Perhaps its not too complex for Americans, just that complex stuff isn't popular for entertainment in America. By far and large, the strategy games of America are not quite as complex as the games that Koei release. Unfortuantely, the trend these days is dumbing down, and pumping up the fast action. Its just the way the media is training people to think and act these days. Games like Masters of Orion for example, have a niche following, and especially in today's market, we'll have to see how MOO3 does when it comes.
All you guys might like complex games, but there are only a few of us, and that doesn't necessarily make it feasible for Nintendo to localize the game.
Sure, I'd like it if Nintendo brought it over to the US, but seeing that it realistically isn't a popular market, I can understand why Nintendo won't bring it over. Saying that it should not have any effect on whether or not to port them to the US is like asking Nintendo to throw money out the trash... Therefore, I am presenting to you why the game won't sell well, and refuting your argument that its like Advanced Wars, and reasons why it doesn't give the big bang that other games would give for example - not saying that you're too stupid to play it.
Thankyou people, for misinterpreting my message. You show good reading comprehension.
Dark Jaguar, if you don't know something, its best you shut up about it. I only talk on subject matters that I am well versed at, and so whenever I talk about it, I blast off about it... don't think I just randomly pull shit out of no where. I spend more of my time in scholastic matters than I do with gaming matters so excuse me if I find myself to have the authority of knowledge in many subject matters that I bother to participate in. So did you want to actually diagnose me with a disorder or should I consult my psychiatrist about that. Perhaps I can see my professor who is a psychiatrist in my Doctoring class next week ? Or maybe you can tell me better ?
Hell if you just bothered to point out an actual fault of mine, you'd be better off telling me that I have a problem with being beligerant and arrogant towards ignorance in that knowledge - a problem I'm well aware of and trying to beat, and yet succumbing to it again as I am writing you this message.
Btw, ROM theft is wrong, but why do you bring it up anyways ? I remember having said that if its out of print, completely old and obselete and if you have no way in hell of obtaining that old game anyways, playing the ROM isn't making Nintendo loose any money. I don't go around pirating stuff I can buy or borrow the real thing of nor do I support ROM theft of stuff thats avaliable. If you wanted to know, I played the ROMs of the NES Fire Emblem games in 1997-8, I don't know how the hell you would get it otherwise, but I actually borrowed the carts for the SNES games from a Japanese friend.
Yeah yeah, I can tell you have a bit of an ego problem. It's very obvious when you get all upset because we don't respect your supposed authority on the matter. Just because you are educated doesn't make you right all the time, and that's a lesson you must learn. It's the same old thing. "I'm a scientist, and scientists have done many great things." The problem? You aren't those scientists!
Perhaps I'm not necessarily right in my interpretation of things, but at least I have and present the facts with which I use to make a judgement. (note that I don't make a judgement and then try to find facts to back it up)
And remember the flip side. A person who is not educated or well versed in an area cannot simply tell another who does, that he is wrong and expect to be respected in return.
I hate to continue down the line of egotism that many scholars are stuck with, but you can't expect any scholar not to be upset when other people tell him he's wrong despite lack of knowledge in the area. Like many of them, I welcome knowledgable debate, but can't stand ignorance. Yes, its an egotism problem, but without it, anyone can pull something out of their ass and the word credibility would have no meaning.
And if you haven't realized, thats part of a problem I have with the general populace these days. Instead of pursuing real knowledge of a matter or respecting the knowledge of those who have it, everyone is smug with themselves and thinks they're their own genius despite the ignorance. Expectations of respect goes all the wrong ways today.
Again, I think I've said many times, I don't respect those who don't shut up, and pose questions and seek answers about something they don't know but pretend they know.
I found it quite evident on this board for example, when people were actually accusing me of having no knowledge about knights and samurais... :S
I found it particularly interesting when people who have fairy tale knowledge of the two types of warriors were actually telling me I knew nothing despite the history, and military history I took as an undergrad and as a military enthusiast. Fortuantely though, there are yet those who respectfully actually asked questions instead of making their own ignorant statements.
So, are you saying that you took an in depth course on Fire Emblem?
I feel that if you are trying to cure ignorance, it's not going to work this way. Your knowledge is a gift to the ignorant, and it should be perceived this way even if the person on the receiving end does not wish to take the gift. Thus, you must wrap the gift with ribbons and paper. Of kindness. Of pure desire to teach. And when, even then, the person refuses, you must find a way to get it into his home. Shroud yourself in dirty blankets and become the beggar. He will invite you into his house. Upon leaving, beg the man to take the gift. And never reveal yourself. A gift wrapped with condescention and arrogance will never be accepted, no matter how important the package. Genius without mercy for the ignorant is useful only for the genius.
And being superior like you are isn't the way to do it. Acting like you are better than everyone so your views are naturally right and anyone who disagrees is stupid isn't the way to do things... and not true, either.
Are the people as a whole pretty stupid? Well... yeah, probably... people are pretty stupid when you look at it. But that doesn't mean everyone is, or that you are completely exempt, or that because you are better educated than many that you are automatically right...
