17th June 2004, 3:00 PM
Yeah, we didn't have "NES Wars" or anything, just Advance Wars, so some people won't make the connection without the same name, sadly enough... I definitely see why they did it. But like "Jedi Knight II", I completely disagree. :)
FFTA you can freely choose? Not really. The main campaign is completely linear. It just lets you choose a lot of side-missions along the way (mostly send-out-a-guy types). It's not that different when you think about it... they just added optional missions, that's all.
As for this game, I think they made the right choice. As OB1 said, for pure strategy there's Fire Emblem. We don't want two games that are almost the same. So, why not action-strategy? And that is what this is. Action-strategy. Unit tactics are here, strategic thinking, etc... it's not just "one man against an army"... it's just got faster action. First-person RTS/combat. I'm sure it's not as complex a Uprising or Battlezone (mid-90s PC version), but I suspect that those were some games they were thinking of, given that you have a bunch of units to control... how much they go down that road will depend on how much resource gathering/management (see: money), unit construction, etc. is involved (ie, the more strategy-game elements they add the more like the concept of those games it'll get)... sure, I didn't really like that Battlezone, but that was a very different game and I liked Muzzle Velocity, which has a somewhat similar idea, so I'm sure that this could end up a very fun game.
I'm also sure that no one else here has actually played Muzzle Velocity, Battlezone, Uprising (I haven't played that one either, actually...:)), or Urban Whatever (yeah, didn't play it.), so my point will not mean as much.
FFTA you can freely choose? Not really. The main campaign is completely linear. It just lets you choose a lot of side-missions along the way (mostly send-out-a-guy types). It's not that different when you think about it... they just added optional missions, that's all.
As for this game, I think they made the right choice. As OB1 said, for pure strategy there's Fire Emblem. We don't want two games that are almost the same. So, why not action-strategy? And that is what this is. Action-strategy. Unit tactics are here, strategic thinking, etc... it's not just "one man against an army"... it's just got faster action. First-person RTS/combat. I'm sure it's not as complex a Uprising or Battlezone (mid-90s PC version), but I suspect that those were some games they were thinking of, given that you have a bunch of units to control... how much they go down that road will depend on how much resource gathering/management (see: money), unit construction, etc. is involved (ie, the more strategy-game elements they add the more like the concept of those games it'll get)... sure, I didn't really like that Battlezone, but that was a very different game and I liked Muzzle Velocity, which has a somewhat similar idea, so I'm sure that this could end up a very fun game.
I'm also sure that no one else here has actually played Muzzle Velocity, Battlezone, Uprising (I haven't played that one either, actually...:)), or Urban Whatever (yeah, didn't play it.), so my point will not mean as much.