time in the pitstop to get fixed up...

Quote:You call those weapons?? Wow, you really are stretching! You can also ram into other cars in GT!

Well yes, given how they let you attack people for the purpose of destroying them much more quickly than ramming...

Quote:A purely cosmetic touch.

Now of course I can see that F-Zero belongs in a different sub genre than Gran Turismo and that the two play very different from each other, but as you can plainly see, when you actually write down the differences you can make them seem like the same game!

"Oversimplifying", I think its called... (and yes I think both of us are using that in this debate) :)

And if we wrote out in detail the similarities and differences between GT and F-Zero and then Famicom Wars and Empire... I don't know, actually. F-Zero and GT are very different for their genre, but racing games don't have a tenth the variety of strategy games so it might come close... still, I think Empire and Famicom Wars would be shown to be more similar.

Quote:What SMB did was take everything from Pitfall and then polish everything to death! It didn't actually add nearly as much "stuff" to the genre as you think it did. It changed everything that was already established in Pitall, but it didn't create too many completely new things.

That well might be true, as I said I have almost no experience with Pitfall, or games like Pitfall (that age), so I can't comment much.

Ok... you know what? Before I read your post, I have to say something.

A few weeks ago I vowed to put an end to these never-ending, stupid arguments. So far I'm not doing so good. They become a huge chore and take away far too much time from work and games. I'm sick of it!

So from now on, how about we quit the debates at Tendo City and settle things on msn? That usually settles things much faster. Deal?

I'm not even going to look at your post right now because I fear that I'll lose the willpower to resist responding to it.

Eight-plus screen posts are hard to ignore... :D

And MSN would be an option, but you are never on! Not too handy then... and anyway I don't like arguing on MSN as much. Arguements can get so heated so fast... posts give you more time to think.

So how about this...

Quote: AW and FE are uniquely Japanese in their interface, controls, game mechanics, art, etc. Name one single PC game that's "just like it".

This is what really set it off, and I still don't get it at all. I think its at the heart of the arguement... can you explain WHY you think that? So you consider taking elements from various games in the same genre and mixing them innovation? And as for interface and controls... that makes no sense at all.

I've explained myself more than enough in this thread, and I will not continue to ruin every single thread in Tendo City!

From now on, whenever we get into a lengthly argument I'm going to move all of the arguing posts into a thread titled "Dumpster" in the Debate Forum. That way everyone that wants to actually talk about the subject at hand can do so without being afraid of getting in the middle of a stupid debate.

You seriously think you've explained why you think its innovative? Bizarre, from what I can tell you've never answered any of my statements on the issue...

Then you either need a new pair of glasses or a new brain.

Yeah...this is never going to work.

Sure it will! I'm gonna move all big arguments into this li'l thread.

Quote:Sure it will!

No, no it won't.

Wait, what won't work? It's not very difficult to split and merge threads.

The mechanics of the idea are fairly simple and easy to accomplish, but trying to confine every single TC arguement to one thread is, I believe, beyond your ability.

Every single big argument.

I need my eyes checked? Well, I can remember me asking you that question about fifteen times with no reply, so I really don't know what yo uare talking about... did you do it in invisible text somewhere or something? :)

Seriously, you just haven't really discussed that! You have not gone through the features of the early Wars games and said why those games are so innovative compared to prevous games. And since that's the exact topic we're discussing here... the burden of proof is on you. At least I have shown how every major gameplay theme in the thing I can possibly think of has precident, often many precidents...