Tendo City

I started FFT, but didn't get far before quitting. I got farther in FFTA... I'm not sure how far I am, near the end I guess, but it's too boring to be worth finishing... while for FE, I've beaten FE7 twice and played it most of the way two more times (eliwood normal twice, most of the way in eliwood normal once, most of the way in hector normal once), beat FE8 once (normal) and got halfway a second time (hard), and beat FE9 once (hard). Obiously, the series caught my interest a lot stronger. :)

As I said, I just like its approach better... the larger maps, the greater emphasis on unit type and strategy instead of equipment (and the fact that units are set into a specific role, not just characters you can change between classes like in FFTA)... I prefer its approach, and as I said definitely feel like it's a more strategic game in many ways.

... FFT also has a really annoying and badly designed 3d camera that sometimes obscures the action behind buildings and stuff and you only get four camera angles, while FE has a much better camera system... :) (FFTA doesn't share that problem, obviously, but it has others...)

Really, "Advance Wars vs. Fire Emblem" is harder than "FFT vs. Fire Emblem", for me. Advance Wars is awesome, and Fire Emblem is awesome too... I do like FE more (fantasy/medieval setting games > modern-day setting games), but Advance Wars is a great series too...

(*is playing AWDS and is remembering why I loved AW2 so much*)

I never played the original FFT, but I did play FFTA right after I played the first GBA Fire Emblem. I enjoyed the game, but after playing FE it felt more like I was playing an RPG than a strategy game. I was constantly leveling-up characters, and I didn't feel the same attachment to characters that I did in Fire Emblem. It's still a great game, but I wouldn't put it in the same league as the Fire Emblem series.

DMiller Wrote:after playing FE it felt more like I was playing an RPG than a strategy game.

Uh oh, now you've done it. Now you've gone and stirred the ire of ABF. Good luck :D

FFTA is a condensed version of FFT, a very condensed version. It's nowhere near as strategic as FFT and it's mostly based on the idea of being able to play it quickly (most battles go for ten minutes if that).

For those of you that didn't really give FFT a chance, you dont know about the archers as an example. Using a bow that attacks in 5 panels in every direction can be brought to a 8 panel measurement just by getting up on a higher surface, the higher you get, the more spread to your bow's range. But then you have bows vs. crossbows. The crossbows tend to offer more status ailments than bows, but crossbows attack vertically while bows can shoot up and over obsticles.

Magic users are the most complicated. Haste can only be cast in a small panel range from the Time Mage, but as an added bonus that hight of that range is infinite. So if your Time Mage is on the ground level and your Knight or Dragoon is on top of a building (12 hights up) they can recieve haste. But then you have special abilities and equipment in the mix.

A dragoon 'ignores' height. So he can only move in a 4 panel range but infinitely upwards. Once you learn that skill as a dragoon you can then turn him in to an archer or magic user (or someone with high magic equiped with a gun) who ignores height and instantly find the tallest location on the map to snipe from.

These are early-on strats and are the least complicated of scenarios and you can see it's already much more complicated and strat-based than FE. As far as characters, i've played multiple FE games and so far none of them have compared to the story arcs and characters of FFT, like Delita's story arc or awesome characters like Orlandu, not to mention the main character's story. In FE you only get the 2-D 'puppet show' kind of cut scene, in FFT you get cut scenes inside the gameplay using the real time engine and the occasional CG cut scene. Just the story segments leading up the rat cellar alone are much more dramatic and interesting than the puppet show type of story in FE.

As someone who's played both games extensively to their end, I can tell you that FE just doesn't measure up to FFT. Not as a RPG, not as a RTS. FE just feels and plays like a simple RTS that was designed for kids to adults to dive in to while FFT asks the player to plan and think about their strategy well beyond the likes of FE (or even AW).

Quote:Uh oh, now you've done it. Now you've gone and stirred the ire of ABF. Good luck

No, no, he was saying that FFTA felt more like an RPG than a strategy game, I think, something I kind of agree with... it is a tactics game, but its battlefield strategy is less complex (strategic) than FE's is. They try to make up for it with more detailed character models -- lots of levelling, items, skills and classes, etc -- making the game much more RPG-ish.

Quote:As someone who's played both games extensively to their end, I can tell you that FE just doesn't measure up to FFT. Not as a RPG, not as a RTS. FE just feels and plays like a simple RTS that was designed for kids to adults to dive in to while FFT asks the player to plan and think about their strategy well beyond the likes of FE (or even AW).

If you think this, you're ignoring almost all of FE's depth...

A Black Falcon Wrote:No, no, he was saying that FFTA felt more like an RPG than a strategy game, I think, something I kind of agree with... it is a tactics game, but its battlefield strategy is less complex (strategic) than FE's is. They try to make up for it with more detailed character models -- lots of levelling, items, skills and classes, etc -- making the game much more RPG-ish.

That's what I was saying. I wouldn't dare enrage the great ABF.

Quote:That's what I was saying. I wouldn't dare enrage the great ABF.

'Enrage'? :)

... well, if you agreed with Lazy's post there maybe... :D

Well, not really. "Disagree with in ways I then describe" would be more accurate. :)

Quote:These are early-on strats and are the least complicated of scenarios and you can see it's already much more complicated and strat-based than FE.

