Dumpster

[A Black Falcon]

Your use of double-standards amaze me. So Wars--even though it's very different from Empire and you can't name one other game that came before it which is very similar to Wars-- is not innovative while Super Mario Bros. and F-Zero are. SMB took the platforming genre, improved every single aspect of it, and added a few things which made for a truly unique experience. F-Zero is just like earlier racers that came before it but added speed, power strips, a futuristic setting, and took away visible wheels. That's it. Wars did much more to its particular genre than F-Zero did, no doubt about it. It did at least as much to its genre as Mario Kart did to the racing genre, and a bit less than SMB did to platforming.

I already told you, I'm not an expert on early '80s strategy games... I can look for stuff but there have been such a ridiculous number of strategy games released and I don't know how to find exactly what I am looking for... but as I said there are dozens of games that have a fair amount in common with Wars. Exactly the same? Not sure. But a lot of them have clear similarities, some major... I'd mention some, but I already have (mentioned the themes that are relevant here).

Oh, and you're right, F-Zero didn't totally change its genre, and Mario Kart might well have done more. But putting Famicom Wars on that level? Crazy! It definitely didn't have the influence, anyway... after all most strategy games are on the PC made in the West and we didn't even get the thing...

The genre as a whole has a much greater gap between its subgenres than probably any other genre out there, so again you are using a double-standard. You have to put it in context with other games in different genres which are considered innovators or pioneers of their respective genres.

Yes, it is an extremely broad genre, that is true... and supports myc case... and how is it a double standard?

No, yet again you fail to grasp the meaning of my statement. This is very boring.

I said that Famicom Wars was as innovative as Mario Kart was, which is pretty sizable.

And I think it wasn't, since there were so many strategy games before it that included many of the features of the game... and there's the fact that Wars didn't add anything to the genre! Mario Kart did in its genre....

Yes I played it. Still fun!

Yeah... once you figure out which button does which. And wrestle with the interface... I mean, A to select and B to choose? Argh!

I quoted you and showed you your exact lies a couple of days ago! This is a message board, ABF! Your words are recorded for everyone to see, so trying to take back something that you said is impossible. I will not repeat myself again just because you don't understand correct English (the only explanation I can think of for your extreme level of idiocy in this thread). Go back a page and look for yourself.

Please tell me that I don't have to repeat the same thing for the fifth time... I wasn't lying or putting words in your mouth! I was saying what my interpretation of what you were saying was! All that is is saying that that's what I think are in the category! Why is that so hard to understand? When I say "these are what I think are in the subgenre" to no response, then say "do you think there is anything else in the subgenre?" to no response, isn't assuming that you agree with my analysis of what the subgenre is reasonable?

Though of course it was partly written that way in frusterating that you refused to actually talk about the issue and would rather attack me. I mean, I was trying to ask what you think is in the subgenre and you ignore me and so I assume you agree with my opinion (or if you disagree you'd just say what else you think should be in it)... and get bashed even harder for it... it really is inexplicable...

The battle system is not the only thing that makes something a console RPG. It's the art style, the narrative structure, the linearity, etc. Anachronox stole the battle system from console RPGs, that's it. As I explained a dozen times already, they're referred to as "console RPGs" and "PC RPGs" because that's where each subgenre was created and flourished. Whether you think it's accurate or not does not matter because that's how most people classify these two subgenres.

So Diablo and Baldur's Gate are both "PC RPGs" though they have polar opposite battle systems and gameplay? I think not! Your classification system there is far too restrictive...

So why did you ask about the difference in controls? You make no sense.

Huh? I didn't ask that... not in the way you think, anyway...

I never said it was, and that's you putting words into my mouth again. It's just another thing that separates the two games, albeit one of the smaller differences.

You have said many times that the interface in Wars is one of the unique features that seperates from previous strategy games (its in your list of them!)! That is clearly completely false! There's nothing more to say about that, really.

If you had actually played Advance Wars you'd see that most of the time you start off with several units. Sometimes you start with nothing and have to create them in your factory, but that is not how it usually is.

Maybe in the campaign, but in multi or single map you frequently start with just a base... like how you do in the first Famicom Wars... :)

Not quite. In Wars there is a fog of war, but that's different from how it works in Empire. In Wars there is a clear area around each unit and it only surrounds each unit wherever it goes. You don't open up new areas and have them stay clear even when your units aren't there. And most of the time there is no fog at all.

