Dumpster

[A Black Falcon]

I just cannot understand how you honestly think you have explained that. I have been asking since you first made that statement what in the world you meant and you STILL won't answer it!

I went to the beginning of this... in the first thread here we're arguing the exact thing we still are, haven't gotten ANYWHERE. And I've felt it... I've been repeating the same things over and over and over and you just aren't listening...

I don't know if you'd consider Advanced Wars a strategy game, it could be, since conquering territory with a war front does exist.

FFT is however, not a strategy game, it covers skirmishes and random fights and is best classified a tactics game.

Hey, I didn't reply to that statement of N_A's... so idiotic. He has no clue what defines a strategy game, clearly.

For one thing "tactics" games are strategy games. :)

Well they're as similar to PC strategy titles as Final Fantasy is to Baldur's Gate.

Your reply isn't much better... but we've been over that plenty.


So, where is this issue.. I don't know. You seem to think for some reason that you have explained yourself while I still see no evidence for a full explanation... I've kept asking for one, but you've never replied to those parts. I still have absolutely no clue how you think that Wars actually introduced any new ideas into the strategy genre. From any and all measures I can possibly use to see elements of Wars, it takes ideas from other games...

Now, as I've said times. There are two parts here. One, were there other games before it almost exactly like it (turn-based, with unit building, cities, and a variety of units with differing offensive and defensive capabilities and ranges...)... I am not sure. I think it would stand to reason that there had been since the strategy genre had been defined all around that specific category, but I don't have evidence that proves that. I do have proof that the game had precidents on all of its major features, though. You have NOT replied to my line of questioning here, either... I keep asking for you to say why you find it unique and so different from previous strategy games, from one of my first posts in the arguement, and here we are and you are still refusing to do that! It makes the arguement impossible to conduct when I'm still asking for something that should have been a base for the discussion to be built on!

I'd also love to hear how Famicom Wars was a major influence on the Tactics subgenre...


Gah, this is pointless. See, you are confusing me so much in this arguement... your main arguement is that Famicom Wars is a unique form of TBS that had never been done before anything like in Famicom Wars. That IS your main arguement, right? Then you said those factors that make it unique... and it all went downhill from there. Right after that you quit talking about the issue and just bashed me for half a page... go back and look. Please. Just see how I attempt to keep presenting a arguement for the disussion to continue and every time instead of replying you just attack me... or so it seemed... or maybe it was just that all that ranting about how stupid I was being blinded you to what I meant, because you took almost everything I said from then on wrong... but that's normal. You always read so much into what I say that I don't mean.

Anyway... let me try to get this straight.

1) do you think Famicom Wars created a new sub-genre of strategy games?

2) how much of the game's features were new/unique? How much just hadn't been seen in somewhat-similar games? How much were taken from various games and mixed together?

3) does innovation require new ideas, or is a new mix of old ones innovation?

Umm... sorry for this post, I know its in pieces and has like three subjects and I don't finish my thoughts on any of them. But I've got to go, so it'll have to do for now...