6th November 2003, 7:32 PM
Chess the most strategic game ever? Maybe by some definitions... not sure, haven't thought of that question before. :)
And checkers is boring because its way too simple.
Oh yeah... now that I think about it more, AW probably is more strategic. FFTA has more management, by far, with the myriad classes, weapons (important because they give you the abilities (a feature I haven't seen before...), etc... but its actual strategy on the battlefield is simpler in tactical ways. It is more complex in some ways, because of magic and special abilities... but a lot of characters can get decent attacks at range, decreasing the tactical strategy (if everyone has long-range attacks there is less maneuvering and less importance of facings...)... though of course it still has a lot of it. One interesting thing is how all spells affect a 5-square area, and affect everyone equally... that is pretty unique and really has to make you think about how you use them, definitely adding strategic depth.
So yes... OB1, you are right that FFTA has far more added complexity. Does that added complexity come with a (somewhat compensory) loss of strategic/tactical depth (in the pure sense)? Yeah, somewhat, I see what you mean... especially in this game where there are so many classes and abilities that eventually your best characters will all have a wide variety of abilities, decreasing the tactics of how each unit is used in its own specific advantages like is so key to AW...
If I have to choose one I like more, as I said, I'd choose AW since I just love strategy games. But FFTA is a great game too in a somewhat different way...
(see, when I think about it more I can change my opinions...)
And checkers is boring because its way too simple.
Oh yeah... now that I think about it more, AW probably is more strategic. FFTA has more management, by far, with the myriad classes, weapons (important because they give you the abilities (a feature I haven't seen before...), etc... but its actual strategy on the battlefield is simpler in tactical ways. It is more complex in some ways, because of magic and special abilities... but a lot of characters can get decent attacks at range, decreasing the tactical strategy (if everyone has long-range attacks there is less maneuvering and less importance of facings...)... though of course it still has a lot of it. One interesting thing is how all spells affect a 5-square area, and affect everyone equally... that is pretty unique and really has to make you think about how you use them, definitely adding strategic depth.
So yes... OB1, you are right that FFTA has far more added complexity. Does that added complexity come with a (somewhat compensory) loss of strategic/tactical depth (in the pure sense)? Yeah, somewhat, I see what you mean... especially in this game where there are so many classes and abilities that eventually your best characters will all have a wide variety of abilities, decreasing the tactics of how each unit is used in its own specific advantages like is so key to AW...
If I have to choose one I like more, as I said, I'd choose AW since I just love strategy games. But FFTA is a great game too in a somewhat different way...
(see, when I think about it more I can change my opinions...)
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}