I probably shouldn't get into it (again), but you lost that debate over the knight vs the samurai... not that I'd EVER expect you to even begin to admit it.
Oh. One more thing. I just don't see ANY justification to your statements that American strategy games are simpler and less popular. None... Well, OK, on consoles maybe... but the strategy genre barely exists on consoles, so thats not really a surpricse. But on PC? You're seriously going to try to say that Koei's games are deeper than your average PC strategy game? Yeah... right... PC strategy games may have many lighter ones among them, but some are very deep and aren't exactly a niche market... smaller than massmarket games, yeah... but just some small market that doesn't buy many copies? I think not. No, you GREATLY underestimate the appeal of deep strategy games here... and the appeal of a Fire Emblem game if it did come out here.
I disagree with him on this Fire Emblem deal, but he did win that Samurai debate.
You only think that because you agree with him... I thought those people who posted in the thread (wiht real details on the knight's side) did a much better job at proving their points than N_A...
Yeah well you only think that because you agree with them.
Hypocrite.
My only real problem is that, even though N_A may have proof, he never actually goes about providing it. He merely states "I have proof". He might, he might not, but unless he actually provides it, he's asking us to just take his word for it that he's right. That's not logical here. He may BE right indeed, but some people here have skepticism, and will ask questions and doubt the educated person. There's nothing wrong with asking questions and doubting the teacher. Blind trust in the teacher is an invitation to, um, well something bad, that's for sure :D. You say you are more educated, and that may be so, but you must proove it. As far as the whole respect thing goes, I respect you about as much as I respect myself, which is to say, almost not at all. I eat oatmeal cream pies for main courses for cryin' out loud! As far as respect goes, one should only be concerned with if others are getting enough of it. Being overly concerned with everyone's lack of respect to you is just an invitation to the inflated ego that's the case with almost all the jerky teens these days.
You eat oatmeal cream pies for main courses?
OB1: So I think the side I supported won and you think your side won... wow, we never end up with that kind of ending to debates here... :)
N_A needs more than proof... he needs to not underestimate people too much. And to really know all the facts about what he's talking about... saying that strategy games in the US are less popular and simpler than KOEI games is just blatantly wrong!
Given the lack of good rpgs on the GC Fire Emblem would probably sell pretty well, if they gave it a lot of advertising and hyped it up as the greatest rpg of all time, that is.
That's what Nintendo needs more of: hype and advertisement.
Ya know what we're missing in these debates? It's what every good relationship needs: closeure. Without it, we are always in this wishy-washy endless debate crap. What ever happened to "last night together" sex? You're in, you're out, and when it's over, it's really over.
We will never get closure on any debate in this forum... that'd requre one side admitting they were wrong. It pretty much never happens. :)
What that requires is proper debate method where both sides agree to take on an issue point by point and where both are willing to admit that when good logic is used to denounce a single point, that point is no longer allowed to be used and declared false. However, very rarely is such a method used, and when it is, it's a one sided affair.
Debating is fun. I like it... and don't mind when the other person won't admit they are wrong. :D I was on debate team for two years in highschool (and wasn't all that good. Oh well.)... the winner was the person who presented better, and was more convincing, spoke better and had better presentation, and both had good points and successfully refuted opposing ones... closure isn't needed. Good debating techniques and form are, of course.
Anyway, how often do real world debates get real closure? Not too often... certainly not in politics...
Or in gaming. :)
Yes, I remember how many of those posters proved their points very well... things like "I think knights are cool, have bigger and better swords and use sheilds and would kick samurai arse..." Very well proven... :S
I don't know... I think typing out a huge summary of what my cross cultural term paper, with the facts included is quite enough proving for me. At least I don't think that steel sucks compared to iron, or for some reason shields made of wood and rusty iron can block forged steel blades or iron armor can deflect razor sharp steel swords. And I its enough to say that iron swords that rust and with which a blade is carved out with a whetstone is inferior to a steel blade that has its razor sharp blade forged into the structure of the sword and hence doesn't wear and is much sharper than a filed down glorified butcher knife is to start with. Some of that is just common sense. If you'd like some scientific detail on steel forging, you could look up a Scientific American article written about Damascus forging techniques that scientifically analyze the structural superiority of folded steel.
Like I said, its fairy tale knowledge that was brought into the debate. Theres no such thing as a knight in shining armor because iron rusts, and it rusts and dents alot faster than you polish it when you're in the field.
If I weren't willing to dispel some ignorance, I wouldn't spend an hour of 2 of my time typing those essay legnth history lessons.
As you can see, I'm not so generally concerned about my own personal respect level from others, as so much as the whole societal respect system has gone down the tube, respect being given in the wrong directions. People don't give the same respect they used to, and hence the people deserving of higher levels of respect don't get it. In the new age idea of everyone is equal, I'm starting to see an ironic idea in general populace that their ignorance is still equal to knowledge. In the words of Scott Adams, "Since when did ignorance become a valid viewpoint ?"