AW's fog is not always different. If you have black mask and fog on, AW works exactly like Empire... sure, the default is the quite different revealed mode, but at least by AW (in the series) there is a option to have both black mask (must explore) and fog (that covers areas your units can't see right now).

Oh, and I think that Empire has fog as well as black mask...

Wrong again. The only time that happens is when a)fog is turned on and b)an enemy unit is hiding in bushes. Big difference.

Ooh, huge critical subgenre-changing difference that in one game you can see one square into the fog and in another you can see more than one! Yup! Seriously, a lot of your differences are minor issues that are not even remotely things that would change its subgenre...

I'm referring to Empire. Your units move around randomly sometimes. Not the case in Wars, which makes for a big difference in gameplay.

Uh, as far as I know in Empire your units never 'move randomly'. They either go where you directly tell them to, or go to a (farther away) point automatically if you give them that command... and anyway, plenty of strategy games have units that move on their own. It's called AI. :D

Which makes for much different gameplay. You get money when you capture enemy bases in Wars, and gain a little bit with each turn.

Different? Yes, absolutely. That makes the gameplay in the two games go at different paces, and is one of the biggest differences between them, since the resource model drives strategy games... but still, they differ in execution, not philosophy. Getting more expensive units is harder. Most games more recently of course use both models (better units both cost more and take more time to build), but early on some games used just one or the other. Not a key to being in one subgenre or another, though...

You're using the same standard for comparing two racing games as you are with comparing two strategy games. With racing games it's all about the feel of the craft, and two games that use totally different handling can still be very similar to each other. Empire and Wars' differences aren't as easy to notice at first because there is no one "feel" in which to measure immediate differences. But once you sit down and take a good long look at both games, and then play them, the differences are enormous.

Isn't using a consistent standard good? :)

True, racing games can have all kinds of feature similarities, with unlocking things, customizing cars, etc... and those do matter. But the handling is so important...

What do F-Zero and GT have in common? (from yours, changed)
-vehicles racing on a track
-parts to unlock to build cars (only GT has improving current ones)
-You can earn money
-You can customize your vehicles
-You brake, accelerate, turn
-Ramming into other vehicles is important to winning

But the differences... so many... i'll list a few.
-can go off track in GT (very important since you spend a lot of time there...)
-handling total opposites
-heal strips
-boosting
-no changing cars that already exist in f-zero
-weapons (spin/slam attacks in f-zero)
-number of cars on track
-futuristic look vs current
etc, etc... they have more differences than similarities, I bet, when you go down the list (in simple terms like this).

Empire and Advance Wars? You have a good point that the nature of the game slows down notice of changes... that is true for any strategy game -- it takes more time to notice differences. However, it is easy to tell when games are in different subgenres since in the strategy genre there often really isn't a lot of overlap between subgenres. At least not anymore...

You've just proven my point. Even the most opposite games (F-Zero and GT) can look identical to each other when you break them down to their basics! Mario Kart and GT are in different subgenres, yes? But is Mario Kart more innovative in its respective genre than Super Mario Bros. was in its won genre? NO! Even though SMB is in the same genre (even the same subgenre) as Pitfall, there are more differences between it and Pitfall than there are between MK and GT. Likewise, even though you could place Empire and Wars in the same genre, the differences are incredible and it does not make Famicom Wars any less innovative than it already is. Well, a little bit less, not not much. It's SMB all over again.

You just have a inflated opinion of the value and uniqueness of the Wars series... see, SMB added LOTS of stuff to its genre that had been barely ever seen before anywhere. Mario Kart added some stuff. Wars didn't. Did it mix themes in a way that hadn't been seen much if at all (not sure on that point) before? Yes, probably. But did it actually do much of anything new? No. Decidedly not. And that is important for innovation!

It's an RPG no matter how you want to play it because of the experience points and communication aspect of the game.

Sure its always an RPG, but if you want you can play it as a FPS. :)

Trust me, there's a world of difference. Or just get a ROM and see for yourself.

What platform? Atari 2600? I probably have it, given that I have 2000 2600 roms... *checks* yup, there. Uh, played it for like five minuites... and yes, its clearly a 2d platformer just like Mario... exept far more primitive. :)