Dumpster

[A Black Falcon]

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. :)

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.

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. :)

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...

-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.

-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. :)

-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...

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

Again, an option in AW anyway.

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

True.

-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... :)

-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.

-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.

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!

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.

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...

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.

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...