Same thing goes for here. I've played all the FE games, and given you a general break down of the gameplay and story. What do you want me to do ? Waste my time taking screenshots of every aspect of the game ?
i don't remember the Knights vs Samurai argument very well as i didn't pay much attention to it. but i think that one thing was overlooked...the fact that a knight, by definition is mounted. this gives them an advantage over the samurai...at least in one area. i'm not saying that knights are better, or that they'd win in a fight, or anything like that. just that having a horse underneath them, an armored horse usually, puts them in a better position than say, a swordsman, would be against a samurai.
and i may be wrong, but i always thought that samurai were very heavily armored by asian standards...which still didn't compare to the plating of the europeans that hardly allowed the person inside to move. once again, when i say "doesn't compare," i mean in weight, not effectiveness.
N_A: Knowledge laced with condescention will always be rejected. Case in point: you probably aren't reading what I'm saying. My first post and the first sentence of this post were condescending. When I started to get condescending with you, you stopping processing the words and simply glanced across them with your eyes. And if I get defensive about what you say, I won't be reading either. So let's start over.
N_A, we are in similar positions here. You are trying to convince people of something, and I am trying to convince you of something. How do we procede? If I take teacherly tones, you'll look at me like a quack. So maybe I can only recommend as an acquaintance, and hope that your life experience confirms it. And maybe that's all you can do as well. I just hope there is another way.
big guy: Samurai were also mounted on horses in big battles.
And if it came to a one-on-one fight between a skilled Knight and a skilled Samurai, the samurai would win. No other culture comes close to the asians when it comes to hand-to-hand or weapons-based combat.
With no real-world exaples of Medieval knights fighting Samurais, the arguement is pure speculation... as I'm sure you know.
There are a few things that ARE true... the Europeans did have much better armor, and they did use shields a lot... unlike Samurai who, if they even had shields, didn't use them much if at all..
Of course Samurais were also archers and Knights weren't, so you'd have to assume this is just a melee fight or it wouldn't be fair... and while Samurai swords probably are a little better than European ones, I doubt that they'd be so dramatically better that they would cut through the Knight's sword or something... :) And as for shields, while it wouldn't hold attacks forever of course, it'd definitely help... especially when combined with the knights' much better armor...
Oh... and N_A, you only say that they didn't prove their points because you refused to listen to them and they left the argument first... as far as I could tell, they definitely won it... you sure weren't able to fully refute their points...
And N_A, you act like you know all about it, but then discount the knights so much that it doesn' come off as anything other than a strong bias... you obviously only support one side and are doing all you can to find anything that supports it... I think you're overestimating the advantage a samurai has in weapons quality and underestimating how good the knights weapons and armor (not to mention training... you seem to refuse to believe that knights could fight well with swords or something...) are...
Remind me why someone resurrected this argument? Didn't it end like 6 months ago?
hmmmm...samurai on horses...i'd never even considered that.
shit, there goes my argument.
now, before i fall victim to this argument, i have no real position on it, i'm only playing devils advocate. i do not really know enough about what i'm talking about to even pretend to have an informed opinion, but my desire to attain knowledge on this matter is going to have me questioning what's been said so that i may have a better understanding of the topic as a whole. now that the disclaimer is out of the way...
i find it hard to believe that a samurai sword could chop right through iron plating. while steel may be stronger than iron, iron is no slouch, it's not like they were wearing aluminum. also, i can't imagine that the europeans weapons were that inferior. it seems to me that a lot of care went into crafting their weapons and they took a lot of pride in having good weapons.
on another note, did samurai use lances when mounted? because if they only had their swords, i knight would be at a great advantage.
like i said, i don't really know which side is better,but it seems hard for me to believe that the samurai could possibly be as superior as some here seem to think.
Yeah, I just don't see how steel would be some magical thing which would destroy every iron weapon or something... it doesn't work like that... slightly better, probably... but a deciding factor that makes all the knight's stuff useless or something? No way...
Also, I don't think Samurai used lances, but they did have bows and, sometimes, spears.
And as I said, I don't think they used shields... knights didn't always, but they often did.
I agree with N_A's first post on FE.
Remember FE? The TOPIC of this thread?
Topic? Huh?
No they didn't have lances, but they did have all sorts of spears.
The samurai armour was better than the traditional Knight armour. It was lighter and tougher, believe it or not. According to the discovery channel, at least.
And it's not impossible to figure out which one would win. The samurai would be an expert in at least two or three different forms of martial arts (most likely Jujitsu, Kendo) while the Knights would only have learned their primitive (in comparison) sword-fighting. Or are you now going to suggest that Japanese martial arts are inferior to European fighting?
Samurai armor better? For certain, specific things maybe... but not overall, I think.
As for martial arts, I'll only say what I remember hearing the first time this was debated months ago: that European martial arts didn't survive through the Rennaisance so it is kind of hard to compare with the Eastern ones which survived and were refined over the centuries...