14th November 2003, 4:06 PM
Quote:The Wars games, while sharing some similarities with a few PC games, are very much unique enough to belong to a seperate sub-genre. Like Phantasy Star which created the console-style RPG (the menu-based combat is not the only thing that seperates console RPGs with PC RPGs, despite what you claim), it is a part of a larger genre but has enough key differences that puts it in a seperate sub-category. Every genre has seperate sub-genres. Everything from racing games (futuristic racers, sim racers, kart racers, etc.) to FPS's (Doom-style mindless shooters, Rainbow Six-style tactical shooters, etc.) have seperate sub-genres. Just like you are doing with Wars and some PC strategy games, you can compare Mario Kart and Gran Turismo and call them near-identical games. However, once you actually play these two games the difference seems like night and day.
First...
Quote:(the menu-based combat is not the only thing that seperates console RPGs with PC RPGs, despite what you claim
Not true. That would be a dumb thing for me to say... I never said that that was the only difference! Read what I wrote! I merely said that that is the main difference, and it provides for good classification that doesn't resort to "console" vs "PC"...
Sub-genres. Yes, Wars is of course in a different sub-genre than a wargame or Warlords. However... they have more similarities than Mario Kart and Gran Turismo, I'd certainly say...oh, sure, like MK Wars is simplfied compared to the more complex games in their genres... but still... I just think that your assumption that that is 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 (those are the elements AW combines, after all) is a complete fallacy. *goes to look for evidence of that fact*