That is completely wrong. Status ailments? Haste? Multiple weapons? Magic? Attack ranges that vary depending on equipment? FE has those things! The only thing there that FE doesn't do (in its own different way) is height. And, yes, FE has no height element... but really, that doesn't matter. There is more than enough complexity there already for the lack of something like height to really matter, and there are (quite significant) terrain bonuses present.

Quote:These are early-on strats and are the least complicated of scenarios and you can see it's already much more complicated and strat-based than FE. As far as characters, i've played multiple FE games and so far none of them have compared to the story arcs and characters of FFT, like Delita's story arc or awesome characters like Orlandu, not to mention the main character's story. In FE you only get the 2-D 'puppet show' kind of cut scene, in FFT you get cut scenes inside the gameplay using the real time engine and the occasional CG cut scene. Just the story segments leading up the rat cellar alone are much more dramatic and interesting than the puppet show type of story in FE.

"Ingame engine cutscenes!" Wow! ... oh wait, in-engine cutscenes aren't necessarially all that great... so you get top-down views of your characters talking to eachother, or camera rotation. Joy. I like FE's well-drawn character portraits just as much, thanks... The Fire Emblem games have quite good stories, definitely. Yes, they are mostly just portraits talking to eachother in text... but I do not consider this a problem. The art style is great, and I'd rather look at that art during the conversations than at, for instance, Intelligent Systems' painful attempts at 3d (FE9)... and as for video cutscenes, FE9 has those. 7 and 8 don't, of course, because they're on the GBA -- and neither does FFTA.

Anyway, FFT does have a pretty good story from what I saw, but FFTA's, of course, was quite weak and aimed young, while FE 7 and 8 did nothing of the sort despite also being GBA games.

Also, remember, the supports in FE games have a good chunk of the plot in them... they are a major pain to get, but they're often long and interesting.

Quote:As someone who's played both games extensively to their end, I can tell you that FE just doesn't measure up to FFT. Not as a RPG, not as a RTS. FE just feels and plays like a simple RTS that was designed for kids to adults to dive in to while FFT asks the player to plan and think about their strategy well beyond the likes of FE (or even AW).

Well, neither FFT or FE are either RPGs or RTSes, so that's not so bad, is it? :)

FE is a TBS with RPG elements, and FFT is a tactics game.

Anyway, "simple"? "Kids"? For someone who claims to have played the games, you sure are ignorant about FE... you are confusing complexity with depth. Fire Emblem games use a very deep, very strategic game system. You need to use a lot of strategy in your unit positioning and weapon choices, much more so than in FFT, where mistakes can often be covered over with a little level grinding. The FE games are extremely, extremely difficult games... the idea that when a character dies they are gone forever is a cruel gameplay mechanic, but one that forces you to keep playing until you get it right. FE has chesslike concepts, with unit positioning and type critical to the outcome of the game. FFT just isn't like that. It's got plenty of complexity in its unit models (spells, armor and weapons, other equipment, classes and skills, etc), but actual battlefield strategy? You overstate how much is actually needed. Just not needing to be as constantly worried about your units being (permantly) killed if you make one wrong move makes for a very different atmosphere...

FFT and FFTA are fine games which I like, but they just aren't as good as Fire Emblem.

A Black Falcon Wrote:(*is playing AWDS and is remembering why I loved AW2 so much*)

Failed a mission for the first time in mission 17... great game.

I kind of agree with a lot of what ABF said. A lot of the strategy lazy mentioned in his post I have never used because I never felt the need too. Again, I haven't played the original FFT, but just because there is a lot of potential depth to a game doesn't mean it is necessary for the game. Obviously, I used the elevation to my advantage, but generally I could cruise through battles just by leveling up my characters.

Quote:I kind of agree with a lot of what ABF said. A lot of the strategy lazy mentioned in his post I have never used because I never felt the need too. Again, I haven't played the original FFT, but just because there is a lot of potential depth to a game doesn't mean it is necessary for the game. Obviously, I used the elevation to my advantage, but generally I could cruise through battles just by leveling up my characters.

That is a very important point. Do you actually need to use the depth, or is it just there for you to try if you get bored with playing the game normally and grinding your way to a messy victory? Fire Emblem forces you to learn its gameplay system in order to succeed. They do a great job balancing things so that the game is complex, but intelligible and not too obtuse. The game system is there for you to see... you can understand it even better with an FAQ, but such things are not necessary to succeed. FFT? That's just not really true. Grind some levels and you can forget the strategy... get hit a few times? You have HP, and limited resurrection abilities... that is not to say that the game is easy, but it doesn't require you to use strategic thinking in the way Fire Emblem does. Not even close.

FFT is, of course, a better RPG than FE, but, well, FE is a strategy game first and foremost... :)

I will say, though, that FFTA simplified things in comparison to FFT. I don't remember exactly how it changed, but I do think that it wasn't just the story but also the gameplay that got simplified... I know that it added the needless complexity of the judge system and no death outside of the Jagd zones, but other than that I'm not sure... did they reduce the impact of attacking from height or something? I don't remember...