Dumpster

[OB1]

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...

Here you go again, thinking only from your very narrow-minded point of view. Wars gave birth to the whole Japanese war/tactics genre, which is actually very big in Japan. We're just getting bits and pieces here and there. Tactics Ogre draws much from Famicom Wars. Famicom Wars definitely added much more to it genre than F-Zero or Mario Kart did. No doubt about it.

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

double standard
n.
A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another

You compare Mario Kart to Gran Turismo and come up with less differences that I came up with for Empire and Wars, yet you say that MK and GT are nothing alike and Empire and Wars are almost the same game. That is a double standard.

And the fact that the strategy genre gap is so large definitely hurts your "case" because comparing two games from two different sub genres is like comparing a racing game and a flying game, not a kart racing game and a realistic racing game. You fail to see this, and I have no idea why.

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....

Mario Kart added weapons and polished up everything! Wars added so much more in addition to polishing everything.

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...

What's inexplicable is how completely void of any sense of reason or intelligence you are! You have no idea what you're even talking about!
You said that I said that Wars was 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" , when I never said anything of the sort, and then responded to that very thing that you made up! That's putting words into my mouth and then attacking those words!

:bang:

What is wrong with you?? First you fail to understand what I wrote, then you make up something and claim that I said it, and then you say that you never did it!!

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...

"I think not!"

Do you have any idea how super-annoying you are?

These are B-R-O-A-D classifications! B-R-O-A-D

Like CAR and BOAT.

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

Here we go again...

Did you forget about THIS??

"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..."

You asked how Wars differs from other games that are similar to it (all one of them) in terms of controls!

:bang: :bang:

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.

Example #5,657,143 of ABF making up crap.

I said that the interface is completely different from EMPIRE.

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...

You choose how to start in mutli.

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...

Most of the time there is no fog at all in AW. There is always fog in Empire, and only one kind of fog.

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...

These are differences which have a large impact on gameplay, and you would actually invent some time into both games then you would see that. And when did I say that they don't belong in the same sub genre? Pitfall belongs in the same sub genre as Super Mario Bros. yet SMB is very different from Pitfall, and is considered one of the most innovative games ever made.

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.

Actually it's not always AI.

And again, you've proven that you've barely played any of Empire. Take a look at this quote from the instruction manual. One of the functions that you issue is:

RANDOM
The piece will move at random subject to the following conditions:
1. The piece will not do anything to cause it to be destroyed.
2. If it is an army, it will board an unloaded troop transport and wake up if it is next to one.

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...

It's actually one of the smaller differences, but you can think whatever you want to. And I NEVER SAID THAT THEY DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME SUB GENRE!!!

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...

Your comparisons are so flawed that I'm wondering if you have ever actually played Gran Turismo before. Let me tear apart your argument one step at a time.

-can go off track in GT (very important since you spend a lot of time there...)

So a big difference between the two games is that you can slide into the tiny bit of grass or dirt in each track which slows you down in GT, even though F-Zero has a similar concept with you falling off the track??
Oh boy.

-handling total opposites

So you don't use the thumb stick to steer left and right? You said that they were total opposites, right?
Vehicle handling between the two games is very different, but every racing game handles differently from the next. Is 1080 not a snowboarding game because it handles nothing like SSX?

-heal strips

F-Zero has "heal strips" and Gran Turismo has pit stops. Same thing.

-boosting

OoooOOOOoooohhhh!! What a genre-breaking difference!!

-no changing cars that already exist in f-zero

Again, OoooOOOOoooohhhh, what a genre-breaking difference!!

-weapons (spin/slam attacks in f-zero)

You call those weapons?? Wow, you really are stretching! You can also ram into other cars in GT!

-number of cars on track[/b]
Another genre-breaking difference! Omigosh!
[quote]-futuristic look vs current

A purely cosmetic touch.

Now of course I can see that F-Zero belongs in a different sub genre than Gran Turismo and that the two play very different from each other, but as you can plainly see, when you actually write down the differences you can make them seem like the same game!

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!

What SMB did was take everything from Pitfall and then polish everything to death! It didn't actually add nearly as much "stuff" to the genre as you think it did. It changed everything that was already established in Pitall, but it didn't create too many completely new things.

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

Oh, so you can remove the experience points, communication aspect, and item/weapons upgrade part of the game?
.... NO, you cannot.