17th November 2003, 5:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 17th November 2003, 5:38 PM by A Black Falcon.)
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.
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.
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!
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...
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?
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...
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...
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...